Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The folks over at "Standing for Truth" YT channel hosted a Christmas special show with Kent Hovind on the subject of the age of the earth.

The three of them discussed at length many of the popular arguments atheists, evolutionists, and old earth creationists make to supposedly "prove" that the earth is "billions of years old."

https://youtu.be/1dtdv9uMWDI

Good stuff.

Please remember that today is Christmas so let's try avoid calling anyone insulting names like "retard", for instance.

dur

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Please remember that today is Christmas so let's try avoid calling anyone insulting names like "retard", for instance.



Then stop posting retarded things? 🤷‍♂️

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The folks over at "Standing for Truth" YT channel hosted a Christmas special show with Kent Hovind on the subject of the age of the earth.

The three of them discussed at length many of the popular arguments atheists, evolutionists, and old earth creationists make to supposedly "prove" that the earth is "billions of years old."

https://youtu.be/1dtdv9uMWDI

Good stuff.

Please remember that today is Christmas so let's try avoid calling anyone insulting names like "retard", for instance.

Have you ever seen the matrix, or at least know it's plot summary ?

I'm not gonna call anyone names, but it's scientifically proven that Earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years old.

Originally posted by Impediment
I'm not gonna call anyone names, but it's scientifically proven that Earth is 4 billion years old and the universe is 14 billion years old.

If the science were updated would you believe the new number ?

For example, anthropologists used to argue that modern humanity is only 100k years old, but have not updated that to 250-500k years ago.

So, if a few billion were shaved off the cosmic time scale via some new way to look at space-time, or something, would you be comfortable changing your view ?

Note:I'm not a creationist or religious.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
If the science were updated would you believe the new number ?

For example, anthropologists used to argue that modern humanity is only 100k years old, but have not updated that to 250-500k years ago.

So, if a few billion were shaved off the cosmic time scale via some new way to look at space-time, or something, would you be comfortable changing your view ?

Note:I'm not a creationist or religious. dur

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
dur

Not sure why asking if someone would update their beliefs based on updated information is a stupid question.

Surely, only the dogmatic wouldn't.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Not sure why asking if someone would update their beliefs based on updated information is a stupid question.

Surely, only the dogmatic wouldn't. dur

The evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old as opposed to millions or billions is overwhelming. As I've posted numerous times before, the earth's magnetic field, comets, the population growth curve, and the fact significant amounts of C-14 are still present in diamonds and dino fossils all prove this. Though there are dozens of other ways to prove it as well. It's quite impossible for the earth or solar system to be millions or billions of years old.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old as opposed to millions or billions is overwhelming. As I've posted numerous times before, the earth's magnetic field, comets, the population growth curve, and the fact significant amounts of C-14 are still present in diamonds and dino fossils all prove this. Though there are dozens of other ways to prove it as well. It's quite impossible for the earth or solar system to be millions or billions of years old.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
dur

That's a boring response. You're boring.

I went to a private Christian high school where they didn't teach evolution or any of it. Just for fun, because I've got a big hole in my education on the subject, can someone give me a quick rundown on why what ranger said doesn't carry any weight? I was taught similar things.

Originally posted by Impediment
Laughter is not an argument. So sorry you and others are triggered over fact what you've been led to believe all your lives is completely and utterly wrong. I fell for the "billions of years" lie when I was a kid and believed it for many years. After all, "all" the "experts" were saying it so I thought to myself, it must be true. It never occured to me to actually question those "experts". Then along came Kent Hovind several decades ago and opened my eyes with his age of earth seminar and anti-evolution videos. I'll be forever grateful to him for that.

What evidence do you have that the Earth is only a thousand or 6 thousand or 12 thousand years old?

A book written by a cun t?

Originally posted by truejedi
I went to a private Christian high school where they didn't teach evolution or any of it. Just for fun, because I've got a big hole in my education on the subject, can someone give me a quick rundown on why what ranger said doesn't carry any weight? I was taught similar things.

Same here. I was indoctrinated to shut my brain off anytime I heard "millions of years." But I have since educated myself.

I will give one of my old high school Bible teachers some credit, because he did mention starlight as a problem for young earth creationism. But it's okay, because you can rationalize anything! And smart people are often the best at it: God created the universe with an appearance of age! (The deceptive bastard)

I also learned the appearance of age argument- but in what way is ethneo's information inaccurate?

Is the data he presented not accurate?
Is the data he presented not indicative of his premise?
Or is the data he presented an outlier to established scientific theories, that while accurate, and seeming to support his premise, not considered a smoking gun, and is otherwise explainable within the current theory of the age of the universe? And if that final one, how is it explained?

I don't have the time to address any of the specific claims in his endless YT links at the moment.

But I know that he very often refers to Kent Hovind videos, who is a known delusional and literally dishonest conman. Or at least his cognitive dissonance is so strong that he comes across that way.

Originally posted by truejedi
I also learned the appearance of age argument- but in what way is ethneo's information inaccurate?

Is the data he presented not accurate?
Is the data he presented not indicative of his premise?
Or is the data he presented an outlier to established scientific theories, that while accurate, and seeming to support his premise, not considered a smoking gun, and is otherwise explainable within the current theory of the age of the universe? And if that final one, how is it explained?

Don't ask questions or whirly will make a dur face at you. You have been warned.

Are you asking these questions to show the science side that they can't actually explain cosmology in any way and instead trust that the experts are telling them a story that's true ?

It doesn't mean the science side is wrong for their lack of explanation, for example no one can explain how a computer works (because the division of labor is so complex) but a child can still play angry birds on an ipad.
However the child playing on the iPad, which it can't explain in any way, trusts that it's parents wouldn't give it something harmful, and the parents trust apple to do the same.


This is why I asked impediment if he would change his mind if the science changed, even if the change was a few billion years.

Kent Hovind (and therefore Mr. Methneo) only disagree with the findings of established science when it conflicts with their specific form of delusion/religion. This should be very telling. *See attached quote*

vAgiHreswj0

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
The folks over at "Standing for Truth" YT channel hosted a Christmas special show with Kent Hovind on the subject of the age of the earth.

The three of them discussed at length many of the popular arguments atheists, evolutionists, and old earth creationists make to supposedly "prove" that the earth is "billions of years old."

https://youtu.be/1dtdv9uMWDI

Good stuff.

Please remember that today is Christmas so let's try avoid calling anyone insulting names like "retard", for instance. durmaskOriginally posted by ilikecomics
Don't ask questions or whirly will make a dur face at you. You have been warned.

Are you asking these questions to show the science side that they can't actually explain cosmology in any way and instead trust that the experts are telling them a story that's true ?

It doesn't mean the science side is wrong for their lack of explanation, for example no one can explain how a computer works (because the division of labor is so complex) but a child can still play angry birds on an ipad.
However the child playing on the iPad, which it can't explain in any way, trusts that it's parents wouldn't give it something harmful, and the parents trust apple to do the same.


This is why I asked impediment if he would change his mind if the science changed, even if the change was a few billion years.

This was a hidden gem, I missed as I was banned.