Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Sir Hamilton]

See there Danmark? Good thing that it did ask I thought he was talking about scholars who think the universe is 14 billion years old. Ok goat, here are two Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb. These two guys authored the Genesis Flood. Great book and you should check it out.These are "young earth creationists" who make some excellent scientific points and I tend to lean towards a young earth. But there are also "old earth creationists" such as Dr. Hugh Ross who believes that the universe is about 14 billion years old and the earth is about 4 billion years old. He makes some excellent points as well. If you would open your mind and take the time to read a little of their work then you might learn something new.

Morris and Whitcomb? Even they admit they are likely to be wrong on their 'science,' and admit that one way or the other the Bible is their guide:

From their 'Preface to the Sixth Printing:'
"... the real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters."

"When and if legitimate weaknesses or mistakes are pointed out, we hope that we shall be willing to acknowledge and revise them. As we have tried repeatedly to stress in the book, our specific discussions of individual geologic problems are tentative and subject to continuing re-evaluation with further study, but these problems do not, and cannot be allowed, to raise questions concerning the basic framework of biblical revelation within which they must be understood."

Part of their claim is based on God being deliberately deceitful by planting evidence to mislead people into thinking the Earth is old. The book is absolute rubbish.

I was asked to name two scholars that believed in a young Earth. There are more would you like more names? As for 'rubbish' that is your opinion as it is my opinion that the "science" that supports abiogenesis and evolution is complete rubbish.

[Danmark]

....These are "young earth creationists" who make some excellent scientific points and I tend to lean towards a young earth. But there are also "old earth creationists" such as Dr. Hugh Ross who believes that the universe is about 14 billion years old and the earth is about 4 billion years old. He makes some excellent points as well. If you would open your mind and take the time to read a little of their work then you might learn something new.

Your opinion on the age of the Earth appears to have a range of about 4 billion years, from 6000 to 4 billion. This range in your opinion is a bit wide, so wide in fact as to be essentially meaningless. I take it then that your opinion about the age of the earth, as well as other matters of science is whether or not the data and conclusions of science support or contradict the Bible. Is that fairly said?

[Sir Hamilton]

I know of some scholars that believe the Earth is 6000 years old...don't know of any that believe the Earth is flat do you?

I don't know of any scholars who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Having a fake PhD (or even a real one) and working for a creationist propaganda organization does not make someone a "scholar." There have been no -- I repeat, NO -- peer-reviewed scientific studies claiming a young Earth.

And if by "scholar" you mean "anyone with a website," there are quite a few "scholars" who believe in a flat Earth.

Can you believe that some scholars actually think that the Earth is around 4 billion years old??

Yes, because there is actual evidence for this. Years of geological, biological, and astronomical study have pointed to this conclusion (and it's actually 4.5 billion, not 4 billion).

Ok goat, here are two Dr. Henry Morris

The late Dr. Henry Morris had a PhD in industrial engineering, which is completely irrelevant to the disciplines of geology, biology, and astronomy, which are crucial to determining the age of the Earth. Simply having a PhD doesn't make you an expert in everything, it only makes you an expert in one little thing. My master's degree and PhD studies (I'm still in school) in sociology don't give me expertise in, say, medieval literature, and it would be irresponsible of me to claim to be a "scholar" in that field.

Dr. John Whitcomb.

Dr. John Whitcomb doesn't have a PhD at all, but a doctorate in theology from a fundamentalist seminary. He has absolutely zero formal training in any area of science. He's hardly a "scholar" in anything but evangelical dogma.

These two guys authored the Genesis Flood. Great book and you should check it out.

I really don't want to beat this dead horse again, but the Genesis flood (assuming they're interpreting it literally) is both physically impossible and completely unevidenced. A wooden boat of that size wouldn't be structurally sound (something engineer Morris should have known), there would have been nowhere for the water to go after the flood, all the animals could not have fit on the boat, many of the animals would have required specialized habitats and diets to survive (which couldn't have been provided on the ark), two (or seven) animals are not enough of a genetic base to found a population, all plant life would have been destroyed in the flood (due to both the force of the floodwaters and the destruction of the soil by salt water, among other things), and last but not least there is zero physical evidence that such a thing ever occurred. The flood is an ancient myth, nothing more.

For more reading on why a literal interpretation of the flood is nonsense:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

These are "young earth creationists" who make some excellent scientific points.

Then why are none of them -- none -- published in any scientific journal? Could it be that their creationist pseudoscience, which has no evidence to back it up, has no scientific merit and therefore could not pass peer review?

Actually if you would take the time to read and study their book they make excellent points showing just how the Flood was possible and the Ark was indeed structurally sound. So you don't like these two guys because they are not qualified enough for you? Would you like more names of scholars? I find it rather naïve and stupid to just call the Flood a myth...considering almost every culture throughout the world have a Flood tradition story. You are absolutely correct your Master's in Sociology doesn't qualify you in this field of study. All you know is what you read in a science book or what some teacher has told you and you decided to believe them.

[Haven]

Actually if you would take the time to read and study their book they make excellent points showing just how the Flood was possible and the Ark was indeed structurally sound.

I've read and studied every creationist argument under the sky, and I've been convinced by none. They all make serious logical errors and misrepresent the available evidence.

The Ark was not structurally sound. It is physically impossible for a wooden boat of those proportions to hold up under the stress of actual sailing. Recently, a Dutch evangelical built an exact replica of the Ark, and he had to use steel reinforcement to hold the boat together . . . and that is WITH modern technology. The Ark could not have existed.

So you don't like these two guys because they are not qualified enough for you? Would you like more names of scholars?

I don't care about the argument from authority, it's a logical fallacy. I want evidence, and creationists have none.

I find it rather naïve and stupid to just call the Flood a myth...considering almost every culture throughout the world have a Flood tradition story.

I haven't just called the flood story a myth, I've concluded it to be a myth based on the available evidence. There's a difference there.

Many cultures have flood myths . . . this proves creationism how?

You are absolutely correct your Master's in Sociology doesn't qualify you in this field of study. All you know is what you read in a science book or what some teacher has told you and you decided to believe them.

I haven't claimed to be an expert in the natural sciences, unlike these creationists you've mentioned. Also, I have studied these issues on my own, so I'm not just "believing" something I've read in a science textbook.

[Goat]

I would say that the majority of Christian scholars would come to different conclusions than the majority of non-Christian scholars wouldn't they? This could apply to scientific studies as well. . . .

That is why so many of them think the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old.

I know of some scholars that believe the Earth is 6000 years old...don't know of any that believe the Earth is flat do you? Can you believe that some scholars actually think that the Earth is around 4 billion years old?? And some even think that there was some magical explosion some 14 billion years ago that formed the universe! Crazy isn't it?

You actually know someone who thinks there was a magical explosion some 14 billion years ago? WOW! Oh you probably mean a fundy, yeah they just can't wrap their heads around science at all. Sorry to interrupt.

Oh no....you can interrupt this is an open discussion...please continue...you do have a point don't you?

Would you care to present the evidence they have, and equally important, show why their interpretation of the evidence is rational?

Please be a little more clear on who "they" is and what you are asking and I will try to get back to you tomorrow.

The 'scholars' who say the world is 6000 years old (if they actually can be considered 'scholars'

See there Danmark? Good thing that it did ask I thought he was talking about scholars who think the universe is 14 billion years old. Ok goat, here are two Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb. These two guys authored the Genesis Flood. Great book and you should check it out.These are "young earth creationists" who make some excellent scientific points and I tend to lean towards a young earth. But there are also "old earth creationists" such as Dr. Hugh Ross who believes that the universe is about 14 billion years old and the earth is about 4 billion years old. He makes some excellent points as well. If you would open your mind and take the time to read a little of their work then you might learn something new.

Let's take a look at first 'Henry Morris'. Why do you think he is a 'scholar' when it comes to being able to understand the age of the earth. His college discipline was 'engineering'. As far as I can see, that does not make him a scientist that would be able to determine the age of the earth. Learning how to pipe water from one place to another does not make you an authority on geology, physics, or anything like that.

As a matter of fact, there are Christians that will say he had deception on his 'fellow Christians'.

http://searchingfortruthwithabrokenflas ... ption.html


Now, let's take a look at Dr. John Whitcomb. He is a theologian.. He might be a 'scholar' when it comes to religion, but.. well.. appealing to him about the phyiscal world is the logical fallacy known as 'appeal to authority'. He is giving a presumption based on a belief.. but to call him a 'scholar' is pushing it (unless you want to call him a scholar of a very small minority religious belief).

Using those people to say anything about the 'age of the earth' is, well, just pure down right deceptive.

[Sir Hamilton]

Actually if you would take the time to read and study their book they make excellent points showing just how the Flood was possible and the Ark was indeed structurally sound.

I've read and studied every creationist argument under the sky, and I've been convinced by none. They all make serious logical errors and misrepresent the available evidence.

The Ark was not structurally sound. It is physically impossible for a wooden boat of those proportions to hold up under the stress of actual sailing. Recently, a Dutch evangelical built an exact replica of the Ark, and he had to use steel reinforcement to hold the boat together . . . and that is WITH modern technology. The Ark could not have existed.

So you don't like these two guys because they are not qualified enough for you? Would you like more names of scholars?

I don't care about the argument from authority, it's a logical fallacy. I want evidence, and creationists have none.

I find it rather naïve and stupid to just call the Flood a myth...considering almost every culture throughout the world have a Flood tradition story.

I haven't just called the flood story a myth, I've concluded it to be a myth based on the available evidence. There's a difference there.

Many cultures have flood myths . . . this proves creationism how?

You are absolutely correct your Master's in Sociology doesn't qualify you in this field of study. All you know is what you read in a science book or what some teacher has told you and you decided to believe them.

I haven't claimed to be an expert in the natural sciences, unlike these creationists you've mentioned. Also, I have studied these issues on my own, so I'm not just "believing" something I've read in a science textbook.

You have studied these issues on your own?? But you are not qualified as you say these creationists are not qualified. Listen...you haven't done anything but listen to some professor or read some text book or read something on the internet and you decided that you believed them. Nothing to you but hearsay and you just believed it didn't you? You didn't experience any of this "science" first hand. You don't have anymore evidence than I have to support your beliefs. As I worked on my Biology degree many years ago I found the "science" of Darwin and other evolutionists to be basically nonsense and wishful thinking.

[Goat]

You have studied these issues on your own?? But you are not qualified as you say these creationists are not qualified. Listen...you haven't done anything but listen to some professor or read some text book or read something on the internet and you decided that you believed them. Nothing to you but hearsay and you just believed it didn't you? You didn't experience any of this "science" first hand. You don't have anymore evidence than I have to support your beliefs. As I worked on my Biology degree many years ago I found the "science" of Darwin and other evolutionists to be basically nonsense and wishful thinking.

Yet, when it comes to professors, and text books, they are a MUCH better authority that some water engineer, or some theologian. I would much rather listen to someone who actually DID things in the field. Many of the college classes when it comes to geology also have FIELD work you have to do. There is evidence that is presented... and, it is not very difficult to go to some of those sites and do the work yourself.

It is not that difficult to go and do some field work, and discover for yourself that the claims of Henry Morris are inaccurate.

Now, it appears to me from what you said that you went into your class with a lot of preconceptions.. and honestly.. Darwin is not really discussed in biology classes these days, unless it's a really low level one where they are taking about it at a 90,000 feet level, and more historical than anything else.

I notice , except for appeals to authority, and disparaging remarks about evolution, well, you have not actually PRESENTED any evidence.

That's one of the things about evidence. It's things that can be presented that can be examined by others. It doesn't matter WHO presents it. Then, comes the argument based on the evidence... and it can be shown to either be inaccurate, or missing information that refutes that interpretation, or it can be shown to be plausible.

The people who you put out there as people giving evidence can be shown to have opinions about the evidence that are not plausible.

When it comes to paleontology and evolution, not only do they present evidence, they present the convergence of evidence from multiple disciplines. I can show you how fossils change over time... and use the dating methods used by physics and geology , which often have multiple methods that JUST so happen to give the same date when dating items. The methods can be explained, and independently confirmed.

Now, other than appeal to authority, do you have actual EVIDENCE that is 'public knowledge' that you can show me, and explain to me how the conclusions that are reached with this 'evidence' are supported?

[Danmark]

I was asked to name two scholars that believed in a young Earth. There are more would you like more names? As for 'rubbish' that is your opinion as it is my opinion that the "science" that supports abiogenesis and evolution is complete rubbish.

Actually, what I'd like, instead of more names of non scientists or others writing outside their fields 50 years ago would be actual scientific arguments against the scientific process and findings that all agree on an earth that is 4.5 billion years old. The sciences that all support each other to come to this conclusion are varied. Young Earth creationism opposes the theory of evolution and theories in the fields of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, climatology, dendrochronology and others.

To rebut this you offer a 50 year old book by Whitcomb, who was not a scientist. In fact when 'Whitcomb set about preparing his dissertation for publication, and sought somebody with a PhD in science to check or write the chapters on the scientific aspects of the flood, but found himself unable to find any "Ph.D.s in geology today who take Genesis 6-9 seriously." '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Whitcomb

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 2587 by Danmark]

Yes, what I got out of Krauss is that what he calls 'nothing' is very different from what a philosopher would call 'nothing.'

Stephan Hawking says that philosophy is no longer necessary. It has been replaced by science. I came to the same conclusion decades ago. We no longer have to ruminate about the workings of the universe. Now we ask questions and then actually go out and get the answers.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 2613 by Tired of the Nonsense]

You say you are tired of nonsense and then you repeat nonsense like science like replace philosophy. That is nonsense because science will never have the scope to replace philosophy.