Evidences given for a young-earth

[PruePhillip]

You forgot one. What does the world mean to God? Well, He did say only Noah and the animals on the ark would be left alive in all the earth. Does that help? Or do you think God is thinking the earth is just a few hundred square miles? If so, you must think He is not too bright because the animals from the rest of the planet could simply migrate back after some local flood. No need for spending many decades building an ark, then rounding up a few of every kind of animal.

Excellent point.
I think this story concerned the animals and people of that area.
It says that Adam had two sons, one was murdered the other son
fled - and married into another tribe who did not know him before.
So, is the bible saying Adam and Eve were the only people then?
Obviously not.

But as for God not being "bright." Says "all the world" was taxed
in the days when Jesus was born. Odd, because here the world
meant the Roman Empire - even though there was the Parthian
Empire, Ethiopia, the Barbarians etc.. That "alabaster box of
ointment" feature in the Gospels came from the region of Tibet.

So who wasn't "bright" in the Gospels? God? The authors? The
sentiments of the culture?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We'll add that to your beliefs then.


Name any function, component, or aspect of any commuter on earth that depends on nature existing a certain way 70 million years ago? Your increasingly wild claims have passed the point of ridiculousness.

Commuters tend to rely on petroleum in some form or other. To find petroleum one must assume that the Earth had the same physical laws in the past as it does today. You probably meant to use another word, but the one that you accidentally used sunk your argument.

 

[PruePhillip]

Commuters tend to rely on petroleum in some form or other. To find petroleum one must assume that the Earth had the same physical laws in the past as it does today. You probably meant to use another word, but the one that you accidentally used sunk your argument.

Go back to the Carboniferous, about 200 million years ago, and the nature that
existed then was a lot different to 70 million years ago. No big animals chomping
down all that vegetation - instead it went into oil and coal.
Not sure if that's relevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go back to the Carboniferous, about 200 million years ago, and the nature that
existed then was a lot different to 70 million years ago. No big animals chomping
down all that vegetation - instead it went into oil and coal.
Not sure if that's relevant.

Please note, the laws of physics were the same. That was the claim.

 

[PruePhillip]

Please note, the laws of physics were the same. That was the claim.

Not sure if the laws were the same.
But all the evidence so far is that they were the same.
This understanding could change as scientists study the
constants and variables, such as electron charge, speed
of light, gravity etc..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not sure if the laws were the same.
But all the evidence so far is that they were the same.
This understanding could change as scientists study the
constants and variables, such as electron charge, speed
of light, gravity etc..

There are radioactive decays of specific elements that can be observed in distant ejecta of supernovas. You could ask a physicist why it is highly unlikely that there have been any changes. The one thing that I can think of is that changes of physical laws would change chemical laws. And life as we know it is highly dependent upon our physical and chemical laws. When one claims that things were magically different in the past one takes on an enormous burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said "sometimes"
Our educated Westerners no longer have dogmatic faith.
This led to nihilism - a sense of meaninglessness as
education says there is no meaning to life.

1. "education" says no such thing
2. emotional objection to reality, is not a valid objection

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, the only time the nature in the past comes to mind is when I see claims based on it

Which would be EVERY claim that you feel isn't compatible with your religious version of history, for the sole reason that it isn't compatible with your religious version of history.

Then, naturally I ask, do we know what nature did or did not exist?

No, you don't ask it. You assert it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We'll add that to your beliefs then.

WOOSH!!!

Another point that flies high over your head.

Name any function, component, or aspect of any commuter on earth that depends on nature existing a certain way 70 million years ago? Your increasingly wild claims have passed the point of ridiculousness.

All tech inside your computer.
Which works only because of physics, chemistry and quantum mechanics.
All of these fields assume a "same state past".

And as @Subduction Zone zone stated, in more practical direct terms, indeed: fossil fuels.

Maybe you should go inform yourself how drilling companies know where to look for oil. What type of professional do they employ to tell them where they'll be able to find oil fields? And how does that professional determine where to find such oil fields?

Let's see how honest you are.

 

[PruePhillip]

1. "education" says no such thing
2. emotional objection to reality, is not a valid objection

Well, in the various schools I went to I was told there is no meaning to life.
What were YOU told?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, in the various schools I went to I was told there is no meaning to life.
What were YOU told?

No philosophical worldviews were discussed during science classes.

 

[PruePhillip]

No philosophical worldviews were discussed during science classes.

Well we were taught, and I read it all the time, "There is no meaning to life."
Life just happens. We evolved. The world sprang from the Big Bang. It's all accident.

None of this is science, by the way.
True science should say:
"We don't know if there's a meaning to life."
The Big Bang cannot, by definition, bang itself into existence.
Life evolved, but if it's by accident we cannot tell.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well we were taught, and I read it all the time, "There is no meaning to life."
Life just happens. We evolved. The world sprang from the Big Bang. It's all accident.

None of this is science, by the way.
True science should say:
"We don't know if there's a meaning to life."
The Big Bang cannot, by definition, bang itself into existence.
Life evolved, but if it's by accident we cannot tell.

This is total nonsense. No science class has ever, or would ever, tell their students that there is no meaning to life.

 

[PruePhillip]

This is total nonsense. No science class has ever, or would ever, tell their students that there is no meaning to life.

So what then is the meaning of life?
And this should answer the related question, "Why am I here"?

 

[sooda]

So what then is the meaning of life?
And this should answer the related question, "Why am I here"?

Not in science class.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So what then is the meaning of life?
And this should answer the related question, "Why am I here"?

You claimed that these are statements made in science classes.

That claim is false.

Are you going to admit that, or are you going to show us proof?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well we were taught, and I read it all the time, "There is no meaning to life."
Life just happens. We evolved. The world sprang from the Big Bang. It's all accident.

Sounds like an extremely bad school that you went to.
Also, not sure what you are reading, but it sure as heck weren't science journals.

None of this is science, by the way.

Exactly, so why would any science class "teach" such?

True science should say:
"We don't know if there's a meaning to life."
The Big Bang cannot, by definition, bang itself into existence.
Life evolved, but if it's by accident we cannot tell.

An "accident" is when a certain path was intendend, but another occured.
When you crash into a tree while planning to stay on the road, then it's an "accident".
If you were just trying to get yourself killed, then it's not an "accident".

Either way, it seems a completely inappropriate word to describe natural phenomena, because it assumes and implies intent, which is something yet to be demonstrated is actually present in such phenomena.

The reason such hasn't been demonstrated, is because there doesn't seem to be any evidence for it.

 

[tas8831]

Well, in the various schools I went to I was told there is no meaning to life.

I sincerely doubt that.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sounds like an extremely bad school that you went to.
Also, not sure what you are reading, but it sure as heck weren't science journals.
Exactly, so why would any science class "teach" such?
An "accident" is when a certain path was intendend, but another occured.
When you crash into a tree while planning to stay on the road, then it's an "accident".
If you were just trying to get yourself killed, then it's not an "accident".
Either way, it seems a completely inappropriate word to describe natural phenomena, because it assumes and implies intent, which is something yet to be demonstrated is actually present in such phenomena.
The reason such hasn't been demonstrated, is because there doesn't seem to be any evidence for it.

This universe, it's either
1 - accidental, or
2 - planned

Do you have a third option?
I Googled "universe creation accident" and got 21 million pages.

 

[PruePhillip]

I sincerely doubt that.

This is all news to me. Didn't expect it to be contentious.
Please sir, WHAT IS THE MEANING OF LIFE?