Audie
Veteran Member
....as a creationist
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
the earth is 13,000 years old not 6,000 right
- Thread starter butchjerrold
- Start date
Audie
Veteran Member
Ha. Elementary probability and statistics is HARD! It takes work.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Not by default and certainly not without justification.
But hey, don't let intellectual honesty get in the way of your steaming.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I see post after post of people pointing out the very real problems with the nonsense FT claims.
I also see post after post of you ignoring those explanations and simply repeating your (actually, WLC's) fallacious claims ad nauseum while pretending they were never addressed.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I will pretty much reject apologists, but with justification. I have not found one that is not a Liar for Jesus. Take WLC as an example. Actual physicists have explained how to him how he got the science all wrong in his Kalam Cosmological argument. But that does not stop him from using it and claiming that it is scientific.
Yes there is, lots and lots. Using multiple dating methods confirms the method is accurate to within the range stated. Every test that is confirmed using an alternative method is evidence
Total bullpoop. If an apologist actually provided evidence, falsifiable evidence there is no problem with anyone accepting it. As far as i know, no apologist has ever provided anything more than flimsy circular evidence.
Consider, if the bible was accurate and could be proven to be accurate there would be no need for the lucrative apologetics trade to make up excuses to apologize for the bible
leroy
Well-Known Member
Handwaving, all those dating methods have been refuted
Show me the refutation. Show me.
Because the only ones who say, without evidence, that they have been refuted are funnymentalists because they disproved their nonsense.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well based on my experience in this forum, sources written by apologetics are dismissed by default and without any explanation rather than “well the sources are biased”
for example in this thread I provided an argument + a source written by an apolegetics and so far after 54 pages nobody was kind enough to quote the mistakes and flaws in the source (and justify why are they mistakes or flaws)
Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God
leroy
Well-Known Member
I am using the atheist method; I don’t have to support my assertions.
The burden proof is on you, you have to show that radiometric dating is reliable.
Yes you do, you made the claim.
Bit of course you have no evidence so blame the atheists, how pathetic
leroy
Well-Known Member
The burden proof is on you…………you have to show that radiometric dating works
You made the claim.
Google or arxiv preprint service will give you several thousand studies of RC and other dating methods along with margins for error.
Your move
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The timing of the creation of the universe, in Genesis, has more to do with an era in human history, than the age of the physical universe. This is a mistake that science makes, since it assumes literal and does not think in terms of symbolism.
A good example of this premise, is the change from BC to AD. Why was the calendar reset to zero about 2020 years ago, when the people of that time had written records that dated farther back? I can almost hear the ancient people complaining that Caesar was crazy if he thinks history began just now.
The question becomes, what began, at that time in history, that required a calendar reset, back to zero? The new year 1, marked a transition between the old ways of the ancient world, and a new ways of a modern world that was coming. The new year 1, was not about biology or carbon dating, but a new phase of human conscious development. I picture the sunny ancient world or Rome becoming the dark ages; extroversion to introspection.
What change happened about 6000 years ago, to make humans at that time, decide to reset the calendar to zero? Science has shown that the invention of written language occurs at this time. Spoken language was invented thousands of years earlier, but this did not trigger a reset. Some earlier civilizations did appear during the phase of spoken language, but they aborted. Written language coordinates with the first stable civilizations.
Written language allows a way to cast ideas into stone, so the natural memory cannot modify, embellish or forget. If we only had spoken language memory would embellish, forget and atrophy over time. Future generation could not keep up with the earliest civilization prototypes.
Written memory allows one to study and relearn the original. This tweak to the natural forward integration processes of memory, caused a repression of instinct. A new type of human appeared at the 6000 ago year reset, as humans undergo induced change. Stable civilization appears and natural human instinct is confronted with an unnatural social and physical environment, not before found in nature. It is perpetuated and advanced by written records from its founders.
The story of Cain killing Abel tells about part of the change. Abel was the herder of animals and Cain was a tiller of the soil. When Cain kills Abel, farming would supersede migratory herding; humans stay in one place surrounded by objects created by the human imagination. The Tree of knowledge of good and evil is law. Written law did not always change, to keep pace with natural change, and caused repression. Math and record keeping would help with commerce and building.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? Show us the sources that do so.
The problem is that when you handwave your arguments have been refuted with valid sources. You merely will not admit it. After a while people get tired of doing so and merely point out that you are handwaving again.
Make sure that you use reliable sources. Any source that orders their authors not to follow the scientific method is clearly not valid.
leroy
Well-Known Member
I am using the atheist method, I don’t have to support my claims
Ok show a single relevant claim made by me in this forum that has been refuted with sources.
Quote my exact claim and then quote the source that refute that specific claim.
For years you have avoided this request.
If you don’t support that accusation, then why should I support my claims?
leroy
Well-Known Member
I find it amazing that up to this point you haven’t shown that radiometric dating works………..I don’t even have to troll and use the "atheist method",,,,,,,,,,, you literraly haven’t shown that radiometric dating works
I have given you both Google and the scientific pre print service, Arxiv which itself links to thousands of scientific papers on the accuracy and/or known (and stated) error margins.You appear determined to ignore them which is why i didn't waste my time by doing your work for you and providing individual papers
And still, you made the false claim and refused to defend it. So it seems that once again i won't be wasting my time arguing with dishonesty.
Proverbs 6:16-19