Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 3,144 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,085,976
Pageviews Today: 2,827,397Threads Today: 632Posts Today: 12,420
05:21 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The earth is NOT 6000 years old.

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27499577
United States
12/01/2012 08:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
And also, to be completely fair, while on our seventh page now, I feel it necessary to mention that I've posted links, and what I feel is enough evidence to support what i'm saying. You wrote that I am just saying that science says it isn't true, but i've posted many links now verifying what i'm claimed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27499577
United States
12/01/2012 08:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
...


I know this because I used to be there. I was raised a militant atheist for the first 19 years of my life. I remember my dad sitting me down when I was a young child and showing me "irrefutable proof" that we evolved from molecules through natural processes and that the age of the Earth was billions of years old; thus concluding that the Bible must be fictitious.
 Quoting: UnmannedAerialPilot


It's usually the person of faith that become an atheist, I can't fathom what led you away from the truth, having been born into a household that supports science. I however strongly believe that it is dangerous to teach children anything about religion before they are ready to investigate on their own, it is however better to teach them all religions, and let them take it all in. You seem like an intelligent person, so I really can't figure out what changed your mind. Was it creationism? did you have a spiritual experience? I really can't fathom what would draw you towards creationism. The proponents of a young earth theory, some scientists, have been proved to be quacks, liars, and completely wrong. As an intelligent person I don't see why this. Isn't it the same thing as your father forcing these ideas on you, as creationists telling you what to believe? why believe anything at all. It's possible we are both wrong, but more possible I think that science has it somewhat correct. I'd like to know what did it for you though. Please don't run away from this thread, I'm not being malicious or rude in any way we are having a civil debate and i'm enjoying it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577


Not running away at all, I have a wife, 5 kids, chickens, goats, etc. and am a busy man. Every time evidence is presented, it is simply met with ad hominem attack, or dismissed with a flippant "that's not true", without of any kind of actual scientific refutation. Similar to you claiming we cannot point to the Bible as a source of evidence, then turning around and appealing to authority with "all scientists believe this" argumentation. The difference there being that Creationists appeal to Biblical authority, which we believe originates with God, while Evolutionists appeal to the fallible authority of man, which originates in our corrupt minds.

In answer to your sincere question: No, it wasn't Creationism that changed my mind. As I have clearly stated, man in his natural state cannot understand the things of God. They are foolishness to him, as the Bible reveals, most assuredly. It is only by a direct quickening of the spirit of a man, by the Holy Ghost, that a man can come to a saving knowledge of God. It is never a "choose Jesus" situation, which is unfortunately what most of modern day Christianity teaches. Faith comes only by God's will, God's work in man, and God's timing. No one "chooses" God, He chooses them (or rather chose).

That being said, God chose me. Before the foundations of the world were laid, I was His. The Great Potter has chosen some vessels for honor, and some for dishonor. His children were chosen that He might display His grace (unmerited favor), mercy, and forgiveness. The rest were created to display the contrast, and help us realize how grateful we should truly be. Let me be clear; none of us deserve to go to Heaven. None. We are all wicked sinners, Hell-bent on Hell-fire, the only difference being that God has chosen some of us to display His mercy towards. Those whom He has chosen, He gives new life. It is the "re-birth" experience, that I am sure you have heard of. Now, I know it is an appalling thought; that God has created some souls just to destroy, in order to display His goodness to others for not destroying them, but who are we to question the Creator? It is His universe. He made it how He wanted it. The Bible puts it this way:

"14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" -Romans 9

I seemingly digress, but I cannot tell you in such a simple answer, and for that I do apologize. Getting back to the question, yes I had a "spiritual" experience. To put it bluntly: I met my Creator, and His name is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. My conversion story is quite interesting, even doubters have told me how perplexing it is, if only for the purpose of their entertainment on my behalf. I don't mind at all, I just know what happened to me, what has happened since, and that I am certain, willing-to-go-to-the-grave-for-it certain, that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired Word of the Living God. I "converted", "was born-again", "found God', "got religion", whatever you want to call it on 9/11/2001, at around 4 am, before the attacks. A girl that is now my wife, which was an on-again-off-again relationship at the time, led me to the LORD that night (or morning rather). I will save you the details because I will assuredly be digressing at that point, and besides I am going to be typing the whole thing out in a thread very shortly. It is a good one though, if only for your entertainment and to get a chance to laugh at us "ignorant" believers. I can assure you that you will not be disappointed and I will let you know when I post it.

Getting back to your question and fast forwarding through me becoming a Christian: I realized that the Theory of Evolution, as I was taught it, was not compatible with the Bible. At this point now, I knew the Bible was true. I believed Evolution to be fact, but I now knew from first-hand experience, the validity of the Bible. Having this knowledge, I began researching the Creation/Evolution debate with renewed vigor, but from a different vantage point. I began learning about the lies that had been forced upon me by my state-sponsored education and family, and was blown away by how easily manipulated I was. I was shocked to find that the vast majority of "evidence" shown to me in the textbooks to support the theory was fraudulent, and most of it had been debunked many years before it was taught to me. I began researching more and more and became quite knowledgeable on the subject and enjoy talking about it. Seeing things from a different perspective, I now realize how brainwashed I was back then, and why the majority of state-educated people buy into this sham. Once you get someone "off track", it is very easy to keep them there, and very difficult for them to get back on track. That is the very definition of our education system (and most of the world's for that matter). Propaganda at a young age, reinforced with fraudulent data that will fill in the gaps at a later age, appealing to authority to seal the deal. It is perhaps the greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon humanity. I know full well that the odds of someone being converted to Christianity because of the Creation/Evolution debate are very slim, but because of my past, and the way it affected every facet of my thinking, I just feel compelled to proclaim the truth of what I have learned, wherever I go. That is a very long winded answer to your rather short and simple questions, haha. I do apologize, but like I said, it is difficult for me to just answer it as simply as it was asked. hf
 Quoting: UnmannedAerialPilot


I've basically dismissed the other creationists in this thread, and focused more so on you. I had a feeling we were around the same age, and I don't know if you've been reading some of the other replies, but when 'freemasons', satanism, and 'TPTB' begin ending up in people's comments, I tend to stop reading entirely. I respect your story, and as much as I feel you are wrong, I know that you feel the same way. I was stressing the fact that experiments have been done to disprove the young world theory, and inversely, whether you'd like to admit or not, proponents of this theory are not well liked, or respected in most of the world of science. This is where my argument would eventually always come back to. I have indeed read your links, and heard the arguments for and against, and made a personal choice to believe in what I feel is most logical. Perhaps there are such things as spiritual awakenings, and though i'm almost certain that I will never have one, I do not for a minute though, feel the need to claim that yours is all in your head, or merely the amalgamation of events culminating in what one might describe as religious experience. The beauty of personal truths, is that they are personal, while they may be only singular, and shouldn't be used to change anyone's mind. The things I feel the need to stress the most are what I feel are dangerous, while I may my own opinion of what is dangerous, my fear of creationism is real, and at this point should be understood why that fear exists. As i've said, I feel the evidence for an old world is far greater than a young one. maybe that will change someday, perhaps we will find proof of the infallibility of the bible, while I don't think that will happen, I do however want answers, and having this answer be the correct one is fine with me. The push for creationism in the education system, I think is a just one, but not at this point. As I've said I don't feel like the evidence is there for it, and honestly see the work of creation based scientists as pseudo-science. You can understand having once held these beliefs, why this idea is dangerous to me. It feels a lot like a cop out, a way of halting exploration and experimentation. Much as I understand the world to be before the age of enlightenment. I do not want to make anyone an atheist, or present things that untrue to reach that goal, As I don't feel that should be the intention of anyone who believes in god. People should reach their own personal truth. You appear to be more civil than most people i've encountered while on this message board, which isn't long. this is why i've been eager to keep this thread going. Originally my intentions were to simply present the things that I feel best refute a young world, and I feel like there is enough of it to do that easily. Things however can get out of control quickly, as history has shown us, when people are discussing their beliefs. I respect your beliefs, as you should mine. None of what I say should translate as an attack on your character or to cause harm in a malicious manner. After reviewing the latest creationist arguments, I do not feel as though they've gained any resonance with me, to the contrary, it feels more now like they are grasping at straws. as with the link i've posted to personal and professional attack on the creationist scientist mentioned earlier, I wasn't aware of this site before, and i'm not sure those who run the site, but it would appear that they've posed some pretty compelling arguments against the creationist theories. It's far too easy to do a simple search and find numerous sites where creationism is not only not widely accepted, but looked at as almost harmful to what the general scientific population hold true. I truly do not think that the majority of scientists are captive inside a conspiracy to undermine the bible, or creationism at all. I feel like it's more likely that they present their findings and let people decide for themselves. I feel like I must repeat that i've read everyone's links, and do not agree that they are accurate in their findings, whereas I find many respected people of esteem who agree, that some of their reasoning, math, and science are honestly just made up, or completely inaccurate.
I'm going to reread your post, and get a better idea of what you were saying about your experience, as I do find it interesting, and like I said, I respect your opinion, and am enjoying this debate very much. Do let me know when you post it in its entirety. thanks.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577


I do want you to read my earlier replies, as I tend to make multiple replies to one's post that is just how I tend to operate.

I had a few questions for you, and keep in mind i'm asking these from a curious perspective, and not in an attempt to gain some sort of psychological ground on you as a person.

my first question is
What kind of state were you in when your girlfriend led you to Christ? were you already beginning to question your atheism, and or evolutionary universal outlook? I feel like sometimes under the right circumstances the conditions are ripe for some people to become entranced, or confused about their current mental state, and look for the most accessible, and to them, logical answer. I find this in born again Christians often. They seem to begin to question themselves and the way they think, and most of the time, turn to religion because it is there, not necessarily because it is the answer to their problems.It is a question I ask myself often; Why are all human philosophies reduced to these two truths? atheism, or monotheism? with the obvious exceptions, i'm certainly not naive about what the rest of the world believes in. But in essence, it comes back to these two.. and I guess my second question is, why the need to pick one of the two? I don't feel like either contain enough truth to be correct without question. I guess it may be a rhetorical question, and kind of negates the entire reply I had previously written but whatever, you're smart enough to encompass both replies in one, I hope.


My third question, I suppose is:


Do you honestly feel like there is an agenda, that is evolution based in the public school system? I find that polls on how much, and of what type of evolution are being taught are not even necessarily complete in their view of evolution. I find most US teachers, are afraid to teach either of the two. I feel like there is plenty wrong with the US public school system, but I don't feel like it's an attack on religion, if it were, in my opinion, there would be an actual attack on it. Whereas all I see is schools observing the original terms that the country was based on, one being separation of church and state. now, I know that you're going to think that I'm saying this because I am an atheist, or rather because I support any suppression of the church, but this is not true, I simply don't blame the schools for following this rule. Perhaps i'm misunderstanding this argument, that IS a possibility, I don't generally discuss these opinions. I don't however see an agenda, simply because they refuse creationism, or discuss the bible. Religion is not a topic that should be brought up in a classroom. You should agree on this. children can learn about religion at home, and should learn about all of them. I might go back and realize that i haven't checked my last two replies for errors, but I trust you won't be judging me on errors at this point, now that we've progressed to point of an up front civil discussion.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26878751
United States
12/01/2012 09:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Do the Christians of this forum have an opinion on this? Its pretty controversial to confront Christian belief of creation. What about when its done by one of your own?

[link to www.huffingtonpost.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22256187


Seriously, what difference does it make how old the earth is? What a ridiculous thing to argue about.

'Scientists' once said the earth was flat, smoking, white bread, thalidomide, flouride, gm food and aspartame were good for you, there were only 9 planets, and can't seem to decide how babies should sleep. In the seventies, they were sure we were headed into an ice age. They also can't explain why 8 jesuit priests survived the blast at Hiroshima eight blocks from ground zero and lived healthily for 3 decades thereafter.

I'll keep my faith in Christ, and if you think that makes me a moron, feel free.
-
User ID: 28711488
United States
12/01/2012 09:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
My third question, I suppose is:

Do you honestly feel like there is an agenda, that is evolution based in the public school system? I find that polls on how much, and of what type of evolution are being taught are not even necessarily complete in their view of evolution. I find most US teachers, are afraid to teach either of the two. I feel like there is plenty wrong with the US public school system, but I don't feel like it's an attack on religion, if it were, in my opinion, there would be an actual attack on it. Whereas all I see is schools observing the original terms that the country was based on, one being separation of church and state.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577



Yes, it is a political agenda/conspiracy, with no real interest in the truth.


[link to atheists.org]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to freemasonry.bcy.ca]

[link to www.creationism.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26125917
United States
12/01/2012 09:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
First, I'm not atheist.

What I am opposed to is bad science, which is what proponents of an earth that is no older than 6,000 years are peddling. In turn, that's based on a particular *interpretation* of scripture.

Is it any wonder that the United States have fallen so far behind in science?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26125917



It is not based on any particular interpretation - it is what the Bible flat out says. You can reject what it says and try and harmonize your views with the world (Satan) but that will not change what is written. The "first day" was about 6000 years ago according to genealogies recorded for this very reason.

Visit creation.com where they pick apart the new dating methods falsely called 'science'.
 Quoting: Klink


Ussher's Chronology is flat out wrong, and people are right to reject it. There was no 'global' flood, at least not in 2348 BC, and there's no bottleneck in linguistics or anything else at that time, which is just one of countless things that debunk a 6,000 year old earth.

Besides that, at 4,000 years ago, you have the rise of the Indus Valley civilization in India, the Mesopotamian civilizations, and what would become China, and recorded history continues in an unbroken line since then, which also debunks Ussher's chonology and a 6,000 year old earth.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26125917
United States
12/01/2012 10:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
An addendum: as far as that creationism.org website, they haven't picked apart anything.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28711488
United States
12/01/2012 10:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Ussher's Chronology is flat out wrong, and people are right to reject it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26125917



One argument at a time.

We dont need Ussher or anyone else to tell us what the Bible says. Ussher was only recording what many before had done. Anyone can calculate the geneologies back to Adam.

here's one of many who have done this..

[link to www.reformation.org]

It is in fact what the Bible says and you have not proven otherwise.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26125917
United States
12/01/2012 10:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Reformation.org? Are you kidding me? The people on that site are crazy. Not a good source.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28711488
United States
12/01/2012 10:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Reformation.org? Are you kidding me? The people on that site are crazy. Not a good source.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26125917



We wont be censoring any sources for you to prove your bogus beliefs. It is a link to a chart showing the 6000 year Bible history to Adam.

Otherwise it takes a lot of math, which they have already done and charted at reformation.org
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 26125917
United States
12/01/2012 10:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Reformation.org? Are you kidding me? The people on that site are crazy. Not a good source.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26125917



We wont be censoring any sources for you to prove your bogus beliefs. It is a link to a chart showing the 6000 year Bible history to Adam.

Otherwise it takes a lot of math, which they have already done and charted at reformation.org
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28711488


My beliefs aren't bogus. I may have shaken my head at that site because they claim the earth isn't rotating, but that's another thing altogether. I've noticed it's a common trait among YEC's to say that anyone who won't blindly accept an earth as being a mere 6,000 earth aren't Christians or any number of other things. That fact alone has been demonstrated a number of times in this thread, and that guy from Sweden even suggested that we be killed. You even said myself I've 'compromised'

I accept a universe and an earth that's billions of years old because that's where the evidence points.

Sargon of Akkad is said to have conquered Mesopotamia in 2334 BC. I've done the math as far as earth population. Start at 2348 BC with 8 people. Assuming all 4 women on Noah's Ark were pregnant at the time, that means in 2347 BC there were 12 people. Now, assuming they continue on with having children every year or every other year, the numbers quickly fall apart, as follows.

Continuing on:

2347 BC = 12 people
2346 or 2345 BC = 16 people
2344 or 2343 BC = 20 people
2342 or 2341 BC = 24 people
2340 or 2339 BC = 28 people
2338 or 2337 BC = 32 people
2336 or 2335 BC = 36 people
2334 or 2333 BC = 40 people

So the earth population in the year Sargon of Akkad is said to have conquered Mesopotamia, that means that there were only 40 people on the earth. Where did Sargon's army come from, and who, exactly, was he fighting?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/01/2012 11:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Reformation.org? Are you kidding me? The people on that site are crazy. Not a good source.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26125917



We wont be censoring any sources for you to prove your bogus beliefs. It is a link to a chart showing the 6000 year Bible history to Adam.

Otherwise it takes a lot of math, which they have already done and charted at reformation.org
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28711488


My beliefs aren't bogus. I may have shaken my head at that site because they claim the earth isn't rotating, but that's another thing altogether. I've noticed it's a common trait among YEC's to say that anyone who won't blindly accept an earth as being a mere 6,000 earth aren't Christians or any number of other things. That fact alone has been demonstrated a number of times in this thread, and that guy from Sweden even suggested that we be killed. You even said myself I've 'compromised'

I accept a universe and an earth that's billions of years old because that's where t evidence points.

Sargon of Akkad is said to have conquered Mesopotamia in 2334 BC. I've done the math as far as earth population. Start at 2348 BC with 8 people. Assuming all 4 women on Noah's Ark were pregnant at the time, that means in 2347 BC there were 12 people. Now, assuming they continue on with having children every year or every other year, the numbers quickly fall apart, as follows.

Continuing on:

2347 BC = 12 people
2346 or 2345 BC = 16 people
2344 or 2343 BC = 20 people
2342 or 2341 BC = 24 people
2340 or 2339 BC = 28 people
2338 or 2337 BC = 32 people
2336 or 2335 BC = 36 people
2334 or 2333 BC = 40 people

So the earth population in the year Sargon of Akkad is said to have conquered Mesopotamia, that means that there were only 40 people on the earth. Where did Sargon's army come from, and who, exactly, was he fighting?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26125917


Just when I thought I was the only person still arguing an old earth in the thread. Thanks for joining the discussion. Don't stop posting your findings. These are pretty interesting. I'm awaiting their answer to this.
I'm not big on their timelines, but that's purely because mathematically they do not make sense to me. Let's put more of this. The timeline they have created is full of many holes but I'm sure they have a good reason for that. I have a suspicion that the subject will be changed in their next post. Please creationists, address this. For me.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/01/2012 11:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
My third question, I suppose is:

Do you honestly feel like there is an agenda, that is evolution based in the public school system? I find that polls on how much, and of what type of evolution are being taught are not even necessarily complete in their view of evolution. I find most US teachers, are afraid to teach either of the two. I feel like there is plenty wrong with the US public school system, but I don't feel like it's an attack on religion, if it were, in my opinion, there would be an actual attack on it. Whereas all I see is schools observing the original terms that the country was based on, one being separation of church and state.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577



Yes, it is a political agenda/conspiracy, with no real interest in the truth.


[link to atheists.org]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to freemasonry.bcy.ca]

[link to www.creationism.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: - 28711488



Firstly, my question was not to you. As I mentioned earlier, I've decided to ignore everyone else in thread based on the fact they are using terms lime 'freemasonry', now as a response to a question you were not asked you send me links to websites, three of which anyone with an internet connection can alter at any time with their own content. And I no way, shape or form are these credible sources. The most credible of the links you posted is creationism.org, and that has been the topic of much discussion, as having an agenda of its own. These aren't scientific in any way. They are one person's opinion. So again, these are not credible sources. Next time, trying to prove something, don't use youtube as your source. Here I was wondering where people were getting their ridiculous ideas, and now we see where: youtube, altered wiki pages, and the most disrespected site on the web. Creationism.org
Get some better sources. That include actual studies. This again though is not proof. Don't you see that;
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/01/2012 11:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Reformation.org? Are you kidding me? The people on that site are crazy. Not a good source.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26125917



We wont be censoring any sources for you to prove your bogus beliefs. It is a link to a chart showing the 6000 year Bible history to Adam.

Otherwise it takes a lot of math, which they have already done and charted at reformation.org
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28711488



Yeah, but the thing is, sites that we post like .gov websites are credible.
Creationism.org is full of pseudoscience that is made up, and math that doesn't add up. What you people aren't getting is that when someone is proven wrong by other people they are no longer a credible source of information. Our sites are credible, containing credible scientific research. Apparently you don't see the difference. If you don't believe the fools on creationism.org aren't crackpots, Google them.
The truth doesn't lie. Stop being unresponsive.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 12:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
[link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

Here's a good article on the flood. Read it if you have courage.
Unless you can a group of scientists that disagree. It's not a vast conspiracy.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 12:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
[link to www.lpl.arizona.edu]

Here's a Christian breaking down the young earth theory step by step.
NOTE this is NOT a youtube link, or one to freemasonry.org Haha.
Heretic_333

User ID: 2083734
United States
12/02/2012 12:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Sorry to break it to you, but it is.


Choose to believe what you will. I promise you that one day the truth will be revealed to you and to everyone. Whether you choose to see it before it's too late for you will be your decision.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21288231


... anyone else read a book about Sumerian writing from 10k years ago?

Or a site called Gobekkli Teppe, 14k years old?
A true minded, kind hearted... Iconoclast.

"We fight for truth, so love may venture, and peace may follow" ~ Ancient Astronaut Theorists.

If I told you everything I am about to say is a lie. Is it truth or a lie?

I built the wrench necessary to bolt the 3 stage capping process on the spill. My tolerances were not overlooked.

"Tattered banners, and bloody flags... The mist of Odin sweeps it all."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 12:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
After going to the aig website for a few hours now, I must say this is a fair estimation of it.


Answers in Genesis (AiG-USA) falls. Sublime is an apt description only if one realises that to the average creationist, lies, subterfuge and a particular aversion to proper science is acceptable. It's also somehow indicative of their strange version of Christianity. In the final count, I must place AiG-USA in the ridiculous category.

Having said that, AiG-USA's web site isn't your run of the mill site. It's easy to navigate and pleasing to the eye and must cost squillions of dollars to maintain.

At first glance it appears to be chock full of interesting articles dealing with the creation/science debate. However, further investigation reveals its many flaws, including a lack of proper scientific argument, a propensity to quote prominent scientists out of context, a willingness to use the words of long dead scientists and to offer up lists of scientists who prefer creation over evolution and who operate in such diverse fields as psychologists, plant physiologists (tropical fruit experts) medical doctors, theoretical chemists, chemical engineers, professors of statistics, aeronautical engineers, mechanical engineers, dentists, plastic surgeons, veterinary surgeons, philosophers, etc., etc., in an attempt to lend the creationist argument some credibility.

And believe it or not, there is not ONE link on the AiG-USA's site to a reputable scientific site - no museums, no universities or other sites devoted to scientific learning.

AiG-USA fails the scientific test with flying colours.

So, dear seekers of the truth, find a comfortable chair, take a deep breath and read on, but remember - AiG-USA is considered the premium creationist site. Doesn't say much for the rest of them, does it?
Wolverine

User ID: 16344097
United States
12/02/2012 12:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
After going to the aig website for a few hours now, I must say this is a fair estimation of it.


Answers in Genesis (AiG-USA) falls. Sublime is an apt description only if one realises that to the average creationist, lies, subterfuge and a particular aversion to proper science is acceptable. It's also somehow indicative of their strange version of Christianity. In the final count, I must place AiG-USA in the ridiculous category.

Having said that, AiG-USA's web site isn't your run of the mill site. It's easy to navigate and pleasing to the eye and must cost squillions of dollars to maintain.

At first glance it appears to be chock full of interesting articles dealing with the creation/science debate. However, further investigation reveals its many flaws, including a lack of proper scientific argument, a propensity to quote prominent scientists out of context, a willingness to use the words of long dead scientists and to offer up lists of scientists who prefer creation over evolution and who operate in such diverse fields as psychologists, plant physiologists (tropical fruit experts) medical doctors, theoretical chemists, chemical engineers, professors of statistics, aeronautical engineers, mechanical engineers, dentists, plastic surgeons, veterinary surgeons, philosophers, etc., etc., in an attempt to lend the creationist argument some credibility.

And believe it or not, there is not ONE link on the AiG-USA's site to a reputable scientific site - no museums, no universities or other sites devoted to scientific learning.

AiG-USA fails the scientific test with flying colours.

So, dear seekers of the truth, find a comfortable chair, take a deep breath and read on, but remember - AiG-USA is considered the premium creationist site. Doesn't say much for the rest of them, does it?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


You will see proof but yet you will not believe:

I offer you this as your last hope:

Thread: The End Is Imminent! The Truth Revealed!
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” Marcus Tullius Cicero

"You must submit to supreme suffering in order to discover the completion of joy."
- John "Calvin" Rambo
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 12:38 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
And after reading through this site, I realised, sadly that the person I was looking forward to debating the most, who's opinion I was beginning to respect, has been directly cutting and pasting from AIG's website.. every single argument, every single thought, forcefed by this one brainwashing website. Right down to the list of fucking dead scientists. Pretty pathetic. I thought you had studied your information, had been some form of well read, but the only thing you studied was the website, and the only thing you've read was the puppet mastering idiots who run that site. I honestly can't even believe you now.. not even your retarded 'I talked to god on 911' story. It's more likely you simply went crazy. Try reading some other Shit. I get my information from many sources, I even studied yours. Pretty sad...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 12:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
After going to the aig website for a few hours now, I must say this is a fair estimation of it.


Answers in Genesis (AiG-USA) falls. Sublime is an apt description only if one realises that to the average creationist, lies, subterfuge and a particular aversion to proper science is acceptable. It's also somehow indicative of their strange version of Christianity. In the final count, I must place AiG-USA in the ridiculous category.

Having said that, AiG-USA's web site isn't your run of the mill site. It's easy to navigate and pleasing to the eye and must cost squillions of dollars to maintain.

At first glance it appears to be chock full of interesting articles dealing with the creation/science debate. However, further investigation reveals its many flaws, including a lack of proper scientific argument, a propensity to quote prominent scientists out of context, a willingness to use the words of long dead scientists and to offer up lists of scientists who prefer creation over evolution and who operate in such diverse fields as psychologists, plant physiologists (tropical fruit experts) medical doctors, theoretical chemists, chemical engineers, professors of statistics, aeronautical engineers, mechanical engineers, dentists, plastic surgeons, veterinary surgeons, philosophers, etc., etc., in an attempt to lend the creationist argument some credibility.

And believe it or not, there is not ONE link on the AiG-USA's site to a reputable scientific site - no museums, no universities or other sites devoted to scientific learning.

AiG-USA fails the scientific test with flying colours.

So, dear seekers of the truth, find a comfortable chair, take a deep breath and read on, but remember - AiG-USA is considered the premium creationist site. Doesn't say much for the rest of them, does it?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


You will see proof but yet you will not believe:

I offer you this as your last hope:

Thread: The End Is Imminent! The Truth Revealed!
 Quoting: Wolverine



You fools have been trying to scare people about "the end" forever now and been wrong more times than I can count. I no longer even respect you idiots as humans. Just plain pathetic. Back to scare tactics I see?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 12:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Ohohohahaha another credible Yo[uTube link I see...
-
User ID: 28711488
United States
12/02/2012 12:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
My third question, I suppose is:

Do you honestly feel like there is an agenda, that is evolution based in the public school system? I find that polls on how much, and of what type of evolution are being taught are not even necessarily complete in their view of evolution. I find most US teachers, are afraid to teach either of the two. I feel like there is plenty wrong with the US public school system, but I don't feel like it's an attack on religion, if it were, in my opinion, there would be an actual attack on it. Whereas all I see is schools observing the original terms that the country was based on, one being separation of church and state.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577



Yes, it is a political agenda/conspiracy, with no real interest in the truth.


[link to atheists.org]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to freemasonry.bcy.ca]

[link to www.creationism.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: - 28711488



Firstly, my question was not to you. As I mentioned earlier, I've decided to ignore everyone else in thread based on the fact they are using terms lime 'freemasonry', now as a response to a question you were not asked you send me links to websites, three of which anyone with an internet connection can alter at any time with their own content. And I no way, shape or form are these credible sources. The most credible of the links you posted is creationism.org, and that has been the topic of much discussion, as having an agenda of its own. These aren't scientific in any way. They are one person's opinion. So again, these are not credible sources. Next time, trying to prove something, don't use youtube as your source. Here I was wondering where people were getting their ridiculous ideas, and now we see where: youtube, altered wiki pages, and the most disrespected site on the web. Creationism.org
Get some better sources. That include actual studies. This again though is not proof. Don't you see that;
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140



You claiming this site or that site "is not credible" is just You trying to censor info you dont like. We will use all sources.

The Wiki link shows sourced FACT the French Revolution was ran by an ideology to replace Christianity with an Age of Reason. This was the ideology of the revolutionaries. And it continues today.

Those same revolutionaries founded the Royal Society at London found at the Freemason link, and many others. The Freemasons founded the Royal Society. It is here where the peer-reviewed system censors 'science' for their marxist revolution against religion.

[link to www.freemasonry.london.museum]

The atheist.org is from an atheist who admits all of the above. An unbiased source who admits atheism is a result of the Enlightenment that began with the French Revolution.

You asked if there was a conspiracy - yes there is its called by many names: Marxism, the Illuminati, Freemasonry and the NWO. However these are all just front players of the Jesuit's counter-reformation -- the main proponents of Evolution Theories.

The Jesuits have always ran education for counter-reformation. They use their pagan foundational beliefs to counter Bible truth and brainwash their victims.


God's unlikely Latin lovers
BY: YASMIN HASKELL
The Australian | September 27, 2006

ONE of the most delicious paradoxes in the history of education is the fact that the Society of Jesus, a Catholic Reformation order founded by Ignatius of Loyola in the 16th century, was the greatest single publicity machine for the literature of pagan antiquity from the late Renaissance until the French Revolution.

The ethos of the Society of Jesus was an apostolic one: its members were called less to contemplate than to preach, to harvest souls, to exert influence in the world. The order attracted active types - missionaries, musicians, mathematicians, artists, architects, scientists and poets -- and all Jesuits were required to do a stint of teaching in the society's free humanist schools.

The Jesuits are rightly acclaimed as the educators of early modern Catholic Europe. Among their brilliant alumni were Rene Descartes and Voltaire. While their curriculum and pedagogical methods were based on Renaissance models, the Society of Jesus translated traditional elements into a spectacularly successful formula of their own, forging an international educational empire that stretched from Rome to Russia, Mexico to Macau.
[link to www.theaustralian.com.au]
-
User ID: 28711488
United States
12/02/2012 12:50 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
And after reading through this site, I realised, sadly that the person I was looking forward to debating the most, who's opinion I was beginning to respect, has been directly cutting and pasting from AIG's website.. every single argument, every single thought, forcefed by this one brainwashing website. Right down to the list of fucking dead scientists. Pretty pathetic. I thought you had studied your information, had been some form of well read, but the only thing you studied was the website, and the only thing you've read was the puppet mastering idiots who run that site. I honestly can't even believe you now.. not even your retarded 'I talked to god on 911' story. It's more likely you simply went crazy. Try reading some other Shit. I get my information from many sources, I even studied yours. Pretty sad...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140



More rhetoric. Not interested in teaching You anything. But any lies you spew will be corrected.
Heretic_333

User ID: 2083734
United States
12/02/2012 12:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
really... REALLY.... why so many pages people...


it should be an AC that says "true" then the thread should be lost in the abyss of usless threads...


DOES ANYONE HERE READ BOOKS...

How about Writing from 10k years ago..


or ancient sites being dug up from 15k years ago...


does anyone have A CLUE ABOUT FREAKIN COSMOLOGY AND COSMOGONY.


lets not be the laughing stock of the universe our entire life.... fellas... please!?
A true minded, kind hearted... Iconoclast.

"We fight for truth, so love may venture, and peace may follow" ~ Ancient Astronaut Theorists.

If I told you everything I am about to say is a lie. Is it truth or a lie?

I built the wrench necessary to bolt the 3 stage capping process on the spill. My tolerances were not overlooked.

"Tattered banners, and bloody flags... The mist of Odin sweeps it all."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 01:04 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Shhhh, don't state those kinds of opinions without wanting to be labeled a freemason! Haha illumimati conspiracy now!! You are the true sheep huh?

There's so many interesting links here. Here's one sent answersingenesis they were terrified of and caused them to change their arguent on the matter entirely.

[link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

You're right though, there are plenty of texts that are much older than 6,000 years. But you know, Satan did that. Maybe the freemasons? Illumimati? Putting fake dates on books?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 01:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
My third question, I suppose is:

Do you honestly feel like there is an agenda, that is evolution based in the public school system? I find that polls on how much, and of what type of evolution are being taught are not even necessarily complete in their view of evolution. I find most US teachers, are afraid to teach either of the two. I feel like there is plenty wrong with the US public school system, but I don't feel like it's an attack on religion, if it were, in my opinion, there would be an actual attack on it. Whereas all I see is schools observing the original terms that the country was based on, one being separation of church and state.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577



Yes, it is a political agenda/conspiracy, with no real interest in the truth.


[link to atheists.org]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to freemasonry.bcy.ca]

[link to www.creationism.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: - 28711488



Firstly, my question was not to you. As I mentioned earlier, I've decided to ignore everyone else in thread based on the fact they are using terms lime 'freemasonry', now as a response to a question you were not asked you send me links to websites, three of which anyone with an internet connection can alter at any time with their own content. And I no way, shape or form are these credible sources. The most credible of the links you posted is creationism.org, and that has been the topic of much discussion, as having an agenda of its own. These aren't scientific in any way. They are one person's opinion. So again, these are not credible sources. Next time, trying to prove something, don't use youtube as your source. Here I was wondering where people were getting their ridiculous ideas, and now we see where: youtube, altered wiki pages, and the most disrespected site on the web. Creationism.org
Get some better sources. That include actual studies. This again though is not proof. Don't you see that;
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140



You claiming this site or that site "is not credible" is just You trying to censor info you dont like. We will use all sources.

The Wiki link shows sourced FACT the French Revolution was ran by an ideology to replace Christianity with an Age of Reason. This was the ideology of the revolutionaries. And it continues today.

Those same revolutionaries founded the Royal Society at London found at the Freemason link, and many others. The Freemasons founded the Royal Society. It is here where the peer-reviewed system censors 'science' for their marxist revolution against religion.

[link to www.freemasonry.london.museum]

The atheist.org is from an atheist who admits all of the above. An unbiased source who admits atheism is a result of the Enlightenment that began with the French Revolution.

You asked if there was a conspiracy - yes there is its called by many names: Marxism, the Illuminati, Freemasonry and the NWO. However these are all just front players of the Jesuit's counter-reformation -- the main proponents of Evolution Theories.

The Jesuits have always ran education for counter-reformation. They use their pagan foundational beliefs to counter Bible truth and brainwash their victims.


God's unlikely Latin lovers
BY: YASMIN HASKELL
The Australian | September 27, 2006

ONE of the most delicious paradoxes in the history of education is the fact that the Society of Jesus, a Catholic Reformation order founded by Ignatius of Loyola in the 16th century, was the greatest single publicity machine for the literature of pagan antiquity from the late Renaissance until the French Revolution.

The ethos of the Society of Jesus was an apostolic one: its members were called less to contemplate than to preach, to harvest souls, to exert influence in the world. The order attracted active types - missionaries, musicians, mathematicians, artists, architects, scientists and poets -- and all Jesuits were required to do a stint of teaching in the society's free humanist schools.

The Jesuits are rightly acclaimed as the educators of early modern Catholic Europe. Among their brilliant alumni were Rene Descartes and Voltaire. While their curriculum and pedagogical methods were based on Renaissance models, the Society of Jesus translated traditional elements into a spectacularly successful formula of their own, forging an international educational empire that stretched from Rome to Russia, Mexico to Macau.
[link to www.theaustralian.com.au]
 Quoting: - 28711488


It's not me who doesn't like these links, IT'S THE WHOLE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. you guys are the laughing stock of the world right there with that family that protest the funerals of soldiers.. that's where the rest of the world regards you.
It's not me picking and chosing, these are not credible sources.
From YouTube to a user made wiki not credible at all.
As I said .gov, .edu sites are. That's where validated research gets posted. I'm talking to a wall again.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 01:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
" "Evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, so it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised too."

"The problem with this statement is that creationists have NO scientific theories to begin with. They have innumerable pseudo scientific theories, but regardless of sound evidence being presented time and again showing these theories to be grossly in error, they steadfastly refuse to revise the majority of them."

" All AiG has done is remove some of the more obvious tripe. But of course they won't retract one particular absurdity and the easiest one for scientists to falsify, namely the Noachian Flood (see There is No Evidence for a World Wide Flood). The "flood" is the cornerstone of creationism. It's simple really, no flood, no creation as described in The Book of Genesis. End of story

Here's about 30 articles on why that story is scientifically impossible
Many of these are off site articles.
[link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

Proof of a racist agenda to creationism:

[link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

Lastly, on my list of noanswersingenesis links here is why creationist scientists are NOT REAL SCIENTISTS.. :)

[link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

The last article pretty much goes over what I've been saying about the difference In YEC scientists, and actual scientists.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11705783
United States
12/02/2012 06:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Evotards are the tards of the NWO.
 Quoting: -GLP-Christian-

"...a book fell into my hands entituled Proofs of a Conspiracy by John Robison, which gives a full account of a society of Freemasons, that distinguishes itself by the name of Illuminati, whose plan is to overturn all government and all religion, even natural; and who endeavour to eradicate every idea of a supreme being, and distinguish man from beast by his shape only."

-Lutheran minister G.W. Snyder writing to U.S. President George Washington, August 22, 1798 [link to rotunda.upress.virginia.edu]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11705783



Free book: Darwin and the NWO

[link to www.creationism.org]
 Quoting: Klink

You asked if there was a conspiracy - yes there is its called by many names: Marxism, the Illuminati, Freemasonry and the NWO. However these are all just front players of the Jesuit's counter-reformation -- the main proponents of Evolution Theories.
 Quoting: - 28711488


[link to atheists.org]
It was in Bavaria on February 6, 1748 that [Illuminati founder] Adam Weishaupt was born, son of a professor of canon law at the [Jesuit-run] University of Ingolstadt. The father died when the boy was seven; the child's intensive education then rested in the hands of his godfather. Baron von Ickstatt, a member of the Privy Council. Adam had free access to the Baron's magnificent library, which was well-stocked with the works of the Enlightenment philosophers.

The young Weishaupt graduated from the university in 1768, rising quickly within the Jesuit-dominated institution to become a full professor in 1733. Despite his militant Atheism, he managed to become dean of the law faculty two years later at the age of 27.

Constantly at odds with university and ecclesiastical authorities, Weishaupt conceived the idea of forming a secret society, an order, organized along lines similar to the Jesuits, yet committed to the ideals of the Enlightenment. Weishaupt had embraced the Rousseauian vision of a world free of the constraints of government and church, where humanity would exist in a universal community with nature.


[link to amazingdiscoveries.org]
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) was a French Jesuit priest and scientist. He studied and practiced paleontology, theology, and philosophy.

Teilhard was also a supporter of a one-world government. Some call him “The Father of the New Age.”

According to one biographer, Teilhard “spent the bulk of his life trying to integrate religious experience with natural science, most specifically Christian theology with theories of evolution. In this endeavor he became absolutely enthralled with the possibilities for humankind, which he saw as heading for an exciting convergence of systems, an 'Omega point' where the coalescence of consciousness will lead us to a new state of peace and planetary unity.”
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 08:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
This idea that atheism is somehow related to some of schizophrenia that is conspiracy, is utter and complete garbage. Perpetuated by hundred of purely paranoid facts, and a core of believers that are generally detestable by the whole of society. To post even more YouTube links, and conspiracy theory website links, tells me, without doubt that you've reaches the inevitable crescendo in your arguments. I am an atheist, and there is zero doubt that I am somehow connected to an illumimati. When intelligent people began attacking religion because of its obvious lack of believable facts, it immediately became a conspiracy theory. That was their answer to the attacks, not having an argument to back up anything they were supporting. I show the evidence that proves a young earth theory is not only improbable, but illogical on a basic level, you accuse of the same conspiracy. It's outright speculative trash. No paranoid man with access to YouTube, or Christian with the recourses to print a book is going to convince me of anything but what I already know. People are afraid of the end of religion, and they'll do anything including create conspiracies to protect it. I'm not scared in the slightest.if somehow, though highly improbable and illogical, there were a conspiracy that linked a science agenda in the public school system, do you think I would be against this? Science is a good thing, its only those who want to stop progressing ideas that are against it. I would say to you, great! that makes me more than content. So, in the same fashion of before, I suppose I'm an illumimatus? Sp? Who cares?, for "censoring links".. I hope now you understand that conspiracy theorists are crackpots who are continually wrong, wrong, wrong. And sad...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 10:05 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?


-Exposition of creationism.
-Definitions of terms.
-Evidence for creationism.
-Rules of evidence.
-Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
-Evidence which modifies creationism.

How do creationists describe conventional science?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

-evolution
-primitive
-natural selection
-theory

(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.

(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

-What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
-What is does conventional science say?
-What is the evidence for conventional science?
-What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.

Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?

News