quote:

---

When someone says the Earth is 6000 years old, why do we jump over hoops to prove the Earth is over 6000 years old? It's their claim, the burden of proof is upon them.

---

what more do you need?

quote:

---

1.) Because it's relatively easy to do.

2.) Because we make a counter-claim regarding the age of the Earth/universe.

---

Yes, it is easy to do, but if they are ignored until they actually have evidence then it just goes away right?

I mean, I can look up the date of Exodus (1446 BC) and with the 6000 year chronology see that Exodus occured 3208 years after the beginning of the Earth http://creation.com/6000-years
and come up with a new age of the earth: 6669 years. (2015+1446+3208)

But what I say will basically get ignored and this "claim" will die. But if I post it on this forum and it goes viral and you get a bunch of science savvy people propagating it by easily disproving it then it continues to spread and becomes a new idiotic idea that we're plagued with.

quote:

---

When someone says the Earth is 6000 years old, why do we jump over hoops to prove the Earth is over 6000 years old? It's their claim, the burden of proof is upon them.

---

Any claim to the age of the Earth has a burden of proof. If you claim that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years, you should be able to back up how you arrived at that conclusion. . . . which is generally very easy to do.

I see your point though. If I were to offer a counter argument, I'd say that not addressing claims such as 'the Earth is 6,000 years old' may be perceived by those living in a religious bubble that there are no good counter arguments. Of course, if your bubble is small enough, the chances that you'd give any credibility to science that is counter to your presuppositions may be slim.

quote:

---

quote:

---

When someone says the Earth is 6000 years old, why do we jump over hoops to prove the Earth is over 6000 years old? It's their claim, the burden of proof is upon them.

---

what more do you need?

---

So if we finally get to the point where we can make Jurassic park really happen, does that mean that 500,000 years from now some creationist will use those fossils to try to disprove evolution???

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

When someone says the Earth is 6000 years old, why do we jump over hoops to prove the Earth is over 6000 years old? It's their claim, the burden of proof is upon them.

---

what more do you need?

---

So if we finally get to the point where we can make Jurassic park really happen, does that mean that 500,000 years from now some creationist will use those fossils to try to disprove evolution???

---

they've been playing the long game all along!

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

When someone says the Earth is 6000 years old, why do we jump over hoops to prove the Earth is over 6000 years old? It's their claim, the burden of proof is upon them.

---

what more do you need?

---

So if we finally get to the point where we can make Jurassic park really happen, does that mean that 500,000 years from now some creationist will use those fossils to try to disprove evolution???

---

But what if they turn into birds?

quote:

---

Yes, it is easy to do, but if they are ignored until they actually have evidence then it just goes away right?

I mean, I can look up the date of Exodus (1446 BC) and with the 6000 year chronology see that Exodus occured 3208 years after the beginning of the Earth http://creation.com/6000-years
and come up with a new age of the earth: 6669 years. (2015+1446+3208)

But what I say will basically get ignored and this "claim" will die. But if I post it on this forum and it goes viral and you get a bunch of science savvy people propagating it by easily disproving it then it continues to spread and becomes a new idiotic idea that we're plagued with.

---

1.) The idea has been around since the 1600s, so it doesn't seem like it's just going to go away.

2.) On a forum about religion and philosophy, I don't think an idea should be ignored even if it is at odds with science. I can potentially see the merits of not debating it on a stage for the general public, however not on a forum purporting to be about religion and philosophy. Here, no idea should be so sacrosanct that it can't even be discussed.

3.) Some people really have not been exposed to the idea that the Biblical account might be incorrect. My ex had spent her entire childhood surrounded by the idea that the world was 6,000 years old. She came around when she was exposed to the other side. I think the possibility of exposing someone to scientific ideas who hasn't had the benefit of being exposed to those ideas in the past is a worthy endeavor.

Also, the tangential discussions that come out of this can be extremely productive in terms of furthering my third point above, I think.

quote:

---

quote:

---

1.) Because it's relatively easy to do.

2.) Because we make a counter-claim regarding the age of the Earth/universe.

---

Yes, it is easy to do, but if they are ignored until they actually have evidence then it just goes away right?

I mean, I can look up the date of Exodus (1446 BC) and with the 6000 year chronology see that Exodus occured 3208 years after the beginning of the Earth http://creation.com/6000-years
and come up with a new age of the earth: 6669 years. (2015+1446+3208)

But what I say will basically get ignored and this "claim" will die. But if I post it on this forum and it goes viral and you get a bunch of science savvy people propagating it by easily disproving it then it continues to spread and becomes a new idiotic idea that we're plagued with.

---

Oh man, I browsed around that website for a few minutes. Had to close the window before I pulled my hair out. So much misinformation.

quote:

---

Oh man, I browsed around that website for a few minutes. Had to close the window before I pulled my hair out. So much science

---

FIFY, amirite?

quote:

---

3.) Some people really have not been exposed to the idea that the Biblical account might be incorrect. My ex had spent her entire childhood surrounded by the idea that the world was 6,000 years old. She came around when she was exposed to the other side. I think the possibility of exposing someone to scientific ideas who hasn't had the benefit of being exposed to those ideas in the past is a worthy endeavor.

---

They should be exposed to science. Not just to disprove the young earth theory, but to join the modern age. If she claims that the earth is 6000 years old, she should be pressed to explain why. And yes, I would do the same if I said the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

I'm not saying she wasn't exposed to science at all. For example, I'm sure she knew that THE MITOCHONDRIA IS THE POWERHOUSE OF THE CELL. She also knew that there were some people who believed the Earth is significantly older than 10,000 years. But she was led to believe that her knowledge about a young-earth was ultimately proven correct by science. It was a combination of exposing her to scientific facts and showing her just how overwhelming the consensus was that ultimately caused her to change her mind.

The idea that the world is only 6,000 years old is fairly common. The fact that it's wrong is not obvious unless you've been exposed to the fact that it's wrong. The people who believe that the world is 6,000 years old aren't dunce-caps. They're not unexposed to the modern world, and science in general. And some of them aren't ideologues. For those people, I find clearing up this particular misconception is a worthy endeavor. They usually bring up interesting and intelligent questions.

In fact, there were some interesting scientific questions brought up in this very thread whose answers are not that obvious. How do we know the big bang theory is correct? How do we know that the laws of the universe today held in the past? How does chromosome number change during speciation? Are there any examples of this? This topic served as a segue to those more interesting questions, and maybe, just maybe someone was exposed to a new point of view as well. On a forum for discussing religion and philosophy, I don't think we should shy away from this discussion. I think we should embrace it.

quote:

---

I'm not saying she wasn't exposed to science at all. For example, I'm sure she knew that THE MITOCHONDRIA IS THE POWERHOUSE OF THE CELL. She also knew that there were some people who believed the Earth is significantly older than 10,000 years. But she was led to believe that her knowledge about a young-earth was ultimately proven correct by science. It was a combination of exposing her to scientific facts and showing her just how overwhelming the consensus was that ultimately caused her to change her mind.

The idea that the world is only 6,000 years old is fairly common. The fact that it's wrong is not obvious unless you've been exposed to the fact that it's wrong. The people who believe that the world is 6,000 years old aren't dunce-caps. They're not unexposed to the modern world, and science in general. And some of them aren't ideologues. For those people, I find clearing up this particular misconception is a worthy endeavor. They usually bring up interesting and intelligent questions.

---

Well put.

As much as anything else, I think 'how' we are exposed to science is incredibly important. Memorizing something like a component of a cell is related to scientific knowledge, but memorization is not science. When science is taught correctly, the student learns how to think, how to evaluate, how to rationalize, how to form conclusions and, very importantly, how to recognize the weaknesses and assumptions of those conclusions.

There is a famous (to me anyway) video of Richard Feynman talking about a peer who knew all the names of different birds, and how that knowledge amounts to nothing. Knowing something about a bird requires more investigation than memorization of labels.

quote:

---

In fact, there were some interesting scientific questions brought up in this very thread whose answers are not that obvious. How do we know the big bang theory is correct?

---

Measured rates of expansion of the universe / galaxies are flying away from us at faster rates as you get further away. The 'big bang' theory comes from an inference that at one point everything was close together. The big bang theory is simply part of a model that explains parts of our universe. It is most certainly not correct - it will be refined as we learn more and possibly discarded outright someday if a big discovery is made.

quote:

---

How do we know that the laws of the universe today held in the past?

---

We don't, but what reason do we have to suggest that physical laws change over time other than the fact that many creationists offer this contrived theory because it fits their bias?


You may have meant these questions rhetorically, but I felt the need to respond anyway. These answers are not absolute answers. The wording of your questions "how do we know?" seemed to suggest that science has proved these things with complete certainty. . . . and I think that it would be a misunderstanding of how science works to expect complete certainty.

Thanks for the comment. I meant those questions as examples of ones that actually came up in this thread. I actually answered those myself at various points between pages 3-6.

quote:

---

I'm not saying she wasn't exposed to science at all. For example, I'm sure she knew that THE MITOCHONDRIA IS THE POWERHOUSE OF THE CELL.

---

That's one bit of science. What about plate tectonics? That should also be basic science.

My point was that she wasn't unacquainted with science. She undoubtedly knew about plate tectonics as well. She probably subconsciously knew that such a process indicated an old Earth. She simply didn't accept that the age of the Earth was in the billions of years rather than the thousands. Don't underestimate rationalizations, compartmentalization, and cognitive dissonance. Despite these things, she did come around when we addressed the topic directly. I had the further benefit of exposing her to ideas she had not heard before.

I fail to see how discussing this topic is detrimental, especially when the public impact is so low. Either way, I'm not fighting for some sort of high-ground here. In fact, I'm not fighting at all. I'm simply discussing theoretical ideas and empirical facts that not everyone around here buys into. So far it seems to have been a relatively civil discussion by all parties involved.

quote:

---

My point was that she wasn't unacquainted with science. She undoubtedly knew about plate tectonics as well. She probably subconsciously knew that such a process indicated an old Earth. She simply didn't accept that the age of the Earth was in the billions of years rather than the thousands. Don't underestimate rationalizations, compartmentalization, and cognitive dissonance. Despite these things, she did come around when we addressed the topic directly. I had the further benefit of exposing her to ideas she had not heard before.

I fail to see how discussing this topic is detrimental, especially when the public impact is so low. Either way, I'm not fighting for some sort of high-ground here. In fact, I'm not fighting at all. I'm simply discussing theoretical ideas and empirical facts that not everyone around here buys into. So far it seems to have been a relatively civil discussion by all parties involved.

---

I don't think anyone is fighting with you either. As was said above by others, there should be no topics off limits for discussion. The suggestion that YEC theory should be ignored seems more of a strategy for trying to not give credibility to what they believe to be bad science by engaging in debate.

The strategy reminds me how Christians got up in arms about The Divinci Code only to realize that all they were doing is creating interest in the book and helping Dan Brown sell more mediocre novels. . . . He's no Kurt Vonnegut. . . Just saying.

TexAgs91:

quote:

---

When someone says the Earth is 6000 years old, why do we jump over hoops to prove the Earth is over 6000 years old? It's their claim, the burden of proof is upon them.

---

I interpreted this as we should not argue with creationists. It's certainly a prevalent theme in the upper echelons of the atheist community. Perhaps I misconstrued TexAgs91's intent.

quote:

---

TexAgs91:

quote:

---

When someone says the Earth is 6000 years old, why do we jump over hoops to prove the Earth is over 6000 years old? It's their claim, the burden of proof is upon them.

---

I interpreted this as we should not argue with creationists. It's certainly a prevalent theme in the upper echelons of the atheist community. Perhaps I misconstrued TexAgs91's intent.

---

At the risk of sounding pretentious, at this point I do think we should no longer argue with YECs. It's gotten to the point at which their claims are so ridiculous and the evidence is so heavily stacked against them that it's a waste of time to even bother. The evidence is out there and it's their choice to seek it out. This is why I was initially critical of Bill Nye debating the Answers in Genesis guy but it turns out Nye was just trying to spread awareness of the YEC movement and emphasize the importance of science.

Why. We did it here on this very thread an it was no trouble?

WinaGs, TampaBayAg, oldarmy1, Martin Q. Blank, JJMt

All supported this silly notion, but by the end every single argument in favor of a 6k year old earth, or evolution denial was soundly put down. Not only is this beatdown very clear but it's informative to those outside watchers who might be on the fence or unsure. It also (granted most of them are probably immune to facts) shows the creationist that did argue that their arguments don't work and they are just speaking of faith. This is enough to break the spell for some. I remember when tyson was here arguing for YEC.

quote:

---

I remember when tyson was here arguing for YEC.

---

Say what?

I remember that NYE debate. I always thought the Noah's Ark point was the best one. If Noah had 7000 species on the boat, then 11 more species would have had to come into creation every single day since then to hit the number of known species today.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I remember when tyson was here arguing for YEC.

---

Say what?

---

Texags R&P is a deep hole of mysteries.

It's a calculated number and the YEC guy was the one using it. 7,000 essentially being an estimate of what would fit given design specs.

quote:

---

I don't think anyone is fighting with you either. As was said above by others, there should be no topics off limits for discussion. The suggestion that YEC theory should be ignored seems more of a strategy for trying to not give credibility to what they believe to be bad science by engaging in debate.

The strategy reminds me how Christians got up in arms about The Divinci Code only to realize that all they were doing is creating interest in the book and helping Dan Brown sell more mediocre novels. . . . He's no Kurt Vonnegut. . . Just saying.

---

Correct, I am not fighting. Sorry if it came off that way. And yes I'm trying to vocalize this strategy. Does arguing against it extend the life of this 400 year old young earth story or does it put it to rest?

See memes

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I remember when tyson was here arguing for YEC.

---

Say what?

---

Texags R&P is a deep hole of mysteries.

---

Not really.

Just assume that every single poster on here is a troll. Guilty until proven innocent through prolonged demonstrated behavior. Then, everything makes a bit more sense.

quote:

---

Why. We did it here on this very thread an it was no trouble?

WinaGs, TampaBayAg, oldarmy1, Martin Q. Blank, JJMt

All supported this silly notion, but by the end every single argument in favor of a 6k year old earth, or evolution denial was soundly put down. Not only is this beatdown very clear but it's informative to those outside watchers who might be on the fence or unsure. It also (granted most of them are probably immune to facts) shows the creationist that did argue that their arguments don't work and they are just speaking of faith. This is enough to break the spell for some. I remember when tyson was here arguing for YEC.

---

Sad that you put things in these terms.

Why is being right so important?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why. We did it here on this very thread an it was no trouble?

WinaGs, TampaBayAg, oldarmy1, Martin Q. Blank, JJMt

All supported this silly notion, but by the end every single argument in favor of a 6k year old earth, or evolution denial was soundly put down. Not only is this beatdown very clear but it's informative to those outside watchers who might be on the fence or unsure. It also (granted most of them are probably immune to facts) shows the creationist that did argue that their arguments don't work and they are just speaking of faith. This is enough to break the spell for some. I remember when tyson was here arguing for YEC.

---

Sad that you put things in these terms.

Why is being right so important?

---

Why is being right so important? You don't think it's important to be right?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why. We did it here on this very thread an it was no trouble?

WinaGs, TampaBayAg, oldarmy1, Martin Q. Blank, JJMt

All supported this silly notion, but by the end every single argument in favor of a 6k year old earth, or evolution denial was soundly put down. Not only is this beatdown very clear but it's informative to those outside watchers who might be on the fence or unsure. It also (granted most of them are probably immune to facts) shows the creationist that did argue that their arguments don't work and they are just speaking of faith. This is enough to break the spell for some. I remember when tyson was here arguing for YEC.

---

Sad that you put things in these terms.

Why is being right so important?

---

Well if you latch onto a false narrative "you" might be one of those people whose kids get whooping cough because you think vaccines cause autism.

Why wouldn't being right be important? What a peculiar notion. Who cares if what you believe is true?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why. We did it here on this very thread an it was no trouble?

WinaGs, TampaBayAg, oldarmy1, Martin Q. Blank, JJMt

All supported this silly notion, but by the end every single argument in favor of a 6k year old earth, or evolution denial was soundly put down. Not only is this beatdown very clear but it's informative to those outside watchers who might be on the fence or unsure. It also (granted most of them are probably immune to facts) shows the creationist that did argue that their arguments don't work and they are just speaking of faith. This is enough to break the spell for some. I remember when tyson was here arguing for YEC.

---

Sad that you put things in these terms.

Why is being right so important?

---

That's the reply? Wow. Hopeless.

quote:

---

quote:

---

When someone says the Earth is 6000 years old, why do we jump over hoops to prove the Earth is over 6000 years old? It's their claim, the burden of proof is upon them.

---

what more do you need?

---

Ok you guys keep asking for a YEC perspective and explanation. I said it would take a long time but since you simply mock out of ignorance things about a beginning neither your supposed scientific studies and theories will ever be able to actually prove (and YEC most likely will never fully be able to prove) I'll take the time to lay out a creation theory which, if one were to look at without an evolutionary belief system, is at the very least plausible and logical. Not saying you have to accept it but you can't say it is absolutely irrefutable because you simply don't know anymore than your big bang theory, how we came to be.

Job is the oldest book in the Bible. IF one is to accept the Bible then please explain what God challenges Job about creatures which had to be generally known to the readers of that day:
"Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God;

OR this one:
"Can you draw out Leviathan[a] with a hook,
Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?
2 Can you put a reed through his nose,
Or pierce his jaw with a hook?
(skipping ahead to descriptions again)
7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons,
Or his head with fishing spears?
8 Lay your hand on him;
Remember the battle
Never do it again!
9 Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false;
Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him?
10 No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.
Who then is able to stand against Me?
11 Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him?
Everything under heaven is Mine. 12 "I will not conceal[c] his limbs,
His mighty power, or his graceful proportions.
13 Who can remove his outer coat?
Who can approach him with a double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face,
With his terrible teeth all around?
15 His rows of scales are his pride,
Shut up tightly as with a seal;
16 One is so near another
That no air can come between them;
17 They are joined one to another,
They stick together and cannot be parted.
18 His sneezings flash forth light,
And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lights;
Sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke goes out of his nostrils,
As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.
21 His breath kindles coals,
And a flame goes out of his mouth.
22 Strength dwells in his neck,
And sorrow dances before him.
23 The folds of his flesh are joined together;
They are firm on him and cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as hard as stone,
Even as hard as the lower millstone.
25 When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid;
Because of his crashings they are beside[d] themselves.
26 Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail;
Nor does spear, dart, or javelin.
27 He regards iron as straw,
And bronze as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee;
Slingstones become like stubble to him.
29 Darts are regarded as straw;
He laughs at the threat of javelins.
30 His undersides are like sharp potsherds;
He spreads pointed marks in the mire.
31 He makes the deep boil like a pot;
He makes the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He leaves a shining wake behind him;
One would think the deep had white hair.
33 On earth there is nothing like him,
Which is made without fear.
34 He beholds every high thing;
He is king over all the children of pride."

Those creatures sure as heck aren't around today. Also, with all due respect to the brainchild of the modern evolutionist minds "Jurassic Park" is the story made up. From a Biblical viewpoint all creatures, including the ones mentioned above, which I would say sounds a lot like some sort of dinosaur, were not carnivores before the flood. Neither were our modern known carnivores such as lions, bears, etc. I'd point you to Genesis 1:29 "And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so."

Contrast this relationship with what God tells Noah post-flood: Genesis 9:1 "So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs."

From these texts a creationist Bible follower, using common sense, would see that a relationship existed before the flood where animals, birds, etc. had no fear of man and vice-versa because everything was herbivores. After the flood everything changed. Carnivores versus Herbivores and the connection between man and animals. Again, IF we are accepting the Bible at it's word then there is no way to look at those passages and come to the conclusion that man wouldn't have had no reservations in petting a lion, wolf, bear or even a huge beast such as a dinosaur. If it was there then it was a herbivore according to scripture until post-flood.

Now, what about the earth and universe? I'll comment on that in another epistle. I imagine there is more than enough gnashing of teeth to be done over the above for now.

I'm not sure I understand the relationship between you posted and age of earth theory. Let me try below, correct or modify where appropriate:

Humans and ancient animals began their existence together. That is, they both emerged at the same chronological time.

The ancient animals above that existed alongside humans were all herbivores.

At some point they evolved into carnivores and omnivores.


Did I miss any points or get any of those wrong? I figure once we establish the specifics we can start discussing the veracity of each point individually.