6 days Creation

[KiwiChristian]

Just now, one.opinion said:

I didn't read each of the points, but this one at the bottom of the page caught my eye. Even AiG says this is not a good argument.

https://answersingenesis.org/kids/astronomy/moon-dust-argument-no-longer-useful/

As Christians, we should be doubly-sure to use good arguments and facts.

And what makes AIG right? Ken Ham is wrong on many points and is not a young earth creationist.

 

I agree with your last comment.

[one.opinion]

27 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

And what makes AIG right?

Oh, I agree they are wrong about a LOT of stuff. But they are correct on this - the thickness of moon dust is a poor argument for a young earth. The link I posted will take you to an article that explains in quick detail why it is a poor argument.

29 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

Ken Ham is wrong on many points and is not a young earth creationist.

Ken Ham has been defending a 6,000 year old earth for decades. I'm curious why you state he is not a young earth creationist.

[KiwiChristian]

13 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Oh, I agree they are wrong about a LOT of stuff. But they are correct on this - the thickness of moon dust is a poor argument for a young earth. The link I posted will take you to an article that explains in quick detail why it is a poor argument.

Ken Ham has been defending a 6,000 year old earth for decades. I'm curious why you state he is not a young earth creationist.

Oops, i got the wrong person, i got ham mixed up with hugh ross, sorry.

Believe what you want.

[Kevinb]

12 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

16 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Faith based evidence?

No, evidence-based faith.

And yet you can't demonstrate a link..ie no evidence leading to it but assertion and analogy. You have evidence but the conclusion is faith that can't be link demonstrated.

12 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

More accurately, I have no evidence you would accept.

Seems that way. Leaps to faith only. 

12 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Faith is based on evidence in every context of our lives.  You exercise faith when you go to restaurant, drive a car, buy food at the grocery store.  We use faith all of the time, and all of it is based on evidence.

Biblical faith is just as much based on evidence, as well. 

Total Equivocation fallacy. 

I have faith my car will work when I start it you mean? I have a level of confidence based on evidence. For one my car exists. Confidence it will start because it started the last thousand times. My car is serviced based upon a garage that I can see carrying out the work. People who's qualifications are on the wall ..via a college I have seen as have others. How do I need to invoke the supernatural..that I couldn't demonstrate that breaks laws of nature? 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, Kevinb said:

And yet you can't demonstrate a link..ie no evidence leading to it but assertion and analogy. You have evidence but the conclusion is faith that can't be link demonstrated.

No, I have evidence.  But I can tell that it would be a waste of time to present it, as you have already demonstrated that you will reject it out of hand any way.   I simply have no evidence that you would accept.

Quote

Total Equivocation fallacy. 

I have faith my car will work when I start it you mean? I have a level of confidence based on evidence. For one my car exists. Confidence it will start because it started the last thousand times. My car is serviced based upon a garage that I can see carrying out the work. People who's qualifications are on the wall ..via a college I have seen as have others. How do I need to invoke the supernatural..that I couldn't demonstrate that breaks laws of nature? 

 

What I mean is this:   Would you drive or ride in a car if you had good reason to believe that the brakes of that car would work only 9 out of 10 times?  I don't think you would.  If, based on evidence, you had reason to believe that this car had brakes that would not work 100% of the time, you would not be in that car when it is moving.   

Your car is serviced and you place faith in the technicians who work on it. 

You place faith in the people at the restaurant who fix your food that they are not spitting in it or lacing it with some other substance.   And all of that is based on evidence from the past experiences you have had.

The Bible has an impeccable track record for being historically accurate and has never been proven wrong.  The Bible has not had to be updated to correct any error, because it possesses no error.   So I can fully trust based on the evidence that modern science and archeology keeps producing, that the Bible's account history and creation are true and accurate as written.

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

And what makes AIG right? Ken Ham is wrong on many points and is not a young earth creationist.

Ken Ham is the #1 defender of a young earth.  You apparently have not read his materials.  His organization, Answers in Genesis is the flagship of young earth creationism.

[Kevinb]

51 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

1 hour ago, Kevinb said:

And yet you can't demonstrate a link..ie no evidence leading to it but assertion and analogy. You have evidence but the conclusion is faith that can't be link demonstrated.

No, I have evidence.  But I can tell that it would be a waste of time to present it, as you have already demonstrated that you will reject it out of hand any way.   I simply have no evidence that you would accept.

You've only said stuff like God seems more likely..universe is intelligent... there has been no demonstrable link to God.. faith yes. Faith needed in the absence of evidence. Do you mean you have something else? I'll gladly read if you post. I don't dismiss stuff out of hand before reading it. 

51 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

What I mean is this:   Would you drive or ride in a car if you had good reason to believe that the brakes of that car would work only 9 out of 10 times?  I don't think you would.  If, based on evidence, you had reason to believe that this car had brakes that would not work 100% of the time, you would not be in that car when it is moving.   

Your car is serviced and you place faith in the technicians who work on it. 

If I had evidence that my brakes were dodgy 9 times outta 10. That might be I hear noises when I applied the brake.. others in the car experienced this... seemingly the braking didn't slow me as before. This is demonstrable and we can look and find a causal link. Yes I'd take my car to the garage. I have confidence in people mending it..i can see the people working on it..i can see qualifications. If they mend my car and it stops failing in this way this increases my confidence in them. This is all demonstrated. It's not blind faith that I couldn't demonstrate. That's why I maintain its not the same faith as you indicate. I can experience my brakes failing...others can verify this...i can investigate a causal link like my brake pad wear for example being the cause of my brake issue. Also that this brake pad wear could be verified by others. Please demonstrate Enoch being 800 plus...please demonstrate virgin birth...please demonstrate God made the planets...please demonstrate any God involvement like i could demonstrate failing brake causation and confidence... not faith because it's demonstrable. Surely you see the difference. I'm sure what I've said on my car is the same thing you do and would agree on. I just conduct everything this way.. no doubt you do. You just have different criteria when it comes to our origins. 

51 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

The Bible has an impeccable track record for being historically accurate and has never been proven wrong.  The Bible has not had to be updated to correct any error, because it possesses no error.   So I can fully trust based on the evidence that modern science and archeology keeps producing, that the Bible's account history and creation are true and accurate as written.

No errors. Do you believe in witches?  Thou say not suffer a witch to live. Don't eat shell fish.  Don't wear 2 types of fabric. Anyways more on the thread... the bible creation story. Science supports Adam and eve..a talking snake? Please demonstrate this...Enochs age? 

Edited September 12, 2017 by Kevinb

[one.opinion]

7 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

Oops, i got the wrong person, i got ham mixed up with hugh ross, sorry.

Believe what you want.

No problem, a great example of why we should check facts and study arguments that we propose.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Kevinb said:

You've only said stuff like God seems more likely..universe is intelligent... there has been no demonstrable link to God..

That would first require me to prove the existence of God, which I cannot.

Quote

faith yes. Faith needed in the absence of evidence.

Faith never happens in the absence of evidence.  I have evidence for God's existence, but no proof. I don't ever claim to be able to "prove" anything.

 

Quote

Do you mean you have something else? I'll gladly read if you post. I don't dismiss stuff out of hand before reading it. 

I have provided evidence, which you have ignored.  I am not going to keep re-posting and re-posting only for you to brush it off.   I posted a link from Hugh Ross, an professional astronomer and you ignored that.  I have posted about the way nature reveals an intelligence behind it, and instead of inquiring further you, more or less, just laughed it off.   I have no evidence that you will accept.  And I think we both know that.   It's not that I don't have evidence, but you will not accept what can be provided.  I have no incentive to go deeper into the evidence I have if I believe you will just wave it off.

 

Quote

If I had evidence that my brakes were dodgy 9 times outta 10. That might be I hear noises when I applied the brake.. others in the car experienced this... seemingly the braking didn't slow me as before.

That's not what I said.  I said your brakes worked fine 9 times out of 10.   But if you had reason to believe that 1 time out of 10 your brakes would fail, that alone would be enough to not operate the vehicle.   The point is that you don't have evidence the brakes would fail, you would have no qualms at all about getting in the car.  You wouldn't give it a thought.
 

Quote

That's why I maintain its not the same faith as you indicate.

 

No, it is exactly the same kind of faith as I have indicated.  Faith is always based on the past.   Would you loan money to a man who has a history of not paying people back when they loan money?   Would you take the word of a man who has a reputation of not telling the truth?   That also speaks to evidence.  Evidence makes or breaks faith.   Real faith is never a leap into the void.  It is based on evidence and knowledge.

 

Quote

Please demonstrate Enoch being 800 plus...please demonstrate virgin birth...please demonstrate God made the planets...please demonstrate any God involvement like i could demonstrate failing brake causation and confidence... not faith because it's demonstrable. Surely you see the difference. I'm sure what I've said on my car is the same thing you do and would agree on. I just conduct everything this way.. no doubt you do. You just have different criteria when it comes to our origins. 

My ability to place faith in the Bible's claims is rooted in the Bible's track record for historical and doctrinal accuracy.  I can trust the Bible's truth claims because they are embedded in a historical record that has been vindicated by science over and over and over again.

 

Quote

No errors. Do you believe in witches?  Thou say not suffer a witch to live. Don't eat shell fish.  Don't wear 2 types of fabric. Anyways more on the thread... the bible creation story. Science supports Adam and eve..a talking snake? Please demonstrate this...Enochs age? 

Just because you don't believe the Bible, that doesn't mean it's claims are false.   Eating, or not shell fish and wearing linen mixed with wool have nothing to do with the Bible's accuracy and truth claims.

There are witches today.  Every heard of the Wiccans?  

Yes Adam and Eve and a talking serpent... the Bible presents them as real characters/people.

 

[Enoch2021]

On 9/11/2017 at 7:23 AM, siegi91 said:

Alright. How could we miss something so obvious?

Could you explain how?

Sure...  

We have the "PSEUDO-Science"Religions: astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, paleontology, geology, anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics.
Crocheting is more "Scientific" than ALL these Clowns..."COMBINED!!"
Why?? Well neither of the masqueraders can follow "The Scientific Method" (Hypothesis Construction, let alone TESTING)-- SCIENCE. 

Because the Pseudo Science Priests from the Religions above KNOW that the Joe Coffee and Betty Breadmaker Masses wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" (or Basic Reasoning) was if it landed on their heads spun around, and whistled dixie... 
They then can pretty much pontificate anything under the term "SCIENCE" (via clumsy Equivocation Fallacy) and have hoards from their congregations Mindlessly "PARROT" 'B' gAAK' any and all manner of blatant Pseudo-Science Religious Propaganda (Fairytales) that they hear directly from them or the metric tons of sermons posted on their Church's website... 'wiki/google' and/or thousands of affiliate websites.

Rinse/Repeat/Rinse/Repeat.  It's simply...

                             Pseudo Science RELIGION!!!

They then RAIL against "Religion" with veracious anger, all the while being... "NECK DEEP IN ONE"!!! ... and a Scientifically Falsified one at that (The Irony )...

Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism)

 

So it's not so much as "Missing" obviousness (the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum being the least of their problems)...as it is taking advantage of the Dumb Down Indoctrinated Masses.

 

good?