@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."
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"?
Who exactly said the earth was billions of years old?
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 fucking 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
And why should they be believed over the people that think it’s 6000?
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.
Who says one group think knows more than the other.
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?"
Carbon dating is laughable, humans thinking they are God by having all the answers to everything in the past, but we can’t seem to cure cancer.
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 fucking braindead line of thought and defies reason.
The same type of people that say the earth is millions or billions of years old are the same intellect and type that can’t give us any real cures for death or cancer, aids etc.
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"😉 is impressive in the most negative way one could imagine.
The idea that only certain people have the answers to the past while the same type of people hardly have any answers for the future.
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.
Originally posted by GehennaSuperb post Sorgo 👆
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 fucking 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 fucking 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"😉 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. [/B]
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."
That's pretty cool. 👆
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.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Superb post Sorgo 👆
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.
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.