Why do so many conservatives believe in Young Earth Creationism?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Bashar Teg
i'm willing to accept that there are a note-worthy portion of the far-left who believe anti-science/evidence/reality concepts such as anti-vax and flat-earth; but conservatives seem to wholly own creationism...so i think it's a fair question.

also, please don't take this topic as an anti-theist discussion; since as far as i can recall, nothing in the old/new testament, quran, or torah mentions anything about the earth's true age.

BrolyBlack
Did you know many other religions including Islam also believe in Creation?

Bashar Teg
they believe in divine creation, sure. most people of faith seem to, in fact.

the topic is about the belief structure behind "creationism", however. not the same thing.

BrolyBlack
Do ask Many Muslims why they believe in God or for that matter why they do?

Patient_Leech
Because religious indoctrination and propaganda.

/thread

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Do ask Many Muslims why they believe in God or for that matter why they do?

okay?

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Because religious indoctrination and propaganda.

/thread

i went to catholic school for a few years as a child. lots of indoctrination and propaganda. not a peep about a 6000 year old earth. seems like a newage concept to me. feel free to correct me, though.

Patient_Leech
Catholics have overall accepted the facts of evolution. Pretty sure the Pope even declared as much. Conservative evangelical types not so much.

BrolyBlack

eThneoLgrRnae
This is an obvious troll thread. And it doesn't belong in General Discussion. I'll report it as being in wrong forum but doubt it'll do very much good.

Surtur
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
This is an obvious troll thread. And it doesn't belong in General Discussion. I'll report it as being in wrong forum but doubt it'll do very much good.

Haven't you learned anything? It's not trolling when they do it, it's okay.

He's totally asking this question in good faith. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

eThneoLgrRnae
LOL yeah, I'm sure he's doing it in good faith.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
This is an obvious troll thread. And it doesn't belong in General Discussion. I'll report it as being in wrong forum but doubt it'll do very much good.

awwww, "goo goo gah gah"? baby

it's a political question as well, so....


smile

ares834
I mean, the answer is obvious. The right caters to the highly religious via their stance on many social issues such as abortion and marriage.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i went to catholic school for a few years as a child. lots of indoctrination and propaganda. not a peep about a 6000 year old earth. seems like a newage concept to me. feel free to correct me, though.

I went to a Baptist high school my junior year (they claimed non denominational but that's another story).

Not only did they believe the earth was 6000 years old and God created the world in seven actual days but some of them also didn't think there were any oceans until after the "great flood".

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I went to a Baptist high school my junior year (they claimed non denominational but that's another story).

Not only did they believe the earth was 6000 years old and God created the world in seven actual days but some of them also didn't think there were any oceans until after the "great flood".

the 'seven days' bit is different, though. genesis lays it out pretty clearly (though who knows what got lost in it's several translations)

creationism seems like some newage concept which made it's way into certain christian sects, with no biblical evidence to "back it up", so to speak

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Did you know many other religions including Islam also believe in Creation?



Oh, they know.. they just don't give a shit. Can't call muslims stupid now can they? Naw, that's a big no-no. Might get called out for "hate speech". They just wanna single out the Christians (or "easter worshippers' as Hillary and our last joke of a so-called president calls them), as usual. That's the left's dual-standards on full display. It's not hateful to call Christians "dumb" or "retarded" but don't you dare talk bad bout dem muslims!

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae

muslims

"hate speech"

single out the Christians

Hillary

the left's dual-standards

Christians

"dumb"

"retarded"

muslims!


hmmm... okay thanks for the buzzword salad thumb up

Originally posted by Bashar Teg

also, please don't take this topic as an anti-theist discussion; since as far as i can recall, nothing in the old/new testament, quran, or torah mentions anything about the earth's true age.


anything on the topic, friend? smile

mike brown
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
they believe in divine creation, sure. most people of faith seem to, in fact.

the topic is about the belief structure behind "creationism", however. not the same thing. to be clear, there's a large segment of muslims who reject evolution and believe in an Islamic version of creationism.

mike brown
@Broly

The evidence that the universe is closer to 14 billion years old than 6000 years old is overwhelming. Radiometric data turns up errors here and there but it's consistent enough to be considered roughly reliable... And there are numerous other factors to consider eg why can we see stars millions of light years away if the universe is only 6000 years old. Sure the measurements can be wrong but then you have to scrap most of what we know about physics etc.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Catholics have overall accepted the facts of evolution. Pretty sure the Pope even declared as much. Conservative evangelical types not so much.

sorry i missed this. the catholic church was previously anti-evolution, since darwin, but that didn't make them young earth creationists. in fact no holy scripture of any notable christian sect mentions anything about men and dinosaurs living together.

Robtard
Originally posted by mike brown
@Broly

The evidence that the universe is closer to 14 billion years old than 6000 years old is overwhelming. Radiometric data turns up errors here and there but it's consistent enough to be considered roughly reliable... And there are numerous other factors to consider eg why can we see stars millions of light years away if the universe is only 6000 years old. Sure the measurements can be wrong but then you have to scrap most of what we know about physics etc.

https://cdn3.whatculture.com/images/2016/06/7cd230a901f101e5-600x338.jpg

@ the fact you had to explain that...

eThneoLgrRnae
For some reason, I'm having problems quoting you again, BB. I just tried quoting your post where you pointed out the problems with the dating methods they used to date the earth and your entire reply disappeared again.




Anyway, yeah I agree with everthing you posted there. Also, they've found specimen after specimen of dinosaurs with soft-tissue in them which is totally impossible if dinos are truly millions of years old as they claim. The distance of the moon from the earth is not nearly far enough away for the earth to be billions of years old. There's plenty of other evidence that indicates earth nor the universe is nearly as old as they claim it is. Comets still flying around, not enough salt in the ocean, the fact the sun hasn't burned-out yet, etc, etc, etc, I could go on and on and on.





The only real strong argument evolutionists have for an old universe is starlight. And I admit, that one had me stumped for a long time. However, Kent Hovind pointed out how in the Bible it says several times that God "stretched out the heavens" (which helps to explains the "red shift"and it opened up my eyes to the truth. Evolutionists ask "How could the universe be only 6,000 years old if we can see starlight?" That's the wrong question to ask though. What they should really be asking is "How did the star get from here to there?"




When God created the earth he then later created the stars and "stretched out the heavens". As he strectched them out the stars left behind a trail of light that Adam and Eve saw on the first night. Also, there is great amounts of evidence been shown in fairly recent years that the speed of light is not a constant and very possibly has slowed down since creation.





Some evolutionists who have debated Hovind have claimed that if God stretched out the heavens at the speed of light that the light would be invisible but that is just speculation though and I don't buy it. They have no way to actually prove it. And there also forgetting that God created the laws of the universe. They obey His will. He isn't bound to the laws He Himself created. So, yes, I believe an all-powerful God could get around that problem by still keep the trail of light visible.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by mike brown
@Broly

The evidence that the universe is closer to 14 billion years old than 6000 years old is overwhelming. Radiometric data turns up errors here and there but it's consistent enough to be considered roughly reliable... And there are numerous other factors to consider eg why can we see stars millions of light years away if the universe is only 6000 years old. Sure the measurements can be wrong but then you have to scrap most of what we know about physics etc.




Nah, the overwhelming evidence actually indicates the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

dadudemon
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nah, the overwhelming evidence actually indicates the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

I think...you're trolling.

You can observe sedimentation layers being made in just a few decades. And you can observe these layers in some geological formations which clearly indicate millions of years. Just like rings around a tree. No magic required. That's the simplest of explanations for why a young earth is completely stupid.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
For some reason, I'm having problems quoting you again, BB. I just tried quoting your post where you pointed out the problems with the dating methods they used to date the earth and your entire reply disappeared again.




Anyway, yeah I agree with everthing you posted there. Also, they've found specimen after specimen of dinosaurs with soft-tissue in them which is totally impossible if dinos are truly millions of years old as they claim. The distance of the moon from the earth is not nearly far enough away for the earth to be billions of years old. There's plenty of other evidence that indicates earth nor the universe is nearly as old as they claim it is. Comets still flying around, not enough salt in the ocean, the fact the sun hasn't burned-out yet, etc, etc, etc, I could go on and on and on.





The only real strong argument evolutionists have for an old universe is starlight. And I admit, that one had me stumped for a long time. However, Kent Hovind pointed out how in the Bible it says several times that God "stretched out the heavens" (which helps to explains the "red shift"and it opened up my eyes to the truth. Evolutionists ask "How could the universe be only 6,000 years old if we can see starlight?" That's the wrong question to ask though. What they should really be asking is "How did the star get from here to there?"




When God created the earth he then later created the stars and "stretched out the heavens". As he strectched them out the stars left behind a trail of light that Adam and Eve saw on the first night. Also, there is great amounts of evidence been shown in fairly recent years that the speed of light is not a constant and very possibly has slowed down since creation.





Some evolutionists who have debated Hovind have claimed that if God stretched out the heavens at the speed of light that the light would be invisible but that is just speculation though and I don't buy it. They have no way to actually prove it. And there also forgetting that God created the laws of the universe. They obey His will. He isn't bound to the laws He Himself created. So, yes, I believe an all-powerful God could get around that problem by still keep the trail of light visible. It's been proven that iron from the blood acts almost like formaldehyde and can maintain soft tissue for millions of years. You nut job.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think...you're trolling.

You can observe sedimentation layers being made in just a few decades. And you can observe these layers in some geological formations which clearly indicate millions of years. Just like rings around a tree. No magic required. That's the simplest of explanations for why a young earth is completely stupid. The whole account is a troll as was his original, that's not to say he doesn't believe elements of this nonsense.

BrolyBlack

Surtur

BrolyBlack

Patient_Leech

Patient_Leech

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I admit ignorance as to what the official stance on creation was with the Catholic church before they eventually came out and admitted that evolution is a settled issue. But I'm guessing it was probably something similar to the literal account of the Genesis creation myth. And yes, no Christian scripture mentions dinosaurs (although some will try to stretch and claim that it does) because they didn't know about dinosaurs back then. Go figure.

I've seen creationists attempt to spin biblical "giants" as dinosaurs, which is of course silly, but still the only real attempt I've seen at sourcing holy texts

Putinbot1
This thread is Gold.

Oh Star, oh Broly laughing

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Broly is clearly a hopeless nihilist. If the universe is completely unknowable and we're doomed to just be guessing then why not just kill yourself? Not having a cure for death or cancer does not mean that other things aren't known with good reliability. It's called science, and it's the reason the computer you're typing on was invented and works consistently. You better not ever go to a doctor either, because they know as much as the hobo down the street and they probably wouldn't charge as much.

Triggered, by all means kill youself first so I have more oxygen to breathsmile

I am happy here on earth, keep looking to the stars for answerslaughing out loud

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I admit ignorance as to what the official stance on creation was with the Catholic church before they eventually came out and admitted that evolution is a settled issue. But I'm guessing it was probably something similar to the literal account of the Genesis creation myth. And yes, no Christian scripture mentions dinosaurs (although some will try to stretch and claim that it does) because they didn't know about dinosaurs back then. Go figure.



thumb up




Please visit a museum and learn to science. Links are found all the time. If you remain ignorant of this fact then it is no one's fault but your own. In fact they just discovered a new human species in the Philippines...

MGN2DvDYWgc

I was the one that posted that thread about the new species found, thanks for carrying my coat tails. Specifically tell me where it says in there that those remains are the missing link.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Surtur
Just tell him Trump loves oxygen and he'll hold his breath.




laughing laughing Yeah, that should do it.

BrolyBlack
dp

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
I was the one that posted that thread about the new species found, thanks for carrying my coat tails. Specifically tell me where it says in there that those remains are the missing link.

Yeah, I saw it all over facebook and such. KMC is not my primary source for news believe it or not.

The history of life is a tree, not a straight line...

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree


...like I said, the information is there. You're being willfully ignorant at this point.

BrolyBlack
So wait you are accepting that is fact?

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I've seen creationists attempt to spin biblical "giants" as dinosaurs, which is of course silly, but still the only real attempt I've seen at sourcing holy texts

Yeah, Leviathan is the one that immediately comes to mind to me. But it's not convincing.




Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
For some reason, I'm having problems quoting you again, BB. I just tried quoting your post where you pointed out the problems with the dating methods they used to date the earth and your entire reply disappeared again.




Anyway, yeah I agree with everthing you posted there. Also, they've found specimen after specimen of dinosaurs with soft-tissue in them which is totally impossible if dinos are truly millions of years old as they claim. The distance of the moon from the earth is not nearly far enough away for the earth to be billions of years old. There's plenty of other evidence that indicates earth nor the universe is nearly as old as they claim it is. Comets still flying around, not enough salt in the ocean, the fact the sun hasn't burned-out yet, etc, etc, etc, I could go on and on and on.





The only real strong argument evolutionists have for an old universe is starlight. And I admit, that one had me stumped for a long time. However, Kent Hovind pointed out how in the Bible it says several times that God "stretched out the heavens" (which helps to explains the "red shift"and it opened up my eyes to the truth. Evolutionists ask "How could the universe be only 6,000 years old if we can see starlight?" That's the wrong question to ask though. What they should really be asking is "How did the star get from here to there?"




When God created the earth he then later created the stars and "stretched out the heavens". As he strectched them out the stars left behind a trail of light that Adam and Eve saw on the first night. Also, there is great amounts of evidence been shown in fairly recent years that the speed of light is not a constant and very possibly has slowed down since creation.





Some evolutionists who have debated Hovind have claimed that if God stretched out the heavens at the speed of light that the light would be invisible but that is just speculation though and I don't buy it. They have no way to actually prove it. And there also forgetting that God created the laws of the universe. They obey His will. He isn't bound to the laws He Himself created. So, yes, I believe an all-powerful God could get around that problem by still keep the trail of light visible.

This is how Creationists change the rules of the game. A real investigation starts with premises and establishes a conclusion. You don't reach a conclusion and then adjust the evidence to fit it. Funny how murder/crime investigations don't work that way.

https://i2.wp.com/www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/Images/CA230_1Trever.gif

Let me guess, God changed his methods of causing animals to pop into existence (like he supposedly did 6,000 years ago) and that's why we can only actually observe small changes to this day (evolution)? Yeah, that's super intellectually dishonest. Please stop brainwashing kids with this nonsense.

Adam_PoE
Because they follow dogma, not evidence.

Surtur
Anyone who believes in God is not following evidence.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because they follow dogma, not evidence. Originally posted by Surtur
Anyone who believes in God is not following evidence.


.

Putinbot1
This thread is gold Star/Fly who I am now certain are the same person is hilarious... and not in a good way.

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by Putinbot1
This thread is gold Star/Fly who I am now certain are the same person is hilarious... and not in a good way.

Star triggered

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Star triggered



Oh so now Pooty Bot isn't sure who I am. Before he was certain that I was Star but now he thinks I'm somehow BOTH Star and Fly. laughing laughing

Surtur
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
.

Ge45R9qoW_Y

Putinbot1
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Oh so now Pooty Bot isn't sure who I am. Before he was certain that I was Star but now he thinks I'm somehow BOTH Star and Fly. laughing laughing Yeah, you're both... Funny stuff. I'm pretty sure s lot of the real you is in both. laughing

Surtur
Remember that time that guy rode a dinosaur?


Ha nobody does because they existed millions upon millions of years apart from each other. Zing!

Robtard
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because they follow dogma, not evidence.


That for sure and there's probably a lot of inbreeding going on with these Conservative types as well. ie retardation as noted.

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by Robtard
That for sure and there's probably a lot of inbreeding going on with these Conservative types as well. ie retardation as noted.

Triggered by conservatives.

mike brown
I have known many smart people with dumb beliefs. Inbreeding has nothing to do with it.

BackFire
The earth is actually three weeks old. All of our memories before that is just our minds playing tricks on us.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by mike brown
I have known many smart people with dumb beliefs. Inbreeding has nothing to do with it.

Intelligent people are even sometimes better at rationalizing silly beliefs.

jaden_2.0
We are all living in a simulation. We are The Sims 100.

mike brown
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Intelligent people are even somakaoetimes better at rationalizing silly beliefs. exactly

I notice op changed the title.. the answer is the same regardless

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by mike brown
exactly

I notice op changed the title.. the answer is the same regardless

Indeed, I requested a title change. thumb up

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Intelligent people are even sometimes better at rationalizing silly beliefs.




Oh... indeed, dude. Silly beliefs like everything "NATURALLY" suddenly popping into being from absolutely nothing. Silly beliefs like life "naturally" beginning from inorganic material. Silly beliefs like stars "naturally" forming (no, no one has ever seen a star form regardless of what the liars who call themselves "scientists" may say; they simply see a spot getting brighter which isn't proof of anything other than that spot getting brighter); Silly beliefs like believing universe is billions or trillions of years old when there's tons of evidence that disputes it. Silly beliefs like believing a cat can eventually become a dog if we just "give it enough time" (lol). Silly beliefs like believing that all the vast amount of different varieties of life came about thru random mutations (even though mutations are always either negative or neutral in the long run) and natural selection. Silly beliefs like believing the universe just created itself when there is evidence of intelligent design all around us both on this planet and in space.




So, yeah... you're right. Some supposedly "intelligent" people sure can rationalize silly beliefs! thumb up

Raptor22
Originally posted by Patient_Leech

Please visit a museum and learn to science. Links are found all the time. If you remain ignorant of this fact then it is no one's fault but your own. In fact they just discovered a new human species in the Philippines...

MGN2DvDYWgc lol thinking museums will convince some people.

I worked with a guy who was adamant the dinosaurs never existed. All the fossils in museums all over the world are fakes, made of plaster and shit; with every archeologist, scientists, etc... Involved in a grand, world wide conspiracy.

When i tried explaining to him the impossibility of such a large conspiracy, spanning the globe, with so many people, for such a long time, with so much evidence against it, he gently placed his hand on my shoulder, looked at me with a level of sympathy and pity usualy reserved for people in mourning, and said to me-

"U really believe that dont u"

Then shook his head in disgust and walked away.

Surtur
Young Earth Creationism sounds like a christian boy band.

They'd probably get extra molested by priests. Tragic.

Robtard
Funny.

Then you had to go all pedo sad

Surtur
I didn't go pedo the priests did.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Robtard
Funny.

Then you had to go all pedo sad He didn't do that again did he... Next he an Broly will start posting vieos of kids again.

Patient_Leech
@eThneoLgrRnae: So as a former Christian evangelical in my youth I can sympathize more with you, Ethneo (I hope you don't mind me calling you that). But I assure you seeing existence and the universe as we know it with the mystery that it projects is way more satisfying than any dogmatic views of the universe being made just for us, as if we are the intended end product of the universe. The mystery and beauty of pondering and discovering reality is far more interesting than easy answers.




Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Oh... indeed, dude. Silly beliefs like everything "NATURALLY" suddenly popping into being from absolutely nothing.

No one believes that. It's a strawman (a common tactic of creationists). How do you know there was "nothing" before the universe as we know it? Have you ever seen "nothing"? Is it even possible for "nothing" to exist?



Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Silly beliefs like life "naturally" beginning from inorganic material. Silly beliefs like stars "naturally" forming (no, no one has ever seen a star form regardless of what the liars who call themselves "scientists" may say;

So, there's way more evidence that things happen naturally, than happening supernaturally. As a matter of fact there's NO good evidence of anything supernatural happening... ever.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Silly beliefs like believing a cat can eventually become a dog if we just "give it enough time" (lol). Silly beliefs like believing that all the vast amount of different varieties of life came about thru random mutations (even though mutations are always either negative or neutral in the long run) and natural selection.

You just demonstrated that you don't seem to understand how evolution works. So yeah, that's another strawman. That sounds like the things I hear Kent Hovind say. For starters: Learn about the multiple lines of evidence that confirm evolution, that make it a "scientific theory" (aka, an unlikely to be overturned fact). Then you might have to work a little harder to refute the evidence. But that means you'll have to do more than just say, "Oh, scientists are faking all this evidence."

https://wp-media.patheos.com/subdomain/sites/8/im/AzZVKQw.png

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Silly beliefs like believing the universe just created itself when there is evidence of intelligent design all around us both on this planet and in space.

It's an appearance of design. What's the alternative, that God writes books? But only 2,000 years ago when historical records sucked and there's no good verification of it and we're just supposed to "take it on faith"?

mike brown
Originally posted by Robtard
Funny.

Then you had to go all pedo sad oh please... Stop hating... The priest joke was funny

Patient_Leech
...

NemeBro
Originally posted by Surtur
I didn't go pedo the priests did. lol

Astner
A fairly small portion of the total body of conservatives are made up of creationists. However, creationists tend to vote conservatively because liberal policies tend to compromise creationism.

mike brown
Not to mention that creationists are probably pretty socially conservative in general.

Gehenna
The majority of scientists have come to this conclusion. So, not a random group but most individuals with the relevant academic knowledge concerning the age of the Earth have weighed in (consensus) and have determined the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This isn't exactly speculation (radioisotope dating isn't just a ****ing meme or something, dude):

A simple explanation (of something quite complicated):

"Scientists have made several attempts to date the planet over the past 400 years. They've attempted to predict the age based on changing sea levels, the time it took for Earth or the sun to cool to present temperatures, and the salinity of the ocean. As the dating technology progressed, these methods proved unreliable; for instance, the rise and fall of the ocean was shown to be an ever-changing process rather than a gradually declining one.

And in another effort to calculate the age of the planet, scientists turned to the rocks that cover its surface. However, because plate tectonics constantly changes and revamps the crust, the first rocks have long since been recycled, melted down and reformed into new outcrops.

Scientists also must battle an issue called the Great Unconformity, which is where sedimentary layers of rock appear to be missing (at the Grand Canyon, for example, there's 1.2 billion years of rock that can't be found). There are multiple explanations for this uncomformity; in early 2019, one study suggested that a global ice age caused glaciers to grind into the rock, causing it to disintegrate. Plate tectonics then threw the crushed rock back into the interior of the Earth, removing the old evidence and turning it into new rock.

In the early 20th century, scientists refined the process of radiometric dating. Earlier research had shown that isotopes of some radioactive elements decay into other elements at a predictable rate. By examining the existing elements, scientists can calculate the initial quantity of a radioactive element, and thus how long it took for the elements to decay, allowing them to determine the age of the rock.

The oldest rocks on Earth found to date are the Acasta Gneiss in northwestern Canada near the Great Slave Lake, which are 4.03 billion years old. But rocks older than 3.5 billion years can be found on all continents. Greenland boasts the Isua supracrustal rocks (3.7 to 3.8 billion years old), while rocks in Swaziland are 3.4 billion to 3.5 billion years. Samples in Western Australia run 3.4 billion to 3.6 billion years old."

https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html




Well, one is accepted vastly across a variety of scientific disciplines and the other has zero academic authority and no empirical evidence to suggest it's even remotely accurate and/or factual.

One isn't even credible in any way so that seems like a vacuous question.




Is this peak centrism or what? Like, there are groups/authorities that bear more credibility than others. Is the next inevitable step in this type of reasoning something like, "Who says the group that thinks the Earth is round knows more than the group that thinks the Earth is flat?"



This is a laughably anti-intellectual statement. The pursuit of knowledge and understanding how the universe operates doesn't translate into thinking we are an omniscient, omnipotent,
omni-whatever presence/force/entity/whatever (So, God)

Also, "we cannot cure/do everything so all of the vast body of evidence across science and the great variety of scientific consensus can be questioned" (especially by a random layman on a dead forum) is a ****ing braindead line of thought and defies reason.



Stop begging the question. The "cure for death?" You're implying death is some ailment/disease. You're all over the goddamn place. Also, doubling down on your previous statement (nice to see you again, the word "cancer"wink is impressive in the most negative way one could imagine.



What about that idea? Your thought is incomplete. Don't fret because I assure you this concluding incomplete sentence is about as valuable and lucid as anything else you said in your post.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Gehenna
The majority of scientists have come to this conclusion. So, not a random group but most individuals with the relevant academic knowledge concerning the age of the Earth have weighed in (consensus) and have determined the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. This isn't exactly speculation (radioisotope dating isn't just a ****ing meme or something, dude):

A simple explanation (of something quite complicated):

"Scientists have made several attempts to date the planet over the past 400 years. They've attempted to predict the age based on changing sea levels, the time it took for Earth or the sun to cool to present temperatures, and the salinity of the ocean. As the dating technology progressed, these methods proved unreliable; for instance, the rise and fall of the ocean was shown to be an ever-changing process rather than a gradually declining one.

And in another effort to calculate the age of the planet, scientists turned to the rocks that cover its surface. However, because plate tectonics constantly changes and revamps the crust, the first rocks have long since been recycled, melted down and reformed into new outcrops.

Scientists also must battle an issue called the Great Unconformity, which is where sedimentary layers of rock appear to be missing (at the Grand Canyon, for example, there's 1.2 billion years of rock that can't be found). There are multiple explanations for this uncomformity; in early 2019, one study suggested that a global ice age caused glaciers to grind into the rock, causing it to disintegrate. Plate tectonics then threw the crushed rock back into the interior of the Earth, removing the old evidence and turning it into new rock.

In the early 20th century, scientists refined the process of radiometric dating. Earlier research had shown that isotopes of some radioactive elements decay into other elements at a predictable rate. By examining the existing elements, scientists can calculate the initial quantity of a radioactive element, and thus how long it took for the elements to decay, allowing them to determine the age of the rock.

The oldest rocks on Earth found to date are the Acasta Gneiss in northwestern Canada near the Great Slave Lake, which are 4.03 billion years old. But rocks older than 3.5 billion years can be found on all continents. Greenland boasts the Isua supracrustal rocks (3.7 to 3.8 billion years old), while rocks in Swaziland are 3.4 billion to 3.5 billion years. Samples in Western Australia run 3.4 billion to 3.6 billion years old."

https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html




Well, one is accepted vastly across a variety of scientific disciplines and the other has zero academic authority and no empirical evidence to suggest it's even remotely accurate and/or factual.

One isn't even credible in any way so that seems like a vacuous question.




Is this peak centrism or what? Like, there are groups/authorities that bear more credibility than others. Is the next inevitable step in this type of reasoning something like, "Who says the group that thinks the Earth is round knows more than the group that thinks the Earth is flat?"



This is a laughably anti-intellectual statement. The pursuit of knowledge and understanding how the universe operates doesn't translate into thinking we are an omniscient, omnipotent,
omni-whatever presence/force/entity/whatever (So, God)

Also, "we cannot cure/do everything so all of the vast body of evidence across science and the great variety of scientific consensus can be questioned" (especially by a random layman on a dead forum) is a ****ing braindead line of thought and defies reason.



Stop begging the question. The "cure for death?" You're implying death is some ailment/disease. You're all over the goddamn place. Also, doubling down on your previous statement (nice to see you again, the word "cancer"wink is impressive in the most negative way one could imagine.



What about that idea? Your thought is incomplete. Don't fret because I assure you this concluding incomplete sentence is about as valuable and lucid as anything else you said in your post. Superb post Sorgo thumb up

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Gehenna
In the early 20th century, scientists refined the process of radiometric dating. Earlier research had shown that isotopes of some radioactive elements decay into other elements at a predictable rate. By examining the existing elements, scientists can calculate the initial quantity of a radioactive element, and thus how long it took for the elements to decay, allowing them to determine the age of the rock.

The oldest rocks on Earth found to date are the Acasta Gneiss in northwestern Canada near the Great Slave Lake, which are 4.03 billion years old. But rocks older than 3.5 billion years can be found on all continents. Greenland boasts the Isua supracrustal rocks (3.7 to 3.8 billion years old), while rocks in Swaziland are 3.4 billion to 3.5 billion years. Samples in Western Australia run 3.4 billion to 3.6 billion years old."

https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html


That's pretty cool. thumb up


Originally posted by Gehenna
...This is a laughably anti-intellectual statement...

Yeah, that says it all.

To be convinced of Creationism and willfully ignorant of all that science has discovered to contradict it is to be stunted of intellectual curiosity due to dogmatic belief. That's the danger of dogma, folks. It's an intellectual cancer.

Robtard
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Superb post Sorgo thumb up

Sorgo nailed it as usual.

Creationist like Ken Ham (runs the Creation Museum) has said he absolutely refuses to believe or consider anything that disputes the bible, because if he accepts that even one thing is not true in the bible, then it could mean more are not true. That's as anti-science, anti-logic and anti-intelligence as one can get.

Surtur
-FIMvSp01C8

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by Robtard
Sorgo nailed it as usual.

Creationist like Ken Ham (runs the Creation Museum) has said he absolutely refuses to believe or consider anything that disputes the bible, because if he accepts that even one thing is not true in the bible, then it could mean more are not true. That's as anti-science, anti-logic and anti-intelligence as one can get.

I fully accept you came from a monkey.

eThneoLgrRnae
Yeah, I've no problem believing Robbie came from a monkey either considering how often people make a monkey out of him lol.

Bashar Teg
*ape

get something right ffs no

Patient_Leech
No one came from monkeys.

Humans and monkeys branched off from a common ancestor (that was likely somewhat monkey/ape-like.

BrolyBlack
Nah he came from a monkey. He even looks like a monkey tbh.

eThneoLgrRnae
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Nah he came from a monkey. He even looks like a monkey tbh.





Have you seen a picture of him somewhere?

BrolyBlack
Yea

eThneoLgrRnae
Where?

Robtard
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Yeah, I've no problem believing Robbie came from a monkey either considering how often people make a monkey out of him lol.

Kinda funny/cute for once Star/Fly thumb up

BrolyBlack
Originally posted by Robtard
Kinda funny/cute for once Star/Fly thumb up

Monkey see, Monkey do.

Bashar Teg
do many conservatives truly believe in YEC or are they simply pretending to know alt-facts as an anti-science/intellectual statement?

i wonder the same about flat earthers as well. since they could easily get together, pool their resources, and fly a ballon-camera into the upper stratosphere and prove everyone wrong.
yet they refuse to leave their keyboards and accomplish this, presumably because they know that they will end up spending time/money/energy to just to end up proving themselves wrong?

Robtard
Could just be a anti-science/intellectual statement and stance to take. Then again, these people believe in angels...

eThneoLgrRnae
Since butthurt little Bash can't seem to let this thread go I will give my final answer on this and not bother trying to explain again.


The reason we support creation over evolutionism (that is, anything other than "evolution" at the micro level which really isn't evolution at all) is because creation makes much more sense. Period.

There I said it. Now I'm done with this troll thread.

Bashar Teg
Last edited by eThneoLgrRnae on Today at 10:25 PM

lol you spent all that time rage-editing, yet have nothing to substantiate your assertion besides "because creation makes much more sense. Period"

typical impotant-raging drug fueled ranting fly laughing out loud

Flyattractor
Gawd Youare a Horrible Person Bashy, but then I have known that for years..

If you didn't have the power to get innocent people banned I would laugh at your vagrant Paranoia.

You Human Pos.

Bentley
So why should we believe 4,5 billions years old instead of 6000. This is actually a good opportunity to illustrate how science works.

Let's say you erase every mention of such numbers from history. No science books, no religious teachings, no made up numbers. Then people are left to figure out by their own means of observation how old the Earth is, they need to develop the technology for it with a method that anyone can replicate (that way we are sure everyone will agree with the validity of the knowledge). After getting through several iterations of that new method they will refine their analysis and come up with a value close to 4,5 billions years old. This is how science works: even if you were left without scientific knowledge by following the premise that you need to be able to replicate your results (in order to share them and improve them) you will reach similar conclusions.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
No one came from monkeys.


Child monkeys came from parent monkeys.

Stop spouting nonsensical lies ahah

Aside from that I liked your previous post, interesting as per its usual.

Flyattractor
Eh World is going to end in 12 years anyway according to Leftist Science so why worry about it.

SamZED
I love this type of threads.
With liberals getting more and more insane by the day every once in a while I need a reminder that conservatives are batsht crazy too.

Flyattractor
BjsVRIqOhGA

\

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Gawd Youare a Horrible Person Bashy, but then I have known that for years..

If you didn't have the power to get innocent people banned I would laugh at your vagrant Paranoia.

You Human Pos. Fly defending his sock with ad hominems, funny stuff.

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Fly defending his sock with ad hominems, funny stuff.

JchKa8Ox3Hs

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.