Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Young Earth Creationism

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 11:59:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm just curious as to how many of our DDO residents believe in the YEC model. If so, how old do believe the earth to be and why?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2012 4:35:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/19/2012 11:59:08 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I'm just curious as to how many of our DDO residents believe in the YEC model. If so, how old do believe the earth to be and why?

The Earth is 32 years old. When I first observed it the infinitude of possible universes that exist as the Schrodinger wave equation collapsed into a single observable reality.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 8:25:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
ROFL

I have respect for theists. I have none for YECs. I've never met an intelligent YEC in my life.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 8:27:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/19/2012 4:35:55 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/19/2012 11:59:08 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I'm just curious as to how many of our DDO residents believe in the YEC model. If so, how old do believe the earth to be and why?

The Earth is 32 years old. When I first observed it the infinitude of possible universes that exist as the Schrodinger wave equation collapsed into a single observable reality.

So. You just throwing that out there to see who the BS artists are, or what? Because, I consider even the knowledge of the existence of the Schrodinger equation coupled with such a flagrant incomprehension of it dubious.

The equation is a series of variables as they relate to physical constants that essentially describe the relationship between potential and kinetic energy as they radiate from an object in movement (although the equation measures each relationship at a given inertial frame, or more accurately, stationary state. The waveform is an expression of each stationary state placed side-by-side in chronological order, so that it produces in image of energy emission and containment fluctuations derived from a series of the same equation slightly alterned in the same way still images can be arranged to produce cartoons.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 8:28:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Young Earth Creationists are off on their estimates of the Earth's age by several orders of magnitude.

It was clearly created last Thursday.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 8:30:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 8:27:47 AM, Ren wrote:
At 3/19/2012 4:35:55 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 3/19/2012 11:59:08 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I'm just curious as to how many of our DDO residents believe in the YEC model. If so, how old do believe the earth to be and why?

The Earth is 32 years old. When I first observed it the infinitude of possible universes that exist as the Schrodinger wave equation collapsed into a single observable reality.

So. You just throwing that out there to see who the BS artists are, or what? Because, I consider even the knowledge of the existence of the Schrodinger equation coupled with such a flagrant incomprehension of it dubious.

The equation is a series of variables as they relate to physical constants that essentially describe the relationship between potential and kinetic energy as they radiate from an object in movement (although the equation measures each relationship at a given inertial frame, or more accurately, stationary state. The waveform is an expression of each stationary state placed side-by-side in chronological order, so that it produces in image of energy emission and containment fluctuations derived from a series of the same equation slightly alterned in the same way still images can be arranged to produce cartoons.

Or, you could have just been being funny.

In which case, yeah, it was kind of funny.

But, since you probably know about the SWE, and I doubt anyone on this site is retarded enough to believe that the entire planet is younger than we know humanity to be, I'd like to talk about that instead. ^_^
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 11:18:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
But, since you probably know about the SWE, and I doubt anyone on this site is retarded enough to believe that the entire planet is younger than we know humanity to be, I'd like to talk about that instead. ^_^:

The earth is 6,000 yrs old, yet Gobekli Tepe is twice the age. Amazing! ^_^

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 3:34:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 3:07:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
I think the user nickthengineer believed in YEC and a literal interpretation of Genesis.:

What is the generally accepted timeframe of the earth for most Muslims?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 4:42:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't believe that the Earth is truly "young" but I believe it is younger than some people think it is.

I don't believe anything can retain any sort of form for MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years. Everything on Earth would be dust. It'd be like the moon if it were that old.

I'd say the Earth is a few million years old but that's just my gut feeling (and this has nothing to do with creationism either).

Think about it, we can barely find anything from a few thousand years ago (i.e many truly ancient ruins are gone), I highly doubt the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 4:55:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm a Young Earth Creationist.

However, I don't believe the earth is merely 6-10,000 years old, as most YEC's claim. After all, human society stretches back for much longer than that. I believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age not because He was trying to be deceiving, but simply because the universe had to have been created as aged in order for our species to survive. I don't see any theological reason why God would have taken millions of years to create us, but I see theological reasons why God would have created the earth in six days.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 4:59:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 4:42:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't believe that the Earth is truly "young" but I believe it is younger than some people think it is.

I don't believe anything can retain any sort of form for MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years. Everything on Earth would be dust. It'd be like the moon if it were that old.:

Dust? Why?

Think about it, we can barely find anything from a few thousand years ago (i.e many truly ancient ruins are gone), I highly doubt the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old.:

You know red blood cells and soft tissue was found on a T-Rex bone not that long ago, and it was carbon dated at like 70 million years.

As for things like fauna, the oldest known tree is about 9,000 years old (older than even the Methuselah tree), which is really old for organic matter.

As for things like mountains, they rise and fall through processes like subduction. What you see on earth today is seldom what was on the surface way back when.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 5:01:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Bible says the world was made in 7 days, so it was made in 7 days (:
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 5:03:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 4:59:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/21/2012 4:42:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't believe that the Earth is truly "young" but I believe it is younger than some people think it is.

I don't believe anything can retain any sort of form for MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years. Everything on Earth would be dust. It'd be like the moon if it were that old.:

Dust? Why?

Think about it, we can barely find anything from a few thousand years ago (i.e many truly ancient ruins are gone), I highly doubt the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old.:

You know red blood cells and soft tissue was found on a T-Rex bone not that long ago, and it was carbon dated at like 70 million years.

As for things like fauna, the oldest known tree is about 9,000 years old (older than even the Methuselah tree), which is really old for organic matter.

As for things like mountains, they rise and fall through processes like subduction. What you see on earth today is seldom what was on the surface way back when.

Well carbon dating has proven to be wildly inaccurate to the point of almost being a bust.

Like I said, I can believe a few million years maybe even a couple dozen just not the hundreds of millions and billions of years that scientists try to claim.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 5:06:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 4:55:56 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I'm a Young Earth Creationist.

However, I don't believe the earth is merely 6-10,000 years old, as most YEC's claim. After all, human society stretches back for much longer than that. I believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age not because He was trying to be deceiving, but simply because the universe had to have been created as aged in order for our species to survive.:

Why is the deception of age vital to a species survival?

I don't see any theological reason why God would have taken millions of years to create us, but I see theological reasons why God would have created the earth in six days.:

But how about scientific reasons to assume it's hokum?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 5:08:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I always assumed, even as a little child, that the 7 "days" mentioned in the Bible were actually 7 periods of time--7 sections to the creation of life and the Universe. I was super surprised when my father went through his Christian phase and they started teaching us at Church that it was literally 7 days.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 5:22:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
dumb guys who said the earth is 6000 years old, so they must be right duh!
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 5:54:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 3:34:23 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/21/2012 3:07:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
I think the user nickthengineer believed in YEC and a literal interpretation of Genesis.:

What is the generally accepted timeframe of the earth for most Muslims?
None. Anything that agrees with science is acceptable. The age of the earth was never a major discussion among Muslim scholars as far as I'm aware.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 6:29:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 5:22:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:
dumb guys who said the earth is 6000 years old, so they must be right duh!

You are not adding to the discussion. Look up the term "strawman argument."
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 6:35:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 5:06:37 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/21/2012 4:55:56 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
I'm a Young Earth Creationist.

However, I don't believe the earth is merely 6-10,000 years old, as most YEC's claim. After all, human society stretches back for much longer than that. I believe that God created the universe with the appearance of age not because He was trying to be deceiving, but simply because the universe had to have been created as aged in order for our species to survive.:

Why is the deception of age vital to a species survival?

I don't see any theological reason why God would have taken millions of years to create us, but I see theological reasons why God would have created the earth in six days.:

But how about scientific reasons to assume it's hokum?

The deception of age is not vital, the age of the universe is. For instance, if the 13.7 billion year figure is accurate then there was a lot of time when humans could not exist in this universe and on the Earth. So creating the universe as is was essential and in order for it to be working properly, everything had to be created as is.

I have an interest in science, but I'm not a scientist so I really can't "prove" my belief in this correct (although I'm familiar with what scientists believe about the universe). I'm not saying scientists are wrong, necessarily, because the universe appears to be as old as scientists say it is. And God isn't being deceitful because He's told us how old the universe is, despite how old it appears to be.

I can give one example off the top of my head, stars. If stars had been placed too close together, the gravitational forces would have torn the universe apart. They had to be set far apart. Genesis tells us that God gave us the stars for seasons, for signs, for direction, etc. So obviously we had to be able to see the stars, so God created them with their light already "in transit," visible from Earth.

We also have precedent in Scripture for this. Adam and Eve were created as fully-functioning adults, though only a few seconds old. Additionally, when Jesus turned water into wine, He changed it at the molecular level. It wasn't watered down, it was the good stuff.

Science, as wonderful as it is and as helpful as it is for understanding the world and universe around us, is not the be-all and end-all of knowledge. It can be wrong, and it has been wrong in the past. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins will tell you there are questions science has not been able to answer, and probably will not (like why we must die). There are some questions only philosophy or theology can answer.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 7:03:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 5:03:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/21/2012 4:59:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/21/2012 4:42:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't believe that the Earth is truly "young" but I believe it is younger than some people think it is.

I don't believe anything can retain any sort of form for MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years. Everything on Earth would be dust. It'd be like the moon if it were that old.:

Dust? Why?

Think about it, we can barely find anything from a few thousand years ago (i.e many truly ancient ruins are gone), I highly doubt the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old.:

You know red blood cells and soft tissue was found on a T-Rex bone not that long ago, and it was carbon dated at like 70 million years.

As for things like fauna, the oldest known tree is about 9,000 years old (older than even the Methuselah tree), which is really old for organic matter.

As for things like mountains, they rise and fall through processes like subduction. What you see on earth today is seldom what was on the surface way back when.

Well carbon dating has proven to be wildly inaccurate to the point of almost being a bust.

Like I said, I can believe a few million years maybe even a couple dozen just not the hundreds of millions and billions of years that scientists try to claim.

Just being picky, but:

Carbon dating is only useful in the tens of thousands of years. It would tell you nothing about a dinosaur.

Radiometric dating using other particles are useful for things in the millions and billions of years.

For instance, Uranium-lead has a half-life of 4.47 billion years.

Carbon's halflife is a little under 6,000 years.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 7:13:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've found a very quick way to shut up YECers.

All they need to do is agree to the following statements:

1. The speed of light is constant (with possibly MINOR variations)
2. The visible universe (from earth's vantage) includes objects within at least 10,000 lightyears (wild underestimation, I know).
3. Light comes from a source; it does not appear ex nihilo

Argument:

Light that reaches our planet must come from some material source like a supernova, a sun, some sort of source which sends light to earth.

If the universe suddenly came into being in full form, then it would take at least 1,000 years before humans could look into the night sky and see any plane/sun that is 1,000 lightyears away.

The only way, then, to account for the night sky under YEC is that EVERY sun, planet, supernova, black hole, etc MUST be within about 10,000 lightyears of earth or it is IMPOSSIBLE that we'd see them.

The only way to justify this 10,000 lightyear wide universe is by breaking almost every known law of physics (denying the existence of red-shift, gravitational pull as a mean to calculate orbits, radiowave asymmetries, etc).

So, YECs, either the universe is 10,000 lightyears wide (destroying everything we know about physics and astronomy) or the universe is older than 10,000 years.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 7:33:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 5:03:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 3/21/2012 4:59:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/21/2012 4:42:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't believe that the Earth is truly "young" but I believe it is younger than some people think it is.

I don't believe anything can retain any sort of form for MILLIONS or BILLIONS of years. Everything on Earth would be dust. It'd be like the moon if it were that old.:

Dust? Why?

Think about it, we can barely find anything from a few thousand years ago (i.e many truly ancient ruins are gone), I highly doubt the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old.:

You know red blood cells and soft tissue was found on a T-Rex bone not that long ago, and it was carbon dated at like 70 million years.

As for things like fauna, the oldest known tree is about 9,000 years old (older than even the Methuselah tree), which is really old for organic matter.

As for things like mountains, they rise and fall through processes like subduction. What you see on earth today is seldom what was on the surface way back when.

Well carbon dating has proven to be wildly inaccurate to the point of almost being a bust.

No it hasn't. What has happened is people have deliberately used Carbon Dating in ways it was not meant to be used and outside of its intended scope and then used the nonsensical results in a dishonest attempt to discredit it as a valid method of dating. It'd be like trying to measure the circumference of a bb pellet with a yard stick and then, when you get a wildly inaccurate result, declare yard sticks to be universally "a bust."


Like I said, I can believe a few million years maybe even a couple dozen just not the hundreds of millions and billions of years that scientists try to claim.

And I believe the follow-up questions were intended to try and get you to explain, in more detail, why you believe that.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 7:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 4:42:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I'd say the Earth is a few million years old but that's just my gut feeling (and this has nothing to do with creationism either).

Careful with applying gut instinct to this sort of thing.

If I folded a piece of paper 50 times, how high do you think it would be?

Four inches? Four feet?

The answer is: a little less than 93 MILLION MILES.

Which do you have a harder time believing? That millions of years are really billions, or that folding a piece of paper that many times reaches the sun?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2012 7:43:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 7:38:55 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 3/21/2012 4:42:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I'd say the Earth is a few million years old but that's just my gut feeling (and this has nothing to do with creationism either).

Careful with applying gut instinct to this sort of thing.

If I folded a piece of paper 50 times, how high do you think it would be?

Four inches? Four feet?

The answer is: a little less than 93 MILLION MILES.

Which do you have a harder time believing? That millions of years are really billions, or that folding a piece of paper that many times reaches the sun?

It amazes me the degree to which people refuse to accept (consciously) that the world, as it truly is, as as counterintuitive as counterintuitive gets.

Computers would not work if not for the principles of quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics basically says that our "gut instinct" is the worst measure of anything scientific, ever.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:46:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 5:03:44 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Well carbon dating has proven to be wildly inaccurate to the point of almost being a bust.

Show the peer-reviewed scientific study disproving carbon dating, or make amends for bearing false witness, please. Kthx.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 2:57:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/21/2012 7:03:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
Just being picky, but:

Carbon dating is only useful in the tens of thousands of years. It would tell you nothing about a dinosaur.


Its a common mis-conception that, unfortunately, has been repeated a great deal in this thread that dinosaurs and other paleontological remains can be or are radiometrically dated.

Inorganic radioactive materials such as Uranium are useless for dating life, as they are not created by life as the radioactive carbon isotopes (such as Carbon-14) are. Volcanoes can melt and carry uranium to the surface and deposit it, but that does not 'start the timer' so to speak; the timer on that uranium's radiometric decay was already running even when that uranium was far from reaching the surface.

The only real means we have for estimating the age of, say, dinosaur bones we find is Stratigraphy. Stratigraphy is inherently much less inaccurate than carbon dating, but it has been studied extensively over 300 years and served as the basis for the advent of geology; for it to be wrong, our basic understanding of geology and derivative sciences (vulcanology, plate tectonics, etc.) would also have to be wrong. It best fits what we know, and many scientists have been dedicated to the field for centuries.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2012 5:07:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd say there's a difference between Young Earth creationism and Young Universe creationism.

While I'm sure you can find plenty of theists who'll claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old, all of the evidence is against that (as I'm sure we can all agree).

Furthermore, there's a gap in Genesis when God created light and when God mentions that the earth is without form. For all we know, there could have been a 14 billion time difference between when God created the universe and when he created earth. (The bible does mention that the earth was without form, so this would correlate to how planets and stars are formed from clumps of dust running into each other, gaining gravitational pull, and then forming planets).

So we have billion year old materials. I think this is where modern science can go wrong. From what I've read scientists most generally date fossils based on the rock around them. Ignoring the discrepancies in K-Ar dating and other radiometric dating methods, those dates could be relatively accurate. So the formation of that rock very well could be billions of years old, but that doesn't necessarily mean the fossils trapped in the rock are billions/millions of years old, catch my drift?

Personally, I'm a Young Biological Life creationist. Whether the earth itself was formed billions of years ago or not is irrelevant to me.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"