Where does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old?

[Arthur Brain]

This is bigotry. Nothing "requires" the scientific method, yet it can be applied on any idea.

Any evidence that does not fit into a Darwinist's worldview must be waved away.

Well, no, that's applicable to creationist "science", not actual science. If the evidence supported a young earth then that's what science would support. It doesn't. Creationist "science" waves away the plethora of evidence because of a pre-set conclusion that can't be offset due to a religious belief.

 

[Stripe]

Well, no, that's applicable to creationist "science", not actual science. If the evidence supported a young earth then that's what science would support. It doesn't. Creationist "science" waves away the plethora of evidence because of a pre-set conclusion that can't be offset due to a religious belief.

This is bigotry.

You are a bigot.

Anyone is capable of applying the scientific method and it can be applied to any idea.

You are a bigot.

Ignorant to boot.

 

[Arthur Brain]

This is bigotry.

You are a bigot.

Anyone is capable of applying the scientific method and it can be applied to any idea.

You are a bigot.

Ignorant to boot.

Creationist "science" doesn't apply the scientific method. It's not bigotry to point out a self evident fact Stripe. It's also not bigotry to point out that it waves away anything that doesn't fit in with a religious belief.

 

[Right Divider]

Creationist "science" doesn't apply the scientific method. It's not bigotry to point out a self evident fact Stripe. It's also not bigotry to point out that it waves away anything that doesn't fit in with a religious belief.

NO theory of the origin of the universe uses the "scientific method".

The "scientific method" requires direct observation and testability. The "big bang" does NOT meet those requirements and neither does creation science.

 

[Arthur Brain]

NO theory of the origin of the universe uses the "scientific method".

The "scientific method" requires direct observation and testability. The "big bang" does NOT meet those requirements and neither does creation science.

I'm surprised you left out falsifiable. Otherwise, the accumulation of evidence and global support for an old universe/earth are there for the take down if your YEC is correct. As is the theory of evolution. Go cite to some groundbreaking evidence that does that. If you actually could, I would gladly accept it as the actual age of the universe doesn't bother me. If it's billions of years old then fine, if it's only a few thousand or so then fine too. What I object to is the dogged insistence that science has it all wrong and that a view based on an essentially fundamentalist belief system and pseudoscience is the only position that's "true".

 

[Stripe]

The scientific method requires direct observation.

I can't get onboard with that. Using science just means that you're prepared to throw out an idea if it does not mesh with logic, reason or the evidence. There is no category of ideas that are a priori excluded from the scientific method.

Nobrain tries to weasel in a lie about a group, accusing creationists of being unable to engage in science because they will not consider the evidence, to discount creationism. He exposes his ignorance in that even were he correct, a non-YEC could apply the scientific method to young-Earth ideas.

He has no idea what the scientific method is, no willingness to learn and is here solely to denigrate things that he hates.

His only problem is that his ignorance is so profound that he is restricted to rabbiting things he doesn't understand from his heroes, or even just using the names of Alate and Barbarian in lieu of a rational discussion.

 

[Jonahdog]

NO theory of the origin of the universe uses the "scientific method".

The "scientific method" requires direct observation and testability. The "big bang" does NOT meet those requirements and neither does creation science.

Are you suggesting that unless you can sit at a lab bench and do an experiment it is not "science"? Unless you can directly see something it is not scientific?

 

[Right Divider]

I'm surprised you left out falsifiable.

That is implied by testability. If it cannot be tested, it cannot be falsified.

Otherwise, the accumulation of evidence and global support for an old universe/earth are there for the take down if your YEC is correct.

Talk about some of this evidence.

As is the theory of evolution.

Talk about some of this evidence.

Go cite to some groundbreaking evidence that does that. If you actually could, I would gladly accept it as the actual age of the universe doesn't bother me. If it's billions of years old then fine, if it's only a few thousand or so then fine too. What I object to is the dogged insistence that science has it all wrong and that a view based on an essentially fundamentalist belief system and pseudoscience is the only position that's "true".

:rotfl:

 

[Right Divider]

I can't get onboard with that. Using science just means that you're prepared to throw out an idea if it does not mesh with logic, reason or the evidence. There is no category of ideas that are a priori excluded from the scientific method.

I was specifically talking about ONE TIME EVENTS, like the creation of the universe.

 

[Right Divider]

Are you suggesting that unless you can sit at a lab bench and do an experiment it is not "science"? Unless you can directly see something it is not scientific?

I was specifically talking about ONE TIME EVENTS, like the creation of the universe.

 

[Jonahdog]

RD is it your position that science cannot even study or attempt to study one time events? What are considered one time events---the start of the universe? The beginning of life? The appearance of our solar system? Which of those are not available for study by science?

 

[Right Divider]

RD is it your position that science cannot even study or attempt to study one time events?

Of course not. But they cannot be repeated and therefore are a different kind of science.

What are considered one time events---the start of the universe?

Yes.

The beginning of life?

Yes.

The appearance of our solar system?

Yes.

Were those actually serious questions?

Is the answer to each not completely obvious?

Which of those are not available for study by science?

They can be studied... but that is not by the same type of science that gives us computers or vaccines, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Jonahdog]

Of course not. But they cannot be repeated and therefore are a different kind of science.


Yes.


Yes.


Yes.

Were those actually serious questions?

Is the answer to each not completely obvious?


They can be studied... but that is not by the same type of science that gives us computers or vaccines, etc. etc. etc.

Well, yes they were serious questions. How would a creation scientist study each one? Or pick one. How should it be studied to learn as much as we can about it.?

 

[Arthur Brain]

That is implied by testability. If it cannot be tested, it cannot be falsified.


Talk about some of this evidence.


Talk about some of this evidence.


:rotfl:

So, I've invited you to cite to some ground breaking evidence that does away with established theories in science and all you've got is a smiley.

Figures.

 

[Stripe]

I was specifically talking about ONE TIME EVENTS, like the creation of the universe.

Yeah, I know.

 

[Stripe]

So, I've invited you to cite to some ground breaking evidence that does away with established theories in science and all you've got is a smiley.

Figures.

:mock: Nobrain

 

[Right Divider]

Well, yes they were serious questions. How would a creation scientist study each one? Or pick one. How should it be studied to learn as much as we can about it.?

Creation science has the same evidence that non-creation science does. We just interpret it differently. Believe it or not, that happens a lot in science. As a matter of fact, that battle goes on even between those that believe that the universe is billions of years old. It's not always creation scientists that shed doubt on the existing old universe paradigm.

 

[Right Divider]

So, I've invited you to cite to some ground breaking evidence that does away with established theories in science and all you've got is a smiley.

Figures.

There are distant mature galaxies that totally demolish the current "big bang" model. Go do some homework for once.

https://anomalien.com/distant-galaxies-look-too-mature-for-big-bang/

A gamma-ray burst passed through two far-distant galaxies on its way to earth, illuminating them like a cosmic backlight and shedding new light on models of the origin and structure of the universe.

Images from the event stunned some astronomers, because they show that the chemical makeup of these apparently young galaxies is far too mature to fit with the Big Bang theory.

 

[7djengo7]

Here's the OP to this thread:

Nowhere. The Bible nowhere teaches that the earth is billions of years old. The Bible nowhere teaches that the earth is not less than about 10,000 years old.

The Bible does not teach such things literally. Nor does the Bible teach such things non-literally. The Bible teaches such things not at all.

Similarly, the Bible neither literally, nor non-literally teaches that Adam and Eve never existed.

That's why the first post in this thread by a TOL Darwin cheerleader--as well as all further posts in this thread by one or more TOL Darwin cheerleaders--will be nothing but pure spam and entirely irrelevant to this thread. Darwin cheerleaders know well that they have no answers to these questions, and so, anything they might post in response to this thread will, as a matter of course, be wholly a product of Darwin cheerleaders' trolling.

Here's Arthur Brain's first post in this thread, which he devotes to stonewalling against (and loudly advertising the fact that he cannot answer) the question that is the title of this thread--"Where does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old?":

<NO ANSWER>

You just couldn't resist trolling my thread, could you, Arthur Brain? Obviously you couldn't, 'cause that's what you're doing here.

 

[7djengo7]

So, I've invited you to cite to some ground breaking evidence that does away with established theories in science and all you've got is a smiley.

Beg for attention somewhere else, Arthur Brain. I've invited you to try to answer the question that is the title of this thread, which question you and I both know you cannot answer.