Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's fine. I have no qualms with that. Who creates the scientific measures that humans use? Humans. I don't claim to have any answers about time, or anything like that, or how long the world has existed. My mind can't comprehend that there was nothing, then there was something, any more than it can answer the question 'who created God.' So I'm happy enough not to convince myself that there is a definitive age of the earth, or that we have somehow found a magic formula to calculate it perfectly. if other people want to accept those measures, it doesn't bother me. I'm happy enough not to, though.
On what basis woud you not accept what virtually every field of science has concluded? Is there any evidence at all to support a young earth creation? If not, why would you entertain the idea that it was true?
The branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism are numerous - containing practically all of known science but most notably these sciences are biology (the theory of evolution and palaeontology), astronomy (starlight problem), geology (volcanic formation, sedimentation, plate tectonics) amongst others.
The evidence against a recent creation is overwhelming.
I believe in what we have been able observe, what we have recorded. I can’t explain it any simpler.
Science knows to an absolute of 100%I do. At least to an extent, anyway. I don't claim to know how old the earth is, how long ago anything became extinct, but no one else can reasonably make that claim either because we quite simply do not know. We can use tools, testing methods, all sorts of things to get an idea or an estimate but at the end of it all, no one really knows with certainty do they.
Yes but that is a failing with your mind, not the scienceThat's fine. I have no qualms with that. Who creates the scientific measures that humans use? Humans. I don't claim to have any answers about time, or anything like that, or how long the world has existed. My mind can't comprehend that there was nothing, then there was something, any more than it can answer the question 'who created God.' So I'm happy enough not to convince myself that there is a definitive age of the earth, or that we have somehow found a magic formula to calculate it perfectly. if other people want to accept those measures, it doesn't bother me. I'm happy enough not to, though.
Well I'm not an expert on carbon dating so I'm not going to pretend
but I know that layering and things like that are used in some cases for estimating how long certain geographical or geological structures took to form but those methods don't allow for things like natural disasters
ie. something like Mount St Helens took a few hours to create the sort of geographical features that would by most scientific conventions take thousands or millions of years to form naturally.
Next time I'll just try and maintain a pretense that I know everything about everything and not preface anything I say with any context.
What context? In one breathe you're not an expert in geology; in the next you know that geologist don't account for natural disasters when doing their work...
And to conclude you assert that Mount St. Helens is an example of a geological formation that happened in a few hours...
I think when discussing facts and empirical evidence - respect is earned.
What was the point of the tabernacle being built in exodus? Like the details latter pages of 20+ chapter. So boring. Got very boring reading that.
It was so the Israelites would have somewhere to kill animals and splash the blood around so the fickle and perfidious storm god wouldn't punish them all for coveting each others donkeys. As tents go it was pretty flash, and they were very proud of it.
That's the problem. A matter of fact should not be something one believes.I believe in what we have been able observe, what we have recorded. I can’t explain it any simpler.
And yes, there were canyons formed from the Mount St Helens eruption that happened rapidly.
Do you think that geologist don't have processes that can determine if geological formations are created rapidly or gradually?
That's the problem. A matter of fact should not be something one believes.
You don't read much at all do you?That's the thing though. At the core of every system of belief/knowledge/whatever you want to call it, there has to be some level of belief. No one can explain how something came from nothing. The big bang had to have an origin. Something had to create it. What created it? No one knows. So even those most tightly bound by facts, figures, and science, cannot explain some aspects of what drives their conviction.
Science can explain much. It can explain the name of the chemicals that go through my brain when my depression is triggered. What it can't explain, or treat, is why medicine makes no impact on that, but simply talking to my mum suddenly removes that. Yes I'm sure there would be some scientific link between the feelings of familiarity we get from a loved one, the security and all that but at the end of the day there is no test or computer program that can account for the basic human need. As Ricky from the Office once postulated in reference to Dostoyevski.
You don't read much at all do you?
See how religion keeps you ignorant (purposely so)
Try these and they will explain that thing that you incorrectly think no one has the answer to
Hawking
Hubble
Bondi
Gold
Hoyle
Penrose
Go on, you know you really want to be proved wrong, so just do it........READ
Here I'll start you off: "The notion of time only exists within our Universe"
There is a hypothesis that the Universe is eternal. That is the one I'd go with over an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, judgemental, participatory sky fairy.That's the thing though. At the core of every system of belief/knowledge/whatever you want to call it, there has to be some level of belief. No one can explain how something came from nothing. The big bang had to have an origin. Something had to create it. What created it? No one knows. So even those most tightly bound by facts, figures, and science, cannot explain some aspects of what drives their conviction.
Science can explain much. It can explain the name of the chemicals that go through my brain when my depression is triggered. What it can't explain, or treat, is why medicine makes no impact on that, but simply talking to my mum suddenly removes that. Yes I'm sure there would be some scientific link between the feelings of familiarity we get from a loved one, the security and all that but at the end of the day there is no test or computer program that can account for the basic human need. As Ricky from the Office once postulated in reference to Dostoyevski.
Really?That's the thing though. At the core of every system of belief/knowledge/whatever you want to call it, there has to be some level of belief.
I don't know how familiar you are with these kinds of discussions, but this is a God of the Gaps argument.No one can explain how something came from nothing. The big bang had to have an origin. Something had to create it. What created it? No one knows. So even those most tightly bound by facts, figures, and science, cannot explain some aspects of what drives their conviction.
Dostoevsky passed away in 1881; needless to say, science has come a ways since then.Science can explain much. It can explain the name of the chemicals that go through my brain when my depression is triggered. What it can't explain, or treat, is why medicine makes no impact on that, but simply talking to my mum suddenly removes that. Yes I'm sure there would be some scientific link between the feelings of familiarity we get from a loved one, the security and all that but at the end of the day there is no test or computer program that can account for the basic human need. As Ricky from the Office once postulated in reference to Dostoyevski.
Really?
Demonstrate this for me, if you can.
I don't know how familiar you are with these kinds of discussions, but this is a God of the Gaps argument.
Dostoevsky passed away in 1881; needless to say, science has come a ways since then.
And this, too, is a God of the Gaps argument. Here's a link, in case you're unfamiliar with it.
God of the gaps - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You have posted on this forum with a certain implication; all I have done is question your implication on this same forum. Forum's typically work by having two-way conversations.Not being a geologist, i don't know. Why does it bother you so much? Am I at your door with a torch and pitchfork trying to convert you?
You have posted on this forum with a certain implication; all I have done is question your implication on this same forum. Forum's typically work by having two-way conversations.
But I do understand your position somewhat - ignorance is bliss.