Evidences given for a young-earth

[Dan From Smithville]

The painting represents the current scientific view of the early earth.

Even so, it does not reflect on the veracity of Genesis, which has none.

Sorry to have to break that to you and ruin your fantasy.

Maybe you can find a way to move the goal post in your response to this.

An artistic interpretation is not written in stone nor is it evidence supporting your assertions that have been refuted on the actual evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nah, I just remember what Einstein said about the centrality of the observer in space.

Irrelevant to the fact that the Earth is in space. Moving the goal posts will not suddenly move the Earth out of space.

 

[PruePhillip]

Even so, it does not reflect on the veracity of Genesis, which has none.

Sorry to have to break that to you and ruin your fantasy.

Maybe you can find a way to move the goal post in your response to this.

An artistic interpretation is not written in stone nor is it evidence supporting your assertions that have been refuted on the actual evidence.

So, let me get this straight.
Genesis said the first ocean was "deep" and dark and sterile and without any landfall.
Science said the first ocean was deep, dark, green, sterile and there were no continents.
So I am fine with that.
I will move to verse 3.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, let me get this straight.
Genesis said the first ocean was "deep" and dark and sterile and without any landfall.
Science said the first ocean was deep, dark, green, sterile and there were no continents.
So I am fine with that.
I will move to verse 3.

Provide the evidence that science says this. Then provide the evidence that one potential similarity in a description nullifies the many contradictions and disimilarities, rendering Genesis valid from a scientific perspective. You also might have the courage and courtesy to acknowledge that you have been caught using logical fallacies and making wild claims about the moon and geocentricity.

Is faith such a weak basis for belief in God that some false validity forced on scripture and science is required so that you can comfortably hold your beliefs?

 

[PruePhillip]

Provide the evidence that science says this. Then provide the evidence that one potential similarity in a description nullifies the many contradictions and disimilarities, rendering Genesis valid from a scientific perspective. You also might have the courage and courtesy to acknowledge that you have been caught using logical fallacies and making wild claims about the moon and geocentricity.

Is faith such a weak basis for belief in God that some false validity forced on scripture and science is required so that you can comfortably hold your beliefs?

This particular piece relates to the period after the continental crust formed....

10 Ways Earth Once Looked Like An Alien Planet - Listverse

The sky hasn’t always been blue. About 3.7 billion years ago, it’s believed, the oceans were green, the continents were black,
and the sky overhead looked like a fuzzy orange haze.
Back then, the makeup of the Earth was very different, and we have every reason to believe that left us with a completely
different color scheme. The oceans were green because iron formations were dissolving into the seawater, spilling a green rust
in and tainting it into the shade of a rusted copper penny. The continents were black because they would have been covered with
cooling lava, and there weren’t any plants to cover it.
And the sky wouldn’t have been blue. Part of the reason it looks blue today is the oxygen in our atmosphere, but there wasn’t very
much of it 3.7 billion years ago. Instead, the sky was mostly methane. As the Sun’s light pierced through an atmosphere of methane,
we would have seen an orange haze hanging overhead.[2]

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, people saw continents rising out of the sea?

When you look at an island, what do you see?

Is it a large area of land sticking out of the sea?

And the wild guesses?

They aren't wild, and they're almost certainly not guesses. They are observations that anybody could have made.

You might get one right,
but the sequence starts stacking up. Where did
I get to when I mentioned this --- oh... 1 in 10,000
chance of getting the sequence continent stage.
And what's the chance of knowing life emerged
of itself on land, and then in the ocean? If it's 1
in a 100 then the odds are now 1,000,000.

Once again, anybody can make up numbers, ignore all the stuff that doesn't fit, and claim its miraculous. I've exposed you repeatedly that you misrepresent what the Bible says in order to make it seem more accurate, by deliberately omitting all the things it gets wrong - of which there are many.

Stop peddling this obvious falsehood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Explaining how evolution works has little to do with whether there is a God or not.

Except when the definition of that god is in direct conflict with the fact that evolution occured.

The bible itself says life came from the earth itself.

I think you'll find a great many creationists, many of which are on this very forum and in this very thread, which would very much disagree with you on that.

Here Dawkins is attacking the
beliefs of some religious groups - which has little to do with the existence of God.

Since the only way to talk about god - any god - is by talking about what people believe (since that's the only place where we find gods), it's kind of to be expected that any book that is going to argue against the existance of a god, is going to be addressing people's beliefs in gods.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dawkins was claiming, indirectly, that the meaning of life was about procreation.
And that means what I said earlier about killing kids not your own and screwing
around so that other men can raise your kids. That's the sum of it for us humans.
Genes not only rule, the universe formed for their propagation, obviously.

Just to be clear...
Are you really claiming that that is what Dawkins believes?

I read the God Delusion when it came out. Nothing in the book I found to be
original. I suspect Dawkins did a bit of Googling and made some money on his
name.

At least he had a name to make money of from, unlike the many more (and much richer) christian apologists and televangelicals who swim in millions by telling the gullible creationists what they want to hear, using the name Jesus as a selling point.

 

[PruePhillip]

When you look at an island, what do you see?

Is it a large area of land sticking out of the sea?


They aren't wild, and they're almost certainly not guesses. They are observations that anybody could have made.


Once again, anybody can make up numbers, ignore all the stuff that doesn't fit, and claim its miraculous. I've exposed you repeatedly that you misrepresent what the Bible says in order to make it seem more accurate, by deliberately omitting all the things it gets wrong - of which there are many.

Stop peddling this obvious falsehood.

Rising out of the sea was literal - the continents rose above the water.
To define the exact sequence of events from eons before you is either very lucky
or you know something.

 

[PruePhillip]

Just to be clear...
Are you really claiming that that is what Dawkins believes?



At least he had a name to make money of from, unlike the many more (and much richer) christian apologists and televangelicals who swim in millions by telling the gullible creationists what they want to hear, using the name Jesus as a selling point.

Yes, the Selfish Gene defines your whole purpose in life is to pass on genes.
People who make money from scripture, when Jesus said "Freely given, freely
receive." are in violation of scripture. Don't judge Christianity by those who violate
its principles.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Rising out of the sea was literal - the continents rose above the water.
To define the exact sequence of events from eons before you is either very lucky
or you know something.

View attachment 35378

Again, you only need to LOOK at an island to SEE it coming up out of the sea.

It's hardly "lucky" to deduce from that that islands come out of the sea. Stop playing up these very obvious observations.

And you haven't responded to the fact that I have repeatedly demonstrated that you deliberately omit things the Bible says that it gets wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, the Selfish Gene defines your whole purpose in life is to pass on genes.

But you said a lot more then that.

Let me remind you of what you actually said:

And that means what I said earlier about killing kids not your own and screwing
around so that other men can raise your kids. That's the sum of it for us humans.
Genes not only rule, the universe formed for their propagation, obviously.

So, I ask again, are you saying that what you expressed there, is what Dawkins believes?

People who make money from scripture

ie: just about every church

, when Jesus said "Freely given, freely receive." are in violation of scripture.

Soo.... just about every church?

Don't judge Christianity by those who violate its principles.

Don't worry, I'll happily judge Christianity by its nasty principles.

Having said that, I actually don't care how a religion is "supposed" to be. What I care about is how it is implemented in practice.

Just like I (and you probably also) don't care about how Shariah law is "supposed" to work. What I care about is how it is practically implemented in those places where it is.

 

[sooda]

Rising out of the sea was literal - the continents rose above the water.
To define the exact sequence of events from eons before you is either very lucky
or you know something.

View attachment 35378

This is excellent and easily understood.


Which is the oldest mountain range?

excerpt:

Which is the oldest mountain range?

Mountains live to be very, very old. But they do not live forever. The world's youngest mountains are the coastal ranges of California. This baby is but a million years old and may be still growing. The Alps and the Himalayas are in the prime of life. They are about 50 million years old and we know that Mt. Everest in the Himalayas is still adding to his tremendous height; The Apennines, the Pyrenees and the Caucasus are in his same age group.

 

[Audie]

Rising out of the sea was literal - the continents rose above the water.
To define the exact sequence of events from eons before you is either very lucky
or you know something.

View attachment 35378

Funny how you, though, can "define" the sequence of events.

YOU are making the big fat assumption that
a) there was water from "the beginning"
b) that the earth was at one time completely covered with
water
c) that the continent that you show floating on the mantle
could somehow have been held down below the water
and then somehow it rose up.

None of which is true or makes any sense.

Try thinking a bit before you post?

 

[Audie]

Yes, the Selfish Gene defines your whole purpose in life is to pass on genes.
People who make money from scripture, when Jesus said "Freely given, freely
receive." are in violation of scripture. Don't judge Christianity by those who violate
its principles.

What are those "principles"?

How many of its principles do you suppose you violate?

 

[sooda]

Great video.

[video]

 

[Wandering Monk]

It would be refreshing to see a thread where a creationist is actually curious about evolution and wanting to learn.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not sure how you "know" Job is a myth. No-one else knows much
about the book or the man.

The same way we know Hercules is a myth.

 

[Audie]

It would be refreshing to see a thread where a creationist is actually curious about evolution and wanting to learn.

It might even be a miracle!
Usually it is more like, "why would I learn more lies?"

Here would be another miracle, or, at least the first
step to not just a Nobel, but, quite possibly the most
significant scientific discovery to date, maybe of all time:

ONE fact contrary to ToE.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, let me get this straight.
Genesis said the first ocean was "deep" and dark and sterile and without any landfall.
Science said the first ocean was deep, dark, green, sterile and there were no continents.
So I am fine with that.
I will move to verse 3.

Where did you get the idea that that is what science says?