So much for the Earth and the universe is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old

[Garin]

Pretty sure the bible is full of eye witness accounts of what was taking place at the time. Versus the assuming that the scientific community does.

[Jersey Boss]

Eye witness accounts have sent many an innocent person to prison wrongly. Eye witness testimony is frequently some of the shakiest of evidence.

[hoya]

Pretty sure the bible is full of eye witness accounts of what was taking place at the time. Versus the assuming that the scientific community does.

You need something other than "it's written in the Bible" to convince someone who doesn't believe in the Bible to begin with. I can write a fake history book and make up fake names of people who say that they saw the fake events in my book. You need proof that is external to the material you are trying to prove true.

[Stew]

God obfuscated the physical characteristics of the earth's geology in order to trip up the non-believes. It's like a prostitution sting and observable provable science is the under cover harlot asking the johns of reason if they need a date. You indisputable fact huggers can go straight to hell or believe in the unbelievable. It's your choice.

[Chadanth]

This is why most scientists don't bother debating creationists. If you don't believe in science, with all those tests, observations and facts, them there's nothing to discuss. Don't understand radiocarbon dating? Dismiss it. Don't understand plate tectonics? Dismiss it. Don't understand natural selection? Dismiss it. It's easy to simply dismiss what you don't understand in favor of a book written over a couple thousand years filled with inaccuracies and fairy tales.

[RadicalModerate]

You need something other than "it's written in the Bible" to convince someone who doesn't believe in the Bible to begin with. I can write a fake history book and make up fake names of people who say that they saw the fake events in my book. You need proof that is external to the material you are trying to prove true.

I'm fairly sure that the above statement is one of the few examples I've ever read that correctly demonstrates what the phrase "begs the question" originally meant (and encourages people not to do so when attempting to construct a logical argument). Thanks for that.

So . . . If it wasn't for God, how would we know God exists?
As some fairly wise writer--I think "they" even made him a "saint"--once said:
"If I'm wrong about the existence of God, I lose nothing.
"If I'm right about it, I gain everything." (paraphrased)

Having said that, anyone who actually believes that the Earth is only a few thousand years old must be defining "years" differently than do I.
Maybe "they" mean God Years?

[kelroy55]

I wonder if Moses, or whoever wrote the 1st chapter of the Bible, was an early version of L Ron Hubbard and started some kooky religious movement.

[Chadanth]

I wonder if Moses, or whoever wrote the 1st chapter of the Bible, was an early version of L Ron Hubbard and started some kooky religious movement.

Empirical evidence says yes.

[RadicalModerate]

I have to admit that, "first there was a big bang from which eventually emerged cosmic strings" is a lot more sophisticated.
And with quantum theory, the number of "commandments" is constantly changing. You can never be sure from one moment to the next how many there are, if any at all.

[kelroy55]

I have to admit that, "first there was a big bang from which eventually emerged cosmic strings" is a lot more sophisticated.
And with quantum theory, the number of "commandments" is constantly changing. You can never be sure from one moment to the next how many there are, if any at all.

Not to mention the books that are in the Bible were hand picked by some King several hundred years ago and tossed out the ones he didn't like.

[Chadanth]

Not to mention the books that are in the Bible were hand picked by some King several hundred years ago and tossed out the ones he didn't like.

For fun, try the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. That Jesus, such a prankster.

[Garin]

Can the science community create a human being from scratch without using something from the human to start with? Sort like a big bang moment.

[kevinpate]

Pretty sure the bible is full of eye witness accounts of what was taking place at the time. Versus the assuming that the scientific community does.

There are books in the Bible that were written contemporaneously to the events described? Mind if I ask which ones?

[Uncle Slayton]

God obfuscated the physical characteristics of the earth's geology in order to trip up the non-believes. It's like a prostitution sting and observable provable science is the under cover harlot asking the johns of reason if they need a date. You indisputable fact huggers can go straight to hell or believe in the unbelievable. It's your choice.

If you omit the prostitution metaphor, that's just about how an old pastor friend of mine sold it to his congregation. (and this man had a PhD in psychology, ffs...).

When posed the question of "why do you say the earth is only a few thousand years old when our scientific instruments show that it's much older?"

The answer was "God made everything "look old" to fool our instruments and test our faith." Sitting in that same service was a college professor with a doctorate in physical/inorganic chemistry, one of the hardest disciplines there is, and he never batted an eye or raised so much as a peep of an objection to such tripe.

That was my moment of clarity when I realized why televangelists are immensely rich: they are good at selling horsesh*t to gullible people. Not necessarily stupid people, just people who are looking for some sort of God-spackle to fill in the otherwise inexplicable cracks in their lives.

[Chadanth]

If you omit the prostitution metaphor, that's just about how an old pastor friend of mine sold it to his congregation. (and this man had a PhD in psychology, ffs...).

When posed the question of "why do you say the earth is only a few thousand years old when our scientific instruments show that it's much older?"

The answer was "God made everything "look old" to fool our instruments and test our faith." Sitting in that same service was a college professor with a doctorate in physical/inorganic chemistry, one of the hardest disciplines there is, and he never batted an eye or raised so much as a peep of an objection to such tripe.

That was my moment of clarity when I realized why televangelists are immensely rich: they are good at selling horsesh*t to gullible people. Not necessarily stupid people, just people who are looking for some sort of God-spackle to fill in the otherwise inexplicable cracks in their lives.

The mental gymnastics involved make me want to pull out what little I have left of my hair. And yet, people claim faith is so much easier than science, but they have to simply make up excuses for why their worldview doesn't fit the actual evidence and observations.

[BoulderSooner]

Not to mention the books that are in the Bible were hand picked by some King several hundred years ago and tossed out the ones he didn't like.

Not true at all. But keep trying

[kelroy55]

Not true at all. But keep trying

Are you saying there were no 'books' kept out of the Bible or a King didn't decide?

[Chadanth]

Not true at all. But keep trying

The canon evolved fairly early on. Many books were thrown out, though.

[trousers]

I think most of the New Testament canon was set prior to the creation of the King James Version.

[OKVision4U]

You need something other than "it's written in the Bible" to convince someone who doesn't believe in the Bible to begin with. I can write a fake history book and make up fake names of people who say that they saw the fake events in my book. You need proof that is external to the material you are trying to prove true.

I will give you a Historical Book, circa 1976. This was "pushed" as fact. All the scholars stood behind this statement. All stated this was true. The Oklahoma / Texas and the rest of the US purchased this History....and this factual point was stated .... [ C. Columbus discovered America in 1492. ]

They did not use the word "landed on the shores" / "accidently beached on a shore" / "first euro trash to hit the beaches of Miami" / ...The Edcuational / Scholars stated this as (fact).

...now the revisionist in history now have a different POV. In less than 40 years, they have altered their statements. This fact in 1976 was not "up to debate" by any group.

Today, I am very open to the information, just a bit more sceptic on the one pushing it.

[Prunepicker]

Not true at all. But keep trying

Some people are fine with urban myths or things they make up on the
fly.

https://bible.org/seriespage/bible-holy-canon-scripture

[Chadanth]

I particularly enjoy the self - authentication part. It's true! Why? Because the book says so!!

[Garin]

Can the science community create a human being from scratch without using something from the human to start with? Sort like a big bang moment.

[Prunepicker]

... It's pretty clear. It's all just made up by men along the way.

... Nope. Not me. Thankfully the church cant execute me for my own
discoveries and investigations.

I'm not sure how you came up with that. But one thing is for sure,
your not wanting to have a sensible discussion about this shows a
weakness in your convictions.

I like the Einstein quote in your signature. That's why I don't allow
someone else to determine what I know to be true.

[Prunepicker]

Can the science community create a human being from scratch without
using something from the human to start with? Sort like a big bang
moment.

No.