Creationists vs "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists"

[Right Divider]

You've fallen into his trap, RD...

Here's a rope to get out:

User Name , "appearance of age" is entirely subjective.

To an atheist, or to anyone who believes the earth is old, the universe "appears" old.

To me and YE Creationists, however, the universe "appears" young.

The question is not "how old does the universe 'appear' to be?", it's "how old IS the universe?"

When you assume that the universe must be as old as it appears to be, and you believe that the universe is much older than 7-10 thousand years, that's when confirmation bias attacks.

The reverse is true for us YECs as well, if we assume that the universe must be as young as it appears to be, and we believe that the universe is about 7-10 thousand years old, that's when confirmation bias attacks.

Which is why remaining objective when viewing the evidence is so important.

Assuming one's position to be true won't work for EITHER side.

My point was that it is impossible to create a GIGANTIC universe with distance stars and seemingly lengthy starlight travel without.... great distance and seemingly lengthy starlight travel.

They assume immense time.
We assume God stretched out the heavens, like He said that He did.

We understand their view.... they reject ours based on their required philosophy (due to rejecting God and His Word).

 

[User Name]

We assume God stretched out the heavens, like He said that He did.

We understand their view.... they reject ours based on their required philosophy (due to rejecting God and His Word).

What's funny is that it is your view that is philosophy. Or rather, religion.

 

[Right Divider]

What's funny is that it is your view that is philosophy. Or rather, religion.

Both my view and yours are fundamentally religious philosophies.

 

[User Name]

Both my view and yours are fundamentally religious philosophies.

Oh.

 

[JudgeRightly]

People have all sorts of religious beliefs about the age of the universe.

Of course they do. Atheists are no exception.

The gurus of India have their own cosmology, which they base on divine revelation. And theirs differs from yours, which is based on divine revelation. Who is right?

If you want to compare/contrast hinduism to Chrsitianity, you can do it in another thread. I will say this, however, Hinduism fails on its own, just in their belief on reincarnation. There aren't enough creatures in existence or that have ever existed to support the idea of reincarnation.

I'm sure some Hindus would like to superimpose their religious beliefs onto science, and force science to agree with their religious beliefs about the ages of the earth and the universe. But that's not how science is done.

As far as matching beliefs to reality is concerned, even hinduism, like literally hundreds of other cultures, has a flood story.

See https://rsr.org/flood-evidence for more.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no way

So you do believe in absolutes?

that someone who never heard of the Bible could examine the evidence gathered from the physical sciences and come away with the idea that the universe is 6,000 years old.

Agreed, but only because they WOULD come away with the idea that the universe is 7-10 thousand years old, not 6 thousand.

There is absolutely no physical evidence for that.

Sure there is (evidence that the universe is 7-10 thousand years old). You're just either not looking or willfully ignorant of it.

Sorry. The only reason why you believe that is because that's what you were taught by your religious leaders.

And that's a problem because....?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm going to need you to prove, scientifically, "any alternate explanation."

I think you need to read my entire post, rather than just a small portion of it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

My point was that it is impossible to create a GIGANTIC universe with distance stars and seemingly lengthy starlight travel without.... great distance and seemingly lengthy starlight travel.

They assume immense time.
We assume God stretched out the heavens, like He said that He did.

We understand their view.... they reject ours based on their required philosophy (due to rejecting God and His Word).

We agree

 

[Stripe]

Yep.

That which you assert without evidence can be safely cast aside without evidence.

There's always room for more.

So how many scientific giants would it take for you to retract the nonsense assertion that "there is absolutely no way that someone ... could examine the evidence gathered from the physical sciences and come away with the idea that the universe is 6,000 years old."

What's the matter, haven't got it in you?:loser:

:rotfl:

:mock: :loser:

 

[Stripe]

Respect is earned.

No, it's not.

You either show respect or you don't.

Can't you get anything right?

Instead of whining about the big bad atheistic Darwinialistical evolutionalists, why not upstage them?

We have. :idunno:

You're just too dumb to realize it. :loser:

 

[Stripe]

I'm going to need you to prove, scientifically, "any alternate explanation."

:loser:

Science doesn't advance by your childish demands for proof. It advances by eliminating ideas by showing how the evidence makes them impossible.

When you're ready for a rational discussion over the evidence, get back to us. :loser:

 

[User Name]

Is the work of Philip Paracelsus, Nicolas Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, William Harvey, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Christiaan Huygens, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, George Cuvier, John Dalton, Michael Faraday, Matthew Maury, James Clerk Maxwell, Louis Pasteur, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister...?

Any major figure in science who lived before Darwin doesn't count, because they had no way of knowing about the theory of evolution.

If all of those people were alive today and able to survey all of the scientific evidence regarding the topic at hand, they'd come away from it with as much respect for you as I do.

 

[Right Divider]

If all of those people were alive today and able to survey all of the scientific evidence regarding the topic at hand, they'd come away from it with as much respect for you as I do.

:mock: You speaking for what "those people" would do.

 

[User Name]

Is the work of...Lord Kelvin...not enough for you?

If Lord Kelvin was a creationist, then so am I.

The fact of the matter is that Kelvin accepted Darwin's theory of evolution with the caveat that evolution took place over a few 10s of millions of years, rather than Darwin's 100s of millions of years +, and that evolution was guided by the hand of God. In other words, Kelvin was a theistic evolutionist.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willia...Earth:_geology

 

[JudgeRightly]

If all of those people were alive today and able to survey all of the scientific evidence regarding the topic at hand, they'd come away from it with as much respect for you as I do.

If all of those people were alive today and able to survey all of the scientific evidence regarding the topic at hand, they'd come away from it wondering how people could be so oblivious to the truth of a YE.

See how that works?

 

[User Name]

If all of those people were alive today and able to survey all of the scientific evidence regarding the topic at hand, they'd come away from it wondering how people could be so oblivious to the truth of a YE.

See how that works?

The scientists of the past would be as likely as the scientists of the present to accept YEC.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The scientists of the past would be as likely as the scientists of the present to accept YEC.

And you know this.... How exactly?

UN, try making an actual argument for once, instead of just begging the question.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The scientists of the past would be as likely as the scientists of the present to accept YEC.

The scientists of the past would be as likely to accept an old earth as the scientists of the present to accept a flat earth.

See how that works?

Also, plenty of "scientists of the present" accept YEC.

 

[User Name]

The scientists of the past would be as likely to accept an old earth as the scientists of the present to accept a flat earth.

See how that works?

No.

plenty of "scientists of the present" accept YEC.

:chuckle:

 

[JudgeRightly]

No.

Of course not. Don't know why I thought you would...

:mock: User Name

:chuckle:

Hey, the one you're laughing at is you, not me. You're the one who made the claim that "scientists of the present" wouldn't accept YEC.

In my OP, I gave you a link that should give you an idea of how many.

NO, I'm not making the claim that because that many people reject or doubt darwinism, that therefore darwinism is false, I'm countering your claim that there aren't any scientists who would accept YEC, or at the very least, reject darwinism.

 

[User Name]

Hey, the one you're laughing at is you, not me.

Whatever, bud. Have a nice day.