A challenge to creationists

[rikuoamero]

Here is a challenge to creationists, particularly of the young earth variety.

Provide scientific evidence that the earth is actually young, and was created by a creator.
However, here is where it gets interesting.
From what I've seen over the years, creationists start their quote unquote investigations already believing creationism to be true and interpret any data gathered In that light.
This time around, pretend that you live in a world where the idea or concept of YEC is unknown. No-one to date has thought up the idea.
Now pretend you're going out to look at the world. What data do you or can you gather that would indicate YEC, that would strongly indicate in that direction, that do not require an acceptance of the bible and YEC beforehand?

[1213]

...
Who knows, maybe this had been done before, but to survive the ice ages, man had to burn all his books for warmth!

Yeah, I believe writing is important, but I don’t see any good explanation, why not earlier. Why people didn’t have this development right at the first 6000 years, when they were basically allegedly as able to make it then.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 50 by 1213]

So, err, you focus on the glib portion of the statement so you can ignore the rest and maintain your old opinion?

Don't you think that is a weird form of denial?
I mean I pointed out why mankind only was able to develop significant technology in the last 6000 years.

If we look up the last ice age, it ended about 10,000 years ago, so there is pretty good reason to believe mankind was hanging on by a thread.

Mankind started to blossom when resources were available to settle, make paper, etc..
See I am able to learn something, you?

[1213]

If we look up the last ice age, it ended about 10,000 years ago, so there is pretty good reason to believe mankind was hanging on by a thread.

Did the ice age last over 190000 years? If not, I think my point is still valid, if there was before ice age non-ice age.

[Clownboat]

The problem is not the method itself, but the assumptions that are made when people interpret the results. Results are based on certain assumptions that are made with the biased taught that things must be old, because evolution theory collapses, if it is not so.

If evolution was shown to be untrue, that would not bother me. I do not need evolution to be true.

Believers however cannot say the same thing about their favorite god concept. They need that god to be true and are bothered when shown that their preferred god concept is not needed to explain things.

You have a need to interpret things to fit your god concept. I and others do not have this need to interpret things to fit with evolution. Face it, if evolution is false, I'm not losing out on some after life. The same is not true for religious people. They have motive to interpret things to fit their agenda.

Calling evolution a religion or faith based is just a poor attempt to level a clearly un-level playing field.

[1213]

Believers however cannot say the same thing about their favorite god concept. They need that god to be true…

Why would I need God to be true, please explain? And please notice, I know my self probably better than you know, so it is not reasonable to tell lies.

…and are bothered when shown that their preferred god concept is not needed to explain things.

It would be interesting to see that. No atheist has ever shown that. Usually only things they have to offer is lies or misleading interpretations that are loosely based on words they have heard sometime in the past.

You have a need to interpret things to fit your god concept.

Really, I don’t have any need to interpret things. I can accept things as they are. Usually it is the atheist who offer interpretations to me and I have to reject them, when there is no good reason to believe them.

[Clownboat]

Believers however cannot say the same thing about their favorite god concept. They need that god to be true…

Why would I need God to be true, please explain? And please notice, I know my self probably better than you know, so it is not reasonable to tell lies.

Are you looking forward to a paradise in heaven? If so, then you need your favorite god concept to be true.

…and are bothered when shown that their preferred god concept is not needed to explain things.

It would be interesting to see that.

This forum is all the evidence you need. Also, the same part of the brain lights up when a person discusses their favorite football team for example compared to when discussing a persons favorite god concept.

No atheist has ever shown that. Usually only things they have to offer is lies or misleading interpretations that are loosely based on words they have heard sometime in the past.

Why bring up atheists? Perhaps you think I'm an atheist and that muddying the waters will help your cause? If so, you will need to try another route I'm afraid.

You have a need to interpret things to fit your god concept.

Really, I don’t have any need to interpret things. I can accept things as they are. Usually it is the atheist who offer interpretations to me and I have to reject them, when there is no good reason to believe them.

Do you not need your god concept to be true in order for you to receive your promised afterlife? Since your god concept comes with afterlife claims, you do in fact need to interpret things to fit your god concept in order to go on believing that you will receive said afterlife promise.

[1213]

Are you looking forward to a paradise in heaven? If so, then you need your favorite god concept to be true.

Actually, Bible tells eternal life is for righteous. I don’t think I am righteous enough to heaven. So, no hope there for me. And even if I would believe I go to heaven, it would be hope that God is real, not need.

Why bring up atheists? Perhaps you think I'm an atheist and that muddying the waters will help your cause? If so, you will need to try another route I'm afraid.

Ok, sorry. I think atheist is basically person who is against God, and you seem to be. But, even if it would be so, it was not necessary to speak about you, sorry.

[Willum]

If we look up the last ice age, it ended about 10,000 years ago, so there is pretty good reason to believe mankind was hanging on by a thread.

Did the ice age last over 190000 years? If not, I think my point is still valid, if there was before ice age non-ice age.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
If people were living like animals just to be able to survive, they didn't have the will, food or materials to write it down and progress. In addition to other factors.
An analogy might be if we suffered one of those massive sun flares and all our tech was destroyed over night.

But if your attitude will be to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, well there you are.

[Clownboat]

Are you looking forward to a paradise in heaven? If so, then you need your favorite god concept to be true.

Actually, Bible tells eternal life is for righteous.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.
1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
1 John 2:17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.
John 4:14 But whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.�
1 Timothy 1:16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.
And on and on...

I don't doubt that you can find a scripture that backs up your claim, but that is just part of the nature of this book, picking and choosing verses to make the religion conform to your desires. As I have shown, righteousness does not need to be a requirement for eternal life.

Any Christian believer that wants eternal life, necessarily has a need for this religion to be true. Contrast that with evolution. If evolution is shown to be false, who cares? There is no baggage or empty promises going with the current evidence that shows evolution to be a viable explanation.

[1213]

If people were living like animals just to be able to survive, they didn't have the will, food or materials to write it down and progress. In addition to other factors.

But why did the “living like animals� end about 6000 years ago, but not 200 000 years ago, or 100 000 years ago? I have understood that ice age didn’t last that long and even if there were massive sun flares, they don’t destroy all signs of intelligent people. I understand that catastrophes can destroy a lot, but even then, there should be signs of things that were.

When only “proof� for great age is the radiometric dating, the long age is quite difficult belief for me to believe.