98 replies to this topic

[BluesBassist]

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed here before...

There is a post on 2p2 by Barry Greenstein in which he claims Daniel N told him he thinks the Earth is only about 6000 years old (!). Will Daniel or anyone confirm this?

If this is true, I'd love to go against Daniel HU with my entire bankroll...

[socalpoker_j]

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed here before...

There is a post on 2p2 by Barry Greenstein in which he claims Daniel N told him he thinks the Earth is only about 6000 years old (!). Will Daniel or anyone confirm this?

If this is true, I'd love to go against Daniel HU with my entire bankroll...

Because knowing whether this is true or not makes you good enough to beat DN?

[crowTrobot]

There is a post on 2p2 by Barry Greenstein in which he claims Daniel N told him he thinks the Earth is only about 6000 years old (!). Will Daniel or anyone confirm this?

why is believing jesus was god any less crazy than believing the earth is 6k years old? both are contradicted by all empirical evidence.

[Gooser]

60 600 6000 years i still think DN would take me down in poker

[FOOSE1]

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed here before...

There is a post on 2p2 by Barry Greenstein in which he claims Daniel N told him he thinks the Earth is only about 6000 years old (!). Will Daniel or anyone confirm this?

If this is true, I'd love to go against Daniel HU with my entire bankroll...

I believe this too . . . so I guess I will play you heads up for your entire bankroll . . .


P.S. I'm not kidding . . . on either point.

[crowTrobot]

I believe this too . . .

i don't understand why any christians even think they need to believe in a young earth anymore, since the bible doesn't specifically state it - and all being stubborn about it does is kill any credibility you might have had in other aspects of christianity. even if you believe in jesus you should be able to accept that genesis literalism isn't a necessary part of your faith, and take an take an objective look at it for what it really is.

[FOOSE1]

i don't understand why any christians even think they need to believe in a young earth anymore, since the bible doesn't specifically state it - and all being stubborn about it does is kill any credibility you might have had in other aspects of christianity. even if you believe in jesus you should be able to accept that genesis literalism isn't a necessary part of your faith, and take an take an objective look at it for what it really is.

Fair enough. I'm not really being stubborn about it . . . just what I believe. My belief in a young earth comes from a class I took on Creation VS. Evolution years ago. A former atheist professor named Ken Ham taught the course (through video). (In the Christian world so to speak) he is considered an expert on the book of Genesis. Through his course he made some very very good arguments for a young earth. His website is www.answersingenesis.org. I think the name of the video series was Answers . . . with Ken Ham. I won't get into all the details (because I'm NOT an expert) but I think anyone, Christian or not, would atleast be intrigued by some of his research . . . especially research done where he talks about the grand canyon and carbon dating, etc. It's very interesting stuff. If your ever bored, I think it would atleast give you an idea of why some Chrisitans believe in a young earth . . . whether you agree or not.

[KONGOS]

Why is science even taught in schools anymore....

[crowTrobot]

Fair enough. I'm not really being stubborn about it . . . just what I believe. My belief in a young earth comes from a class I took on Creation VS. Evolution years ago. A former atheist professor named Ken Ham taught the course (through video). (In the Christian world so to speak) he is considered an expert on the book of Genesis. Through his course he made some very very good arguments for a young earth. His website is www.answersingenesis.org. I think the name of the video series was Answers . . . with Ken Ham. I won't get into all the details (because I'm NOT an expert) but I think anyone, Christian or not, would atleast be intrigued by some of his research . . . especially research done where he talks about the grand canyon and carbon dating, etc. It's very interesting stuff. If your ever bored, I think it would atleast give you an idea of why some Chrisitans believe in a young earth . . . whether you agree or not.

have you ever stopped for just a minute and thought about the possibility that these leading literal creationists (whether they were former atheists or not has nothing to do with it) might just be twisting/selectively interpreting the facts in a biased matter to make them fit their pre-existing agenda? and they might be doing this for fame, or to sell books or whatever - because they know they can get away with it because many christians aren't "experts" and won't be able to grasp the fact that it is really anti-scientific propaganda?

also have you ever stopped to reason and ask why, if based on empirical evidence there really was any realistic possibility that the earth was young, wouldn't at least a minority of the mainstream scientific community at least allow for that possibility? why do only genesis-literalist christians argue for it? in other words, logically, if there was any real evidence wouldn't there be at least a minority of scientists who thought the earth could possibly be young but didn't necessarily associate that possibility with the genesis account? (there are zero).

[KONGOS]

have you ever stopped for just a minute and thought about the possibility that these leading literal creationists (whether they were former atheists or not has nothing to do with it) might just be twisting/selectively interpreting the facts in a biased matter to make them fit their pre-existing agenda? and they might be doing this for fame, or to sell books or whatever - because they know they can get away with it because many christians aren't "experts" and won't be able to grasp the fact that it is really anti-scientific propaganda?

also have you ever stopped to reason and ask why, if based on empirical evidence there really was any realistic possibility that the earth was young, wouldn't at least a minority of the mainstream scientific community at least allow for that possibility? why do only genesis-literalist christians argue for it? in other words, logically, if there was any real evidence wouldn't there be at least a minority of scientists who thought the earth could possibly be young but didn't necessarily associate that possibility with the genesis account? (there are zero).

I suppose you'd try to use that same "no evidence or scientific community support" argument against the Flying Spaghetti Monster too wouldn't you!

[herokid7]

I'm a young earth creationist too, Video class by Dr. Kent Hovind same teaching as Ken Hamm. Visit his website at www.drdino.com.

[theosophist]

crowTrobot: "have you ever stopped for just a minute and thought about the possibility that these leading literal creationists (whether they were former atheists or not has nothing to do with it) might just be twisting/selectively interpreting the facts in a biased matter to make them fit their pre-existing agenda? and they might be doing this for fame, or to sell books or whatever - because they know they can get away with it because many christians aren't "experts" and won't be able to grasp the fact that it is really anti-scientific propaganda?and they might be doing this for fame, or to sell books or whatever - because they know they can get away with it because many christians aren't "experts" and won't be able to grasp the fact that it is really anti-scientific propaganda?"

I haven't thought about it that much actually. And now that I do, I find it rather nonsensical. If these people wanted to be famous and sell books, they have chosen the wrong field. Young-earth creationists are certainly not famous and certainly do not sell a lot of books.


crowTrobot: "also have you ever stopped to reason and ask why, if based on empirical evidence there really was any realistic possibility that the earth was young, wouldn't at least a minority of the mainstream scientific community at least allow for that possibility?"

Who is the mainstream scientific community? Scientists who adopt the Darwinian theory of evolution? And why is their opinion so much more valid than other scientists - say, scientists who don't accept this theory, or who think this theory has significant problems? If you say their opionion is more valid because they accept the Darwinian theory of Evolution, then you are simply committing the logical fallacy of begging the question - which, in layman's terms means that you are putting the cart before the horse - you are assuming that your conclusion is true before we have even investigated the evidence for it (which you like to accuse Christians of doing). Also, any appeal to the "majority" of scientists and what they believe to the truth of your conclusion is another fallacy. In other words, it doesn't prove anything. The majority of people once thought the earth was flat. Sometimes the majority is all the fools on one side.

crowTrobot: "why do only genesis-literalist christians argue for it? in other words, logically, if there was any real evidence wouldn't there be at least a minority of scientists who thought the earth could possibly be young but didn't necessarily associate that possibility with the genesis account? (there are zero)."

I somehow doubt that you know for certain that there are exactly zero scientists who do not believe literally in the Genesis account of creation and yet still believe in a young earth. To know this, you would have to know every scientist in the world. But even if you were right, it doesn't prove that the earth isn't young, as I stipulated above.

Peace.

[solderz]

crowTrobot: "have you ever stopped for just a minute and thought about the possibility that these leading literal creationists (whether they were former atheists or not has nothing to do with it) might just be twisting/selectively interpreting the facts in a biased matter to make them fit their pre-existing agenda? and they might be doing this for fame, or to sell books or whatever - because they know they can get away with it because many christians aren't "experts" and won't be able to grasp the fact that it is really anti-scientific propaganda?and they might be doing this for fame, or to sell books or whatever - because they know they can get away with it because many christians aren't "experts" and won't be able to grasp the fact that it is really anti-scientific propaganda?"

I haven't thought about it that much actually. And now that I do, I find it rather nonsensical. If these people wanted to be famous and sell books, they have chosen the wrong field. Young-earth creationists are certainly not famous and certainly do not sell a lot of books.
crowTrobot: "also have you ever stopped to reason and ask why, if based on empirical evidence there really was any realistic possibility that the earth was young, wouldn't at least a minority of the mainstream scientific community at least allow for that possibility?"

Who is the mainstream scientific community? Scientists who adopt the Darwinian theory of evolution? And why is their opinion so much more valid than other scientists - say, scientists who don't accept this theory, or who think this theory has significant problems? If you say their opionion is more valid because they accept the Darwinian theory of Evolution, then you are simply committing the logical fallacy of begging the question - which, in layman's terms means that you are putting the cart before the horse - you are assuming that your conclusion is true before we have even investigated the evidence for it (which you like to accuse Christians of doing). Also, any appeal to the "majority" of scientists and what they believe to the truth of your conclusion is another fallacy. In other words, it doesn't prove anything. The majority of people once thought the earth was flat. Sometimes the majority is all the fools on one side.

crowTrobot: "why do only genesis-literalist christians argue for it? in other words, logically, if there was any real evidence wouldn't there be at least a minority of scientists who thought the earth could possibly be young but didn't necessarily associate that possibility with the genesis account? (there are zero)."

I somehow doubt that you know for certain that there are exactly zero scientists who do not believe literally in the Genesis account of creation and yet still believe in a young earth. To know this, you would have to know every scientist in the world. But even if you were right, it doesn't prove that the earth isn't young, as I stipulated above.

Peace.

Its s h i t like this that makes me believe that Nietzsche was right: "Christianity is a sickness" and my favorite, "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."

[theosophist]

Its s h i t like this that makes me believe that Nietzsche was right: "Christianity is a sickness" and my favorite, "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."

Well, I don't know many philosophers who held more serious convictions than Nietzsche.

Peace.

[solderz]

Well, I don't know many philosophers who held more serious convictions than Nietzsche.

How about your master? Jesus. I'd say he and his followers (you) are MUCH MUCH MUCH more convinced of your convictions that Nietzsche ever was. But Jesus is dead so he can't speak for himself, so I guess I can only talk about those that have used words attributed to him to forward their own agendas. Meaning his so-called followers.

And if you don't think taking a christian position helps you sell things, just listen to ANY christian music band. They wouldn't make a friggin nickel if they didn't cater to the bible thumper crowd.

[theosophist]

How about your master? Jesus. I'd say he and his followers (you) are MUCH MUCH MUCH more convinced of your convictions that Nietzsche ever was. But Jesus is dead so he can't speak for himself, so I guess I can only talk about those that have used words attributed to him to forward their own agendas. Meaning his so-called followers.

And if you don't think taking a christian position helps you sell things, just listen to ANY christian music band. They wouldn't make a friggin nickel if they didn't cater to the bible thumper crowd.

To be honest, I don't think very many people (including Jesus) consider Jesus a philosopher, but we'll let that pass. Having read both men, I would say Nietzsche definitely wins out for most convicted since Jesus taught mostly in parables and analogies.
I would also think it is safe to say that most Christians aren't philosophers, so you're appeal there doesn't work.
You say Jesus is dead? Hmmm - it sounds like you're convicted about that. Does that mean you're wrong?

I'm also not sure what you were getting at with the last part of your opinion in this post. I never said "taking a Christian position" does not help you sell stuff. I said young-earth creationists are not famous and do not sell alot of books.

[crowTrobot]

crowTrobot: "have you ever stopped for just a minute and thought about the possibility that these leading literal creationists (whether they were former atheists or not has nothing to do with it) might just be twisting/selectively interpreting the facts in a biased matter to make them fit their pre-existing agenda? and they might be doing this for fame, or to sell books or whatever - because they know they can get away with it because many christians aren't "experts" and won't be able to grasp the fact that it is really anti-scientific propaganda?and they might be doing this for fame, or to sell books or whatever - because they know they can get away with it because many christians aren't "experts" and won't be able to grasp the fact that it is really anti-scientific propaganda?"

I haven't thought about it that much actually. And now that I do, I find it rather nonsensical. If these people wanted to be famous and sell books, they have chosen the wrong field. Young-earth creationists are certainly not famous and certainly do not sell a lot of books.
crowTrobot: "also have you ever stopped to reason and ask why, if based on empirical evidence there really was any realistic possibility that the earth was young, wouldn't at least a minority of the mainstream scientific community at least allow for that possibility?"

Who is the mainstream scientific community? Scientists who adopt the Darwinian theory of evolution? And why is their opinion so much more valid than other scientists - say, scientists who don't accept this theory, or who think this theory has significant problems? If you say their opionion is more valid because they accept the Darwinian theory of Evolution, then you are simply committing the logical fallacy of begging the question - which, in layman's terms means that you are putting the cart before the horse - you are assuming that your conclusion is true before we have even investigated the evidence for it (which you like to accuse Christians of doing). Also, any appeal to the "majority" of scientists and what they believe to the truth of your conclusion is another fallacy. In other words, it doesn't prove anything. The majority of people once thought the earth was flat. Sometimes the majority is all the fools on one side.

crowTrobot: "why do only genesis-literalist christians argue for it? in other words, logically, if there was any real evidence wouldn't there be at least a minority of scientists who thought the earth could possibly be young but didn't necessarily associate that possibility with the genesis account? (there are zero)."

I somehow doubt that you know for certain that there are exactly zero scientists who do not believe literally in the Genesis account of creation and yet still believe in a young earth. To know this, you would have to know every scientist in the world. But even if you were right, it doesn't prove that the earth isn't young, as I stipulated above.

Peace.

so much for a polite attempt to get people to use their own brains instead of blindly following creationist propaganda because it makes them feel better about their faith.

obviously the evidence is such that there are no obvective scientists that believe the earth is 6000 years old. anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of the evidence.

I'm also not sure what you were getting at with the last part of your opinion in this post. I never said "taking a Christian position" does not help you sell stuff. I said young-earth creationists are not famous and do not sell alot of books.

within the christian community they certainly are (relatively) famous, are in-demand speakers, and sell plenty of books, videos etc.

[theosophist]

within the christian community they certainly are (relatively) famous, are in-demand speakers, and sell plenty of books, videos etc.

I doubt it. Ask an ordinary Christian to name some "famous" young-earth creationist scientists, and they'll look at you funny.
The only community that these Young-earth scientists (YECs) have any following in is the more conservative evangelical wing of Christianity.
But, I guess your southern (eastern) states have quite a few of those.
Okay, so I will concede that YECs are relatively famous within a relatively large, southern population of Christians in the United States... the question is: is this really being famous, and if it is, is it the reason why these people are pursuing YEC science (like you said)? Or could it be that these scientists really believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that the earth is young, and have dedicated themselves to searching out evidence to confirm their belief?
And I should add that I have yet to see any of these YECs on the New York Times bestseller lists.

Peace.

[timwakefield]

6,000 years ago our visible universe was sneezed out of the nose of The Great Green Arkleseizure.

End. Of. Story.

[crowTrobot]

Or could it be that these scientists really believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that the earth is young, and have dedicated themselves to searching out evidence to confirm their belief?

no, unless they are good at self-delusion. i've read all of them (their websites, anyway), and all of their evidence is either outright fabrication, or desparately grasping at very thin straws in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence by attempting to put a spin on minor technicalities. in other words whether they admit it to themselves or not they are writing deliberate propaganda. they aren't searching for the truth.