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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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."

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

Peace.

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.

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.



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.

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

End. Of. Story.

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.

Once again, this is pointless. Anyone who actually believes that is a brainwashed moron. That's just the way it is. Arguing about it is just a waste of time and energy.

I actually work with scientists and I know for a fact that most of them are highly suspicious that the Earth is as old as most think it is. They believe that, in the young earth vs old earth debate, the young earth hypothesis has MUCH, MUCH more evidence supporting it. I've examined the evidence and I would have to agree with them. Anyone who disagrees with Young Earth simply hasn't examined the evidence.

FYP

troublemaker lol

Biblically Jesus wasn't God. He said so himself.





Yorke, any links/books/magazine articles by these colleaugues? I am interested.






Your point is valid, but it works in both directions. I would say(accurately, and you know it) that many scientist do the same thing- fabrication of evidence isn't all that uncommon. It's stupid and unneccesary, but not uncommon.

the son of god, then. whatever.



and gullible



actually it happens rarely, and when it does the fabricator doesn't get away with it for long because the scientific method is based on repeatable tests and has an elaborate self-checking peer review system for claims.

creationism is based on a few guys spouting propaganda for the purpose of telling christians what they want to hear, with no internal peer review system, just a bunch of following sheep.

On "alot of people thought the earth was flat" comment. That is probably one of those myths along with "people used to eat rotten meat in the dark ages".

While I don't have anything to show exactly what the majority of people thought. I do know the Earth was proven to be round at about 1st century by Ptolemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth for proof.

Sadly I would argue that when it does happen the damage may be done even if the fabricator is caught. Take subliminal advertising. Alot of people still believe it dispite that there is no evidence for it except one test that results were admitted to being manipulated. Scientificly means nothing, but ask people about it and you will get some saying its exists (hell on one of the apprentice shows, the guy thought it was a good idea to try and use).

Actually almost every branch of science has evidence that indicates the age of the Earth, not just biology. Interestingly enough they all arrive at the same number.



Can I quote you on this the next time some genius implies Chrisitianity is 'true' because it has the most followers?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/how_old_earth.html

Please explain how this is incorrect.

Maybe you should think about it a bit more then. What better audience than a bunch of knuckle draggers that are never going to question your authenticity and in fact need everything you say to be true so badly that they will buy every book, video and bobble-head doll you create, not to mention donate to the church you create because they are 'doing the right thing'.

From the Kentucky post

As the president of the group, he earned a salary of $170,634 in 2001, plus a contribution towards his benefits of $13,296.

http://www.kypost.com/2002/10/26/genes102602.html

Note, this was in 2001. I'd love to know what his 'salary' is this year.

Mr Ham et al are now running a multi million $ business that has a $25 million museum (read tangible asset) of which $21 million has been paid for by donations so far.

You may not have thought about it much, but Mr Ham certainly has. Guess which one of you is making millions?

This thinking is wrong. I don't need evolution to not be true- evolutionist do. A christian only has to believe that God is the architect behind all things. This leaves a wide berth for all kinds of goings on, the overwhelming majority of which we will never understand.

I don't know how long God actually took to create the earth.

I don't know how long the materials he used were actually here before he decided to crank it up. Science seems to have a handle on this but it's questionable even within that community- fact is from a christians point of view it doesn't matter.

He seemed to allow for adaptation, and he did give humans(most, anyway)an intense sense of mortality and will to live that most definitely draws a line between us and the animals. Hands down, we are the best of his work.

Just some things I have been mulling over. I will be back on later-got to go get my little girl her shots for school. I confess- I cry a little inside when I think of her with a bunch of strangers away from my protection. It's a little scary, but mostly I just realize she needs me a little less. Being a dad to a little girl is both beautiful and terrifying all at once.

There again I say if we came from monkeys why did it stop. Did evoulution just stop.

It didn't. It takes a long time. How do you question evolution and know so little about it?

That makes no sense at all. What do you even mean? Who said it stopped? If you were born hundreds of millions of years ago (as a lizard) would you say to yourself, 'So this is it? This is the pinacle of evolution?'

The line meant that the knuckle draggers needed Genesis to be true.

I know you are a little slow on the uptake but for crying out loud...

The claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old blatantly contradicts not only evolution, but virtually all of basic science, such as physics, chemistry, and geology. It is no less ridiculous than believing the Earth is flat.

I find it rather scary that there exist people sufficiently irrational or idiotic (or both) to hold this belief.



If true, it would mean DN is either profoundly irrational or a complete idiot (or both). That is the type of person even I could pwn at poker.

I therefore doubt DN is a YEC.

You're mistaken on this point. Evolutionists don't need evolution to be true. They're just supporting the idea that makes perfect sense with the mountain of evidence to back it up. If a better idea came along, I know I'd ditch evolution in a second, but this idea better having something to back it up and it'd have to be damn convincing.

Right now though, there are zero legitimiate challengers. There are no articles in peer-reviewed journals that offer any sort of sensible alternative to the theory. The only reason why there's any sort of backlash at all is because if evolution is true, then all those people who base their entire worldview on the Bible being the 100% literal word of god are left with nothing. Their whole world falls apart because they make it an all or nothing proposition. It's silly of course. Evolution being true or not bears no impact on the validity of the ideas and the message of Christianity. But these people don't see it that way. They have too much riding on it and take it upon themselves to rationalize and misrepresent by lying and twisting. And yeah, some make a good living doing it.

Evolution proven wrong....no sweat off my sack, but I don't see it happening.

Actually, there are no articles in peer-reviewed(I assume you mean scientific peers) journals- because scientist that opppose creationist views refuse to aknowledge any former peers who turncoat so to speak and in fact go out of there way to ostracize them.

And really the statement should be " Evolution proven true. " As it stands, it hasn't been- not even close.






I don't even know why I bother. You have proven time and time again what a prick you are and I continue to treat you like a human being. What a waste of keystrokes.








Yorke works with scientists who believe in a young earth, or rather believe that the evidence supporting young earth is stronger, and he agrees with that evidence. Is he an idiot? Is he profoundly irrational? Not even close- actually, of anybody here I would say he has proven himslef to be the most eduacated/level headed when it comes to these issues.

Why would it be scary? And if he did believe in a young earth, how does that translate into you beating him at poker? Apparently, thought process blows your mind- I don't see you winning any head games anytime soon.

If this is true, then yes, both Yorke and the supposed "scientists" with whom he works are complete idiots.

Luis, can you please explain where the website below lies and misleads? I can't find the fallacies in its arguments.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/how_old_earth.html

Slowly learning the necessity of sw's.

The reason why there are no creationist views in peer-reviewed scientific journals is because they aren't science.

As far as scientists are concerned, evolution has been proven true and is considered fact.

i dunno. demonstrating to other thread readers who might be fence-sitters that LMD is unable to parse what he reads and blindly accepts anything that happens to support his preconceptions was worth something. i guess

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Interesting article.

This is good stuff guys.

My 2 cents: How can you dispute carbon dating, and rocks and fossils that are millions upon millions of years old. God is trying to trick everyone?

The independent dating methods are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There is also the fact that light from distant stars and galaxies, etc, has taken much longer than 10000 years to get here. The known astrophysics of the solar system formation implies an old Earth. There is also all the geological evidence. It has been known since before Darwin's time that the Earth must be very old.

Anyone who disputes all this is a complete and total moron, period.

My favourite bit was:

“There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.”
We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages if the original readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about the gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might—that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster, which is what it looks like, while God created Orion as a well spread-out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal, but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.

Wouldn't you agree LMD?
(I can explain the bit about 'gravitational potential energy' if you need a hand)

This is my favorite quote from the same website:



Yes, believing in radiometric dating is destroying the church in America. The argument presented above essentially boils down to down to this: Science is wrong because the Bible says so.