Dear RJHinds, this thread is about Evidence For A Young Earth but so far in this thread I have not seen any evidence for a young earth.
Please, if you give me the strongest scientific evidence you have that the Earth is 6000 years of age then we discuss this evidence until we know who will have the strongest argument that it is true or false.
When we have settled the strongest evidence, we don't need to waste our time to discuss weaker evidence, do we?
So we discuss this evidence, without going off-topic, without throwing insults and name calling, without using youtube or references other than, let's say, wikipedia, and then we see who has won the discussion.
Is this a fair deal? If you win, then there will not be more discussions in the matter. And if 'evolutionists' win, then there will not be more discussions in the matter either. Isn't it a fair deal?
So what evidence do you think is the strongest evidence for a Young Earth? It's all your call!
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe Bible’s history gives us the answer to the age of the earth.
Dear RJHinds, this thread is about [b]Evidence For A Young Earth but so far in this thread I have not seen any evidence for a young earth.
Please, if you give me the strongest scientific evidence you have that the Earth is 6000 years of age then we discuss this evidence until we know who will have the strongest argument that it is true or false.
...[text shortened]...
So what evidence do you think is the strongest evidence for a Young Earth? It's all your call![/b]
http://creation.com/6000-years
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsDear RJHinds,
The Bible’s history gives us the answer to the age of the earth.
http://creation.com/6000-years
I asked you “you give me the strongest scientific evidence you have that the Earth is 6000 years of age” and you give back “The Bible’s history gives us the answer to the age of the earth.” You do understand that then you have to prove the reliability for your source, the bible, don't you?
And you do understand that if you claim it's not the word of men but the word of god himself, then you have to prove the existence of god too, don't you?
The existence of god cannot by science be proved. And we all know that the bible is not infallible.
Is your strongest scientific evidence you have just “it says so in the bible”, really? Scientific and not just by faith? Is this you want to go into a debate over?
I give you another chance to present a scientific evidence, your strongest scientific evidence, that the Earth is 6000 years of age, and not significantly more. This offer is yours if you want to build a strong case that cannot be debunked too easily.
Or do you want to stick with this scientific evidence: “It says so in the bible”?
The choice is yours. It's a fair choice.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou're quite happy with your answer, RJHinds?
Dear RJHinds,
I asked you [b]“you give me the strongest scientific evidence you have that the Earth is 6000 years of age” and you give back “The Bible’s history gives us the answer to the age of the earth.” You do understand that then you have to prove the reliability for your source, the bible, don't you?
And you do understand that if you ...[text shortened]... this scientific evidence: “It says so in the bible”?
The choice is yours. It's a fair choice.[/b]
Question to you: “you give me the strongest scientific evidence you have that the Earth is 6000 years of age” .
Your answer: “The Bible’s history gives us the answer to the age of the earth.”
Do we go from there...?
Originally posted by FabianFnasNowhere, for history is the best science available for the past.
You're quite happy with your answer, RJHinds?
Question to you: “you give me the strongest scientific evidence you have that the Earth is 6000 years of age” .
Your answer: “The Bible’s history gives us the answer to the age of the earth.”
Do we go from there...?
2 edits
Originally posted by sonshipWhat R.C. Sproul said on the question of the age of the universe seems to be reasonable to me. I also think what Bruce Malone said on the matter of time is reasonable too.
RJHinds,
What do you think from R.C. Sproul on the the question of the age of the universe here? It is not long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIwHT_b72Bk
The Creation Foundation (Creation 101, Part 1) - Bruce Malone
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you hold up Malone as an expert even though all he has is a BS in chemical engineering? And some patents with a ceramics company?
What R.C. Sproul said on the question of the age of the universe seems to be reasonable to me. I also think what Bruce Malone said on the matter of time is reasonable too.
The Creation Foundation (Creation 101, Part 1) - Bruce Malone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm7rE_UyvMM
He has clearly cleaved away from his partial scientific background and has gone on a 15 year rant pushing creationism and as such is biased from the git go and has no credibility in the scientific community for the subject of life sciences.
He doesn't even have a masters in chemistry and you think we should believe ANYTHING this cretin has to say?
Why don't you just find the creationist site videos of ALL of them and put the up all at once, it would take us months to go over all the accumulated bullshyte they want to foist on an unsuspecting public.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou have nothing better than Ad Hominem attacks?
So you hold up Malone as an expert even though all he has is a BS in chemical engineering? And some patents with a ceramics company?
He has clearly cleaved away from his partial scientific background and has gone on a 15 year rant pushing creationism and as such is biased from the git go and has no credibility in the scientific community for the subject ...[text shortened]... us months to go over all the accumulated bullshyte they want to foist on an unsuspecting public.
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat is a problem because there seems to be no evidence for or against a young earth that will satisfy everyone. The same is true for evolution and creation. I guess we will just have to live on faith as suzianne says.
If you ever presented actual evidence, or something resembling a logical
argument we would have something to respond to other than your stupidity.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's no worse than the bullshyte the evolutionists put out about how they know the earth is billions of years old.
So you hold up Malone as an expert even though all he has is a BS in chemical engineering? And some patents with a ceramics company?
He has clearly cleaved away from his partial scientific background and has gone on a 15 year rant pushing creationism and as such is biased from the git go and has no credibility in the scientific community for the subject ...[text shortened]... us months to go over all the accumulated bullshyte they want to foist on an unsuspecting public.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, it is a LOT worse because a lot of work has gone into evolution by many different specialties all agreeing with each other whereas your creationist buddies only produce distortions and outright lies with the agenda of killing evolution.
It's no worse than the bullshyte the evolutionists put out about how they know the earth is billions of years old.
That is not seeking truth that is establishing political power by any means they can.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIf it is about politics, then we at least need two sides to be told. Now, the evolutionists control all the political power and are able to prevent studies that go against evolution from being published in their scientific journals, textbooks, etc.
No, it is a LOT worse because a lot of work has gone into evolution by many different specialties all agreeing with each other whereas your creationist buddies only produce distortions and outright lies with the agenda of killing evolution.
That is not seeking truth that is establishing political power by any means they can.
One important goal of most of the major humanistic, atheistic, skeptic, and civil liberties groups as well as the so-called "intellectual elite" in higher education is total control of education — total mind control. Their polical control in the the United States is so strong that the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is no 'other' side to be told. Evolution is science in action, proven time and time again against a lot of scientists who writer real papers trying to refute evolutionary ideas and have failed.
If it is about politics, then we at least need two sides to be told. Now, the evolutionists control all the political power and are able to prevent studies that go against evolution from being published in their scientific journals, textbooks, etc.
One important goal of most of the major humanistic, atheistic, skeptic, and civil liberties groups as well ...[text shortened]... Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional.
You creationist asssholes don't even want to refute evolution in a scientific sense, you create videos that are aimed at building political power and it only works because the US is so bogged down with religion. The US is just one step away from a Taliban controlled state but christian instead of Islam.
That is the ultimate goal of creationists, they won't stop in the unlikely event they win the fight to subvert the educational system. With that done, they would not just fade away into the sunset, they would view it as a mandate and go on to try to overturn the constitution and separation of church and state.
I think that is the ultimate goal of creationists. If they ever won their sick battle they would now feel emboldened to go further.
Lets buy off some more senators and get that damned separation of church and state done with once and for all.
NOW lets see who fights creationism.
Fight creationism, go to jail, or get a visit from creationist thugs.