# Evidence for a young earth



## jimity

According to the laws of information science information originates from a mind. Information in dna must have originated from a mind. Mutations adding information over long periods of time to dna is contrary to the law of information transmission. It has not been demonstrated for mutations to add information to dna.

Carbon dating doesn't tell us how old things are in terms of billions of years old but only thousands of years. Things believed to be over a billion years still contain carbon 14 but carbon 14 decays within less than 6000 years. So how can it contain carbon 14 and be billions of years old? We have a serious problem with carbon dating.

Comets flying through our solar system lose material as they are bombarded by solar radiation. And the maximum life of a comet is up to 100k years but our solar system is supposed to be billions of years old. So why do we still have comets? The "oort cloud" which is supposed to be producing new comets has been proposed as a reason for this. Has anyone ever seen this oort cloud? Nope. Not a single shred of observational evidence for it at all! 

The larger planets output more energy that they absorbs from the sun. If these planets are billions of years old wouldn't they all be cold as ice by now? 

The earth's magnetic field is slowly decaying. If we go back even a million years the magnetic field would be so strong it would probably rip out the iron contained in your blood.

The moon is moving away from the earth. If we go back 1.4 billion years then the moon would hit earth.

If spiral galaxies were billions of years old they would no longer look like spiral galaxies because of the way they rotate. They would twist themselves all out of shape over that time.

Blue stars are the hottest stars and burn up their fuel very quickly but they are found all over the universe. Shouldn't they not be observable if the universe is billions of years old? The idea is they formed recently but nobody has ever seen an actual star form. A lot of processes in nature that we believe and accept to be how things work (such as the big bang theory) have not even been actually observed. 

The fact that there is light coming from objects billion of light years away from earth is used as evidence that the earth and universe cannot possibly be young. Light from distant stars might travel almost instantaneous since the one way speed of light is what we choose it to be and not 300k km per sec.

The big bang theory breaks the conversation of angular momentum because some planets and moons spin backwards (not to mention many other problems with the big bang) 

The big bang breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why is there all this complex life on earth and all the objects in space? Shouldn't everything have been a mess because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If the law can be overcome in an open system then is the universe an open system? It's a closed system.

With the large amount of stars in the universe there should be more fragments of supernova. Around 300 supernova have been detected. Why aren't there a lot more?

The star Sirius was described thousands of years ago as red. Today it is a white dwarf. Doesn't a white dwarf take billions of years to form? Obviously not.

The ocean keeps getting saltier from all the mineral run off. The oceans should be a lot saliter if the earth is billions of years old.

At current rate of erosion the continents will all be flat in 14 million years. If the earth is billions of years old then why are they not flat yet?

Items made by humans are sometimes found in lumps of buried coal or solid rock that is supposed to be hundreds of million of years old. How did those things get there? Obviously the earth is much younger and would have been buried along with the plant material at the time when the coal was made.

Google the Piltdown hoax. For decades it was taken as evidence for evolution until it was found out to be a hoax. Numerous mistakes (like mistaking an infant donkey's skull for some prehistoric "man") and cover ups when trying to find missing links in the ape-to-man evolution.

Dinosaur bones have been found together with human bones suggesting dinosaurs were alive at the time humans were (6000 years ago). Also ancient carvings of dinosaur creatures have been found. But since this doesn't fit with the theory of evolution scientists say something else must have happened for human bones to be found with dinosaur bones or painting of dinosaurs were just mythical creatures they had imagined of.

Ever wondered why insects and animals in the past were often gigantic? One reason is because there was more oxygen in the air and the air pressure was higher than it is today. This could of been caused by an extra layer of atmosphere which was made of ice. This helped block out the suns harmful radiation and could help explain why people in the bible lived over 900 years old. Also no reason why humans couldn't have become giants also.

Petrified trees are found in the ground that extend through different layers of earth that are supposed to be from different time periods. This suggests the idea of different layers of earth being different ages is wrong.

Where did all the elements come from? Stars can create elements but creating elements past iron is very difficult. Does this suggest a supernatural creation?

I could go on but there is a ton of information on the internet about evolution of life and the universe and there are holes in it and many things unexplained.


----------



## EmotionlessThug

The Public seriously has only half of a concept, damn governments holding back. 

Like where's the rest of it, they really think we're special Ed huh?


----------



## Haunty

I think there are more holes in your information. For example there are other ways to date things than carbon 14, any radioactive element can be used for dating. 
Sirius is 2 stars, only Sirisu B is a white dwarf, A is main sequence. Ancient observations can't be relied on when they are not consistent.


----------



## knightofdespair




----------



## jimity

the cheat said:


> It's strange that the thread title is "evidence for a young earth", and yet, you provide none. Just uneducated questions of how accurate current science is.
> 
> It's always funny to me when religious people attempt to poke holes in science, when science never has or will claim to have 100% truths. All the scientists do really is use the best evidence possible at that point in time.
> 
> So, you question science and scientists, but your evidence for your beliefs are a collection of stories that were written by ancient tribal Jews thousands of years ago...I mean, really?
> 
> Scientific evidence is questionable, but not the bible...lol


There is motivation to kill God because this world is ruled by a group of people under the influence of satan. The best way is through lies about how the universe and people were made.

The bible isn't questionable because it's the word of the one true living God. He might kill and destroy countless people and sanction rape and murder. But he doesn't lie. Not to mention there are many many stories of a great flood thousands of years ago. Not just in the bible.


----------



## Batcat

jimity said:


> Carbon dating doesn't tell us how old things are in terms of billions of years old but only thousands of years. Things believed to be over a billion years still contain carbon 14 but carbon 14 decays within less than 6000 years. So how can it contain carbon 14 and be billions of years old? We have a serious problem with carbon dating.


You're being very selective in your choice of dating methods. 
Carbon-14 dating is used to pinpoint precise dates within the past 6000 years. It's not used to date the age of the Earth.

Potassium-Argon dating, if I remember correctly is used to date volcanic rocks within the range of 4.5 billion to 100,000 years ago. There's also other techniques employed which have provided independent confirmation such as fission-track dating and Geomagnetic reversals.


----------



## Cashel

You don't happen to sit on the Texas Board of Education by any chance?

Quick! Is Moses one of the United States' founding fathers?


----------



## jimity

the cheat said:


> LOL!!! No use responding to this. Have a good day...


Religion 1
Science 0


----------



## Qolselanu

I think the point about elements coming from stars is pretty funny. Admitting that while claiming the earth/universe is super young is a serious misstep. In order for a star to form heavier elements, it needs to go thru its entire lifecycle of at the very least millions of years.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> According to the laws of information science information originates from a mind. Information in dna must have originated from a mind. Mutations adding information over long periods of time to dna is contrary to the law of information transmission. It has not been demonstrated for mutations to add information to dna.
> 
> Carbon dating doesn't tell us how old things are in terms of billions of years old but only thousands of years. Things believed to be over a billion years still contain carbon 14 but carbon 14 decays within less than 6000 years. So how can it contain carbon 14 and be billions of years old? We have a serious problem with carbon dating.
> 
> Comets flying through our solar system lose material as they are bombarded by solar radiation. And the maximum life of a comet is up to 100k years but our solar system is supposed to be billions of years old. So why do we still have comets? The "oort cloud" which is supposed to be producing new comets has been proposed as a reason for this. Has anyone ever seen this oort cloud? Nope. Not a single shred of observational evidence for it at all!
> 
> The larger planets output more energy that they absorbs from the sun. If these planets are billions of years old wouldn't they all be cold as ice by now?
> 
> The earth's magnetic field is slowly decaying. If we go back even a million years the magnetic field would be so strong it would probably rip out the iron contained in your blood.
> 
> The moon is moving away from the earth. If we go back 1.4 billion years then the moon would hit earth.
> 
> If spiral galaxies were billions of years old they would no longer look like spiral galaxies because of the way they rotate. They would twist themselves all out of shape over that time.
> 
> Blue stars are the hottest stars and burn up their fuel very quickly but they are found all over the universe. Shouldn't they not be observable if the universe is billions of years old? The idea is they formed recently but nobody has ever seen an actual star form. A lot of processes in nature that we believe and accept to be how things work (such as the big bang theory) have not even been actually observed.
> 
> The fact that there is light coming from objects billion of light years away from earth is used as evidence that the earth and universe cannot possibly be young. Light from distant stars might travel almost instantaneous since the one way speed of light is what we choose it to be and not 300k km per sec.
> 
> The big bang theory breaks the conversation of angular momentum because some planets and moons spin backwards (not to mention many other problems with the big bang)
> 
> The big bang breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why is there all this complex life on earth and all the objects in space? Shouldn't everything have been a mess because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If the law can be overcome in an open system then is the universe an open system? It's a closed system.
> 
> With the large amount of stars in the universe there should be more fragments of supernova. Around 300 supernova have been detected. Why aren't there a lot more?
> 
> The star Sirius was described thousands of years ago as red. Today it is a white dwarf. Doesn't a white dwarf take billions of years to form? Obviously not.
> 
> The ocean keeps getting saltier from all the mineral run off. The oceans should be a lot saliter if the earth is billions of years old.
> 
> At current rate of erosion the continents will all be flat in 14 million years. If the earth is billions of years old then why are they not flat yet?
> 
> Items made by humans are sometimes found in lumps of buried coal or solid rock that is supposed to be hundreds of million of years old. How did those things get there? Obviously the earth is much younger and would have been buried along with the plant material at the time when the coal was made.
> 
> Google the Piltdown hoax. For decades it was taken as evidence for evolution until it was found out to be a hoax. Numerous mistakes (like mistaking an infant donkey's skull for some prehistoric "man") and cover ups when trying to find missing links in the ape-to-man evolution.
> 
> Dinosaur bones have been found together with human bones suggesting dinosaurs were alive at the time humans were (6000 years ago). Also ancient carvings of dinosaur creatures have been found. But since this doesn't fit with the theory of evolution scientists say something else must have happened for human bones to be found with dinosaur bones or painting of dinosaurs were just mythical creatures they had imagined of.
> 
> Ever wondered why insects and animals in the past were often gigantic? One reason is because there was more oxygen in the air and the air pressure was higher than it is today. This could of been caused by an extra layer of atmosphere which was made of ice. This helped block out the suns harmful radiation and could help explain why people in the bible lived over 900 years old. Also no reason why humans couldn't have become giants also.
> 
> Petrified trees are found in the ground that extend through different layers of earth that are supposed to be from different time periods. This suggests the idea of different layers of earth being different ages is wrong.
> 
> Where did all the elements come from? Stars can create elements but creating elements past iron is very difficult. Does this suggest a supernatural creation?
> 
> I could go on but there is a ton of information on the internet about evolution of life and the universe and there are holes in it and many things unexplained.


jimity you are really showing your ignorance again. These are all gaps and confusion in your knowledge, along with many fallacious claims.

I'm pretty sure you just copied most if not all of it from other ignorant people on creationist forums as well. :roll


----------



## jimity

ugh1979 said:


> jimity you are really showing your ignorance again. These are all gaps and confusion in your knowledge, along with many fallacious claims.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you just copied most if not all of it from other ignorant people on creationist forums as well. :roll


I got the information from creationist youtube videos. These were well educated people giving lectures and now you're telling me this is just wrong.


----------



## ugh1979

jimity said:


> I got the information from creationist youtube videos. These were well educated people giving lectures and now you're telling me this is just wrong.


I'm sure they _appear _well educated to you.

They have in fact probably just read one more creationist webpage than you etc. :roll

If any of the claims stood up to scrutiny then why are none of them made in scientific journals? Or is the scientific community part of a global conspiracy against you and your kinds beliefs?


----------



## Apoc Revolution

_You are talking to people who are spiritually blind... They don't believe in God because they haven't seen Him, yet believe the Big Bang theory which no one has witnessed. Atheists may not believe in God, but they still put their faith in something, just like theists. And for that, they will have no excuse when they find out that there really is a Creator who judges people. _


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> You are talking to people who are spiritually blind...


One cannot see what isn't there without delusion.



> They don't believe in God because they haven't seen Him, yet believe the Big Bang theory which no one has witnessed.


Unlike your concept of god, there is substantial credible evidence for the big bang. Not everything has to be witnessed in order to generate credible evidence you know. We have a huge range of techniques and tools to augment our basic senses which help us discover what reality is and isn't.



> Atheists may not believe in God, but they still put their faith in something, just like theists. And for that, they will have no excuse when they find out that there really is a Creator who judges people.


The difference is atheists are typically happy to be open to whatever the best current evidence shows to be the most likely answer, and have no problem evolving their beliefs to suit, where as theists are typically so close minded and insular they stick to one archaic primitive doctrine that in order to maintain they need to bury their head in the sand. The former is obviously the far more intellectually honest position.


----------



## JDsays

I'm with Dr. Banjo on this one. Evolution is a lie, I tell you!


----------



## Apoc Revolution

ugh1979 said:


> One cannot see what isn't there without delusion.


_I don't need to see God, I know He exists because we wouldn't have been here otherwise. We're not just accidents that return to nothingness after death._



ugh1979 said:


> Unlike your concept of god, there is substantial credible evidence for the big bang. Not everything has to be witnessed in order to generate credible evidence you know. We have a huge range of techniques and tools to augment our basic senses which help us discover what reality is and isn't.


_No, there isn't, it's called a theory for a reason. It is merely speculation, which can change at anytime. It would be easier to calculate the exact number of grains of sand on a beach, than to calculate what triggered the Big Bang. It's ludicrous to think that we could find the answer without knowing why it happened. THAT is delusion._



ugh1979 said:


> The difference is atheists are typically happy to be open to whatever the best current evidence shows to be the most likely answer, and have no problem evolving their beliefs to suit, *where as theists are typically so close minded and insular they stick to one archaic primitive doctrine that in order to maintain they need to bury their head in the sand.* The former is obviously the far more intellectually honest position.


_I see this kind of arrogance a lot in atheists. They think they're intellectually superior, but most of them aren't even scientists themselves and believe everything they're told. Hypocrisy at its finest. The Bible calls them fools who claim to be wise. Just because the Bible is old doesn't mean it can't be true, that would be a logical fallacy. You could show them the best evidence there is, and they would still refuse to believe it because they don't want to hear it. People only want to hear things they like, having too much pride to admit they could be wrong. It doesn't matter if OP copied information from somewhere else, they're still very good points._


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> I don't need to see God, I know He exists because we wouldn't have been here otherwise. We're not just accidents that return to nothingness after death.


You make such bold claim but they don't stand up to scrutiny in the slightest. Stating so just makes you look arrogant and deluded, since you simply can't know that is the case. Never mind the fact there is no good reason for it to be the case. It's wishful thinking.



> No, there isn't, it's called a theory for a reason. It is merely speculation, which can change at anytime.


You clearly don't understand what a theory is in this context.



> *(Scientific) Theory*
> A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.


Such ignorance makes it laughable you think you are qualified to make arguments on the matter.



> It would be easier to calculate the exact number of grains of sand on a beach, than to calculate what triggered the Big Bang. It's completely ridiculous to think that we could find the answer without knowing why it happened. THAT is delusion.


Why do you think you have to know why something happened in order to know it did happen? That doesn't make any sense.

I can of course ask you if you know what created your god, so your argument just comes back round and hits you in the back of your head. If you say your god is exempt and nothing else is then you better have a very good reason why, otherwise it's a double standard.



> I see this kind of arrogance a lot in atheists. They think they're intellectually superior, but most of them aren't even scientists themselves and believe everything they're told. Hypocrisy at its finest. The Bible calls them fools who claim to be wise. Just because the Bible is old doesn't mean it can't be true, that would be a logical fallacy. You could show them the best evidence there is, and they would still refuse to believe it because they don't want to hear it. People only want to hear things they like, having too much pride to admit they could be wrong.


It is intellectually more honest to be open to new evidence and findings, and the vast majority of atheists have no problem evolving their beliefs in line with that. There is no single authority on what's right and wrong so people are free to judge for themselves, hopefully based on credibility of the source. To say every scientific claim is believed by atheists without question is wrong, as that's not how having scientific beliefs work in practice. You need a large body of credible evidence from numerous independent sources for something to become established fact. I don't think you understand this.

It's clearly many theists who only believe what they want and ignore the evidence that contradicts said beliefs. Credulity is a necessary part of holding and maintaining religious and supernatural beliefs.

It's laughable to say it's atheists that aren't open to evolving beliefs, and in the same paragraph try and defend archaic doctrine.

Can you give some examples of beliefs you hold that have changed in line with new evidence? What changes have there been to your doctrine in response to new evidence?

It's also laughable to call anyone arrogant when you claim you have access to knowledge that no one can possible have. It's a shame your beliefs have led you to be this way and make you so intellectually dishonest.



> It doesn't matter if OP copied information from somewhere else, they're still very good points.


No they aren't, as they are riddled with ignorance and misinformation.


----------



## Apoc Revolution

the cheat said:


> On the contrary, I'm very spiritual, I believe in _a_ God aka creator and that there is a greater purpose for everything... I just don't, and can't, subscribe to the idea that stories created by uneducated tribesmen 1200-2000+ years ago in the Middle East... are stories that were inspired by God actually talking to them and giving them orders on how everything was created and how they should live their lives.
> 
> Without religion being so violent towards anyone who dared question them, and holding back scientific advances, these ideas would all be dead long ago.
> 
> Is there a creator? I believe there is. But it most certainly is NOT Yahweh, Allah, or Zeus, or any of the "God's" we've invented over time.


_I see. To find out whether the Bible is true or not, you have to look at the prophecies being fulfilled in our generation. Increase of knowledge and worldwide Gospel preaching are happening right now, for example. Logically, they couldn't have known this back then... yet they were right. Our way of living has changed drastically since the past 50 or so years, allowing the Gospel to be spread through the use of internet and media. Natural disasters are said to increase as well, which is also true. It's crazy how many earthquakes, tornadoes, etc are happening lately. The collapse of the world's economies has yet to occur, but when it does, that's another prophecy being fulfilled. If these prophecies who are given to man by God are true, and Jesus is God Himself in the flesh, then everything else written in the Bible has to be true. There are many 'gods', but there can only be one true living God.

These were all written by "uneducated tribesmen". The mainstream media doesn't tell you about these things. They only tell what they're being told. You can laugh at the idea of a group of people controlling everything and ruling the world under Satanic influence, but it's the truth. Many celebrities have openly admitted to sell their souls to the Devil in exchange for fame and fortune. Senate candidate Augustus Sol Invictus has admitted to sacrificing a goat and drinking its blood. George Bush Sr. literally told his plans for a new world order live on television, Satanic symbols are being shown in media, etc. There's so much going on behind the scenes.
_


----------



## MondKrabbe

Sorry fellas, Ahsonnutli, The Changing Woman, is real, but "God" from the Bible isn't. But all of you in this thread, meaning EVERYONE, would rather debate silly topics than worship the correct deities. No wonder the world has problems. :roll


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> I see. To find out whether the Bible is true or not, you have to look at the prophecies being fulfilled in our generation.


Ambiguous prophecies that need even more intellectual dishonesty to defend than Nostradamus ones. :roll You do realise the other religions are all saying their prophecies are being fulfilled as well yeah? You can't all be right, and are undoubtedly all wrong and succumbing to numerous fallacies in reasoning.



> Increase of knowledge and worldwide Gospel preaching are happening right now, for example. Logically, they couldn't have known this back then... yet they were right.


How is predicting knowledge would increase and people would preach the Gospel a fulfilled prophecy. That's as inane as predicting that the sun would keep rising. :? They didn't know the sun would keep rising either but it's good bet to say it will.



> Our way of living has changed drastically since the past 50 or so years, allowing the Gospel to be spread through the use of internet and media.


Yet due to more access to information religiosity is dead/dying in most of the West.



> Natural disasters are said to increase as well, which is also true. It's crazy how many earthquakes, tornadoes, etc are happening lately.


There are many rational reasons why this appears to be the case or is the case in some ways. For one there are far more people around to report them, and far more people they can effect. Don't confuse an increase in media exposure with an increase in something actually happening for example. That's an error in reasoning I often see people make. There are also ways we have changed the atmosphere in the last few hundred years which can increase the number of natural disasters.



> The collapse of the world's economies has yet to occur, but when it does, that's another prophecy being fulfilled.


You sound like you might be looking forward to a future where that happens. Are you?



> If these prophecies who are given to man by God are true, and Jesus is God Himself in the flesh, then everything else written in the Bible has to be true.


Not when said prophecies are so ambiguous and cherry picked. It's convenient for you but embarrassing that you just ignore the huge list of historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdities listed in the bible. It's incredibly intellectually dishonest.



> There are many 'gods', but there can only be one true living God.


You can't know this.



> These were all written by "uneducated tribesmen". The mainstream media doesn't tell you about these things. They only tell what they're being told. You can laugh at the idea of a group of people controlling everything and ruling the world under Satanic influence, but it's the truth. Many celebrities have openly admitted to sell their souls to the Devil in exchange for fame and fortune. Senate candidate Augustus Sol Invictus has admitted to sacrificing a goat and drinking its blood. George Bush Sr. literally told his plans for a new world order live on television, Satanic symbols are being shown in media, etc. There's so much going on behind the scenes.
> [/COLOR][/I][/FONT][/SIZE]


More embarrassing credulity and arrogance. Bible thumping, conspiracy theories and tin foil hats abound. It's laughable you claim to have a line to the 'truth'. :lol


----------



## Apoc Revolution

ugh1979 said:


> You make such bold claim but they don't stand up to scrutiny in the slightest. Stating so just makes you look arrogant and deluded, since you simply can't know that is the case. Never mind the fact there is no good reason for it to be the case. It's wishful thinking.


_We both haven't seen God or the Big Bang happening, but only I am the one who is arrogant and deluded? 'Something' created us, otherwise we wouldn't exist right now. I choose to believe God has the answers, you choose to believe science has the answers. This debate will go nowhere._



ugh1979 said:


> You clearly don't understand what a theory is in this context.
> 
> Such ignorance makes it laughable you think you are qualified to make arguments on the matter.


_Well excuse me for being wrong, sheesh._



ugh1979 said:


> Why do you think you have to know why something happened in order to know it did happen? That doesn't make any sense.


_Knowing that the Big Bang supposedly happened isn't the point. If you don't know what triggered it, you'll never find the answers you are looking for. The difference between you and me, is that I no longer have to search for the Truth. I have already found it._



ugh1979 said:


> I can of course ask you if you know what created your god, so your argument just comes back round and hits you in the back of your head. If you say your god is exempt and nothing else is then you better have a very good reason why, otherwise it's a double standard.


_Unlike anything else in the universe, God wasn't created. He has always existed. A being who is outside of time and space doesn't need to be created. Don't you think that a God who is far greater than the universe doesn't need to adhere to the laws of the universe, which He Himself created?_



ugh1979 said:


> It is intellectually more honest to be open to new evidence and findings, and the vast majority of atheists have no problem evolving their beliefs in line with that. *There is no single authority on what's right and wrong so people are free to judge for themselves, hopefully based on credibility of the source.* To say every scientific claim is believed by atheists without question is wrong, as that's not how having scientific beliefs work in practice. You need a large body of credible evidence from numerous independent sources for something to become established fact. I don't think you understand this.


_This only leads to confusion, and is exactly the reason why it's impossible to find Truth in something that constantly changes. The vast majority of atheists have no problem evolving their beliefs? How can they evolve their beliefs by refusing to consider the possibility of a Creator? Like I said, they only seek evidence that supports their views._



ugh1979 said:


> It's clearly many theists who only believe what they want and ignore the evidence that contradicts said beliefs. Credulity is a necessary part of holding and maintaining religious and supernatural beliefs.


_You keep saying theists ignore evidence, but you're doing the exact same thing. You dismissed all of OP's points without even asking how that could work._



ugh1979 said:


> It's laughable to say it's atheists that aren't open to evolving beliefs, and in the same paragraph try and defend archaic doctrine.


_For me to "evolve" my beliefs, I would have to abandon the concept of God existing because science leaves God or anything that's supernatural out of the equation. No thanks.

_


ugh1979 said:


> Can you give some examples of beliefs you hold that have changed in line with new evidence? What changes have there been to your doctrine in response to new evidence?


_There is no need for my beliefs to change because the Word of God doesn't change. If my beliefs would change, I would no longer be a Christian._



ugh1979 said:


> It's also laughable to call anyone arrogant when you claim you have access to knowledge that no one can possible have. It's a shame your beliefs have led you to be this way and make you so intellectually dishonest.


_In case you haven't noticed, the Bible is the best sold book in history. It contains knowledge that almost every person could have. Do you really think I care if you think I'm intellectually dishonest? I have absolutely nothing to lose by believing in God. Being saved by Christ makes me a winner, not a loser._



ugh1979 said:


> No they aren't, as they are riddled with ignorance and misinformation.


_Lol._


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> We both haven't seen God or the Big Bang happening, but only I am the one who is arrogant and deluded? 'Something' created us, otherwise we wouldn't exist right now. I choose to believe God has the answers, you choose to believe science has the answers. This debate will go nowhere.


The difference is I have credible evidence for the big bang, all you have is faith. As I said but you clearly ignored, we don't need to directly observe something to know it happened. (At least with a high degree of certainty if the evidence supports it, which it does in the case of the big bang, hence why it's a scientific theory and not a hypothesis).



> Well excuse me for being wrong, sheesh.


I can only hope you will keep this new knowledge in mind and never use the fallacious argument that's it's "only a theory" again.



> Knowing that the Big Bang supposedly happened isn't the point. If you don't know what triggered it, you'll never find the answers you are looking for. The difference between you and me, is that I no longer have to search for the Truth. I have already found it.


Unlike you i'm happy to admit I don't know how the universe was triggered. Only someone highly deluded could claim such knowledge.



> Unlike anything else in the universe, God wasn't created. He has always existed. A being who is outside of time and space doesn't need to be created. Don't you think that a God who is far greater than the universe doesn't need to adhere to the laws of the universe, which He Himself created?


In the same respect, I could arguably posit that the event that triggered the universe is outside time and space and need not require a creator as it doesn't have to adhere to the laws of the subsequent known universe.

It would be a double standard to say that can only apply to your god.



> This only leads to confusion, and is exactly the reason why it's impossible to find Truth in something that constantly changes.


It may lead to confusion in people like you, but intellectually honest people are happy to admit we don't know the whole truth, and we need to keep learning about it. We can never know the whole truth, so all we can do is keep maintaining and evolving an approximation of reality as we learn more.

Do you think there is nothing else to learn on the matter of the origin of the universe/life etc since you claim to know it all?



> The vast majority of atheists have no problem evolving their beliefs? How can they evolve their beliefs by refusing to consider the possibility of a Creator?


Rejecting inane and unsubstantiated beliefs is entirely compatible with the evolution of beliefs.



> Like I said, they only seek evidence that supports their views.


I think this says more about the way you think in that you have the answer you want and contrary evidence is ignored. Atheists on the other hand are far more likely to be open to wherever the evidence points, which certainly isn't god. I know of quite a few atheists who would like to believe in god, but can't, as there is no credible evidence.

It's clear you are extremely blinkered and only seek or accept (supposed) evidence which supports your world view.



> You keep saying theists ignore evidence, but you're doing the exact same thing. You dismissed all of OP's points without even asking how that could work.


I dismissed them as they are full of the usual ignorance and misinformation that creationists post, and I've addressed them many times already on this forum. I'm not going to waste my time explaining the fallacy of them all when I know he will just ignore it. If he picks a few I might be happy to go over them but not the full list.



> For me to "evolve" my beliefs, I would have to abandon the concept of God existing because science leaves God or anything that's supernatural out of the equation. No thanks.
> 
> There is no need for my beliefs to change because the Word of God doesn't change. If my beliefs would change, I would no longer be a Christian.


So why did you say atheists aren't open to evolving their beliefs when you know that in fact it's you who is absolutely not open to evolving your beliefs?

You are effectively saying there is nothing else to be learned and that you know everything about the subject, which is incredibly arrogant and short sighted.



> In case you haven't noticed, the Bible is the best sold book in history.


So what? Don't make argumentum ad populum fallacies.



> It contains knowledge that almost every person could have.


Every book contains knowledge that almost every person could have.



> Do you really think I care if you think I'm intellectually dishonest?


No, but it's worth pointing out to the audience how you are. 



> I have absolutely nothing to lose by believing in God.


Other than possibly time, respect etc.



> Being saved by Christ makes me a winner, not a loser.


You don't know that you will. Or maybe you chose the wrong religion/god? How can you know one of the other religions aren't right and you're wrong? They have very similar arguments and rationale as yours.


----------



## knightofdespair

JDsays said:


> I'm with Dr. Banjo on this one. Evolution is a lie, I tell you!


----------



## Apoc Revolution

ugh1979 said:


> snip


_We could keep going on like this, but we're just going in circles. There is only one way to find out which of us is right, and that is after death. I will keep believing because it gives me hope for a better future. The reason why I follow Christ, is because He died for my sins out of love. No other religion is like that. Not believing in God is the most stupid choice one can make, you're playing with fire. If you're right, you would be gone without ever knowing the Truth. If you're wrong, an eternity of regret awaits you with no hope of escaping. You can't say you haven't been warned.

Good day.
_


----------



## MondKrabbe

Apoc Revolution said:


> _We could keep going on like this, but we're just going in circles. There is only one way to find out which of us is right, and that is after death. I will keep believing because it gives me hope for a better future. The reason why I follow Christ, is because He died for my sins out of love. No other religion is like that. Not believing in God is the most stupid choice one can make, you're playing with fire. If you're right, you would be gone without ever knowing the Truth. If you're wrong, an eternity of regret awaits you with no hope of escaping. You can't say you haven't been warned.
> 
> Good day.
> _


I'm here to warn everyone in this thread, Zeus and the rest of the Gods of Olympus are going to cause apocalyptic disasters because you and many others don't believe in him. Thanks a lot.


----------



## ugh1979

Apoc Revolution said:


> We could keep going on like this, but we're just going in circles. There is only one way to find out which of us is right, and that is after death. I will keep believing because it gives me hope for a better future.


That's a shame you need your faith to give you hope for a better future, and it be one that is post death rather than in the life you know exists. Very sad in fact.



> The reason why I follow Christ, is because He died for my sins out of love. No other religion is like that.


That seems like a pretty mundane reason, and needs you to fall for the manufactured concepts and repercussions of sin that religion invented. Personally I'd call anyone who sacrificed them self for such as reason a fool and certainly not worthy of admiration.



> Not believing in God is the most stupid choice one can make, you're playing with fire. If you're right, you would be gone without ever knowing the Truth. If you're wrong, an eternity of regret awaits you with no hope of escaping. You can't say you haven't been warned.
> 
> Good day.


You've just made the fallacy of Pacal's wager. You can read all about why it's a fallacy here, but I'm sure you'll choose to ignore it. Happy to discuss it if you want though.


----------



## blue2

Your body is the universe its made of elements created a long time ago the hydrogen in my body is 13.7 billion years old so I've been told we are stardust a manifestation of the universe everything is young and everything is old my youngest elements are 5 billion years old :/ in theory its the ancient carbon, nitrogen and oxygen in scientists minds that are creating new elements so maybe we are a continuation of the big bang .....but also maybe god exists :stu


----------



## Dilweedle




----------



## Foh_Teej

jimity said:


> According to the laws of information science information originates from a mind. Information in dna must have originated from a mind. Mutations adding information over long periods of time to dna is contrary to the law of information transmission. It has not been demonstrated for mutations to add information to dna.
> 
> Carbon dating doesn't tell us how old things are in terms of billions of years old but only thousands of years. Things believed to be over a billion years still contain carbon 14 but carbon 14 decays within less than 6000 years. So how can it contain carbon 14 and be billions of years old? We have a serious problem with carbon dating.
> 
> Comets flying through our solar system lose material as they are bombarded by solar radiation. And the maximum life of a comet is up to 100k years but our solar system is supposed to be billions of years old. So why do we still have comets? The "oort cloud" which is supposed to be producing new comets has been proposed as a reason for this. Has anyone ever seen this oort cloud? Nope. Not a single shred of observational evidence for it at all!
> 
> The larger planets output more energy that they absorbs from the sun. If these planets are billions of years old wouldn't they all be cold as ice by now?
> 
> The earth's magnetic field is slowly decaying. If we go back even a million years the magnetic field would be so strong it would probably rip out the iron contained in your blood.
> 
> The moon is moving away from the earth. If we go back 1.4 billion years then the moon would hit earth.
> 
> If spiral galaxies were billions of years old they would no longer look like spiral galaxies because of the way they rotate. They would twist themselves all out of shape over that time.
> 
> Blue stars are the hottest stars and burn up their fuel very quickly but they are found all over the universe. Shouldn't they not be observable if the universe is billions of years old? The idea is they formed recently but nobody has ever seen an actual star form. A lot of processes in nature that we believe and accept to be how things work (such as the big bang theory) have not even been actually observed.
> 
> The fact that there is light coming from objects billion of light years away from earth is used as evidence that the earth and universe cannot possibly be young. Light from distant stars might travel almost instantaneous since the one way speed of light is what we choose it to be and not 300k km per sec.
> 
> The big bang theory breaks the conversation of angular momentum because some planets and moons spin backwards (not to mention many other problems with the big bang)
> 
> The big bang breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why is there all this complex life on earth and all the objects in space? Shouldn't everything have been a mess because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If the law can be overcome in an open system then is the universe an open system? It's a closed system.
> 
> With the large amount of stars in the universe there should be more fragments of supernova. Around 300 supernova have been detected. Why aren't there a lot more?
> 
> The star Sirius was described thousands of years ago as red. Today it is a white dwarf. Doesn't a white dwarf take billions of years to form? Obviously not.
> 
> The ocean keeps getting saltier from all the mineral run off. The oceans should be a lot saliter if the earth is billions of years old.
> 
> At current rate of erosion the continents will all be flat in 14 million years. If the earth is billions of years old then why are they not flat yet?
> 
> Items made by humans are sometimes found in lumps of buried coal or solid rock that is supposed to be hundreds of million of years old. How did those things get there? Obviously the earth is much younger and would have been buried along with the plant material at the time when the coal was made.
> 
> Google the Piltdown hoax. For decades it was taken as evidence for evolution until it was found out to be a hoax. Numerous mistakes (like mistaking an infant donkey's skull for some prehistoric "man") and cover ups when trying to find missing links in the ape-to-man evolution.
> 
> Dinosaur bones have been found together with human bones suggesting dinosaurs were alive at the time humans were (6000 years ago). Also ancient carvings of dinosaur creatures have been found. But since this doesn't fit with the theory of evolution scientists say something else must have happened for human bones to be found with dinosaur bones or painting of dinosaurs were just mythical creatures they had imagined of.
> 
> Ever wondered why insects and animals in the past were often gigantic? One reason is because there was more oxygen in the air and the air pressure was higher than it is today. This could of been caused by an extra layer of atmosphere which was made of ice. This helped block out the suns harmful radiation and could help explain why people in the bible lived over 900 years old. Also no reason why humans couldn't have become giants also.
> 
> Petrified trees are found in the ground that extend through different layers of earth that are supposed to be from different time periods. This suggests the idea of different layers of earth being different ages is wrong.
> 
> Where did all the elements come from? Stars can create elements but creating elements past iron is very difficult. Does this suggest a supernatural creation?
> 
> I could go on but there is a ton of information on the internet about evolution of life and the universe and there are holes in it and many things unexplained.


Can you list citations please? I already know most of this crap is solely found on creationists websites (there's a reason) but i need the citation in order to refute them properly. I'm not doing your work. However, many have already been refuted on talkorigins and rationalwiki and youtube. Some of them aren't even arguments at all for a young earth or straight arguments from ignorance. Some are demonstrably false and your source simply didn't know what he or she was talking about. So, again, can you cite the paper detailing these claims so they can be properly evaluated?


----------



## jimity

Foh_Teej said:


> So, again, can you cite the paper detailing these claims so they can be properly evaluated?


This information is from youtube videos so I don't have any of the things you are after.


----------



## NathanielWingatePeaslee

jimity said:


> This information is from youtube videos so I don't have any of the things you are after.


----------



## Foh_Teej

jimity said:


> This information is from youtube videos so I don't have any of the things you are after.


Can you at least cite the videos? I'll be amazed if many of them have voting and comment enabled, but I digress. So did you investigate these claims yourself? I can already tell many are the type of arguments Lisle, Humphreys, Ham, and a few other prominent creationists have presented on sites like ICR, CMI, and AiG. There's a reason they're only found there and rejected by the scientific community. I am no expert in general physics, astrophysics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, geophysics, or paleontology to refute these claims myself. This type of Gish Gallop might seem impressive to some on the internet on a forum full or laypersons but not particularly compelling to skeptics or the scientific community. However, with proper citations, we can at least investigate the claims for merit at our level of understanding and examine the research of experts in relevant fields.


----------



## jimity

Foh_Teej said:


> Can you at least cite the videos? I'll be amazed if many of them have voting and comment enabled, but I digress. So did you investigate these claims yourself? I can already tell many are the type of arguments Lisle, Humphreys, Ham, and a few other prominent creationists have presented on sites like ICR, CMI, and AiG. There's a reason they're only found there and rejected by the scientific community. I am no expert in general physics, astrophysics, cosmology, astronomy, geology, geophysics, or paleontology to refute these claims myself. This type of Gish Gallop might seem impressive to some on the internet on a forum full or laypersons but not particularly compelling to skeptics or the scientific community. However, with proper citations, we can at least investigate the claims for merit at our level of understanding and examine the research of experts in relevant fields.






 Fast forward to 6:45









No I didn't investigate the claims made by them.


----------



## Foh_Teej

jimity said:


> Fast forward to 6:45
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't investigate the claims made by them.


Right. Who would have guessed it? Jason Lisle and Eric Hovind videos. At least you didn't cite daddy Hovind, ole' Kent (but that's where Eric gets his arguments). He's probably the most refuted apologist on the internet. I'll post those when I have time to watch these. Or, you can do your own searches. Like I said, rationalwiki and talkorigins pretty much cover every one of these arguments.


----------



## NuthinSimple

See a doctor


----------



## Grog

:blah:blah:blah


----------



## a degree of freedom

jimity said:


> I could go on but there is a ton of information on the internet about evolution of life and the universe and there are holes in it and many things unexplained.


How you search for information is important. If you search for things that are unexplained, you will find things that are unexplained, and much more that is explained quite well but which the writers are ignorant or under-informed about. Many people after all find things that are unexplained to be exciting, either in themselves or because it fits in with what they want to validate.

If you simply search on a topic though, it is less exciting to read about so many things that are simply known, but it's astounding how much there is out there to learn which, while known, is not commonly known. Any one of the objections you bring about science you can look up on the internet and find far more information about if you simply look it up in order to learn about it and not to find out what some people on the internet think is wrong with it.



jimity said:


> If spiral galaxies were billions of years old they would no longer look like spiral galaxies because of the way they rotate. They would twist themselves all out of shape over that time.


I'll answer this one a little because I think it's pretty cool and I wondered about it as a kid too. Apparently the spiral arms of galaxies with them aren't concentrations of stars orbiting the galactic center together like you would initially think. Stars orbit in a galaxy like planets in the solar system do with tighter orbits being quicker and more distant ones much slower. The spiral arms are fronts of star formation, and are brighter because the lifespan of the brightest stars is so short they only make it tiny fraction of an orbit around the galaxy before going out, dying in their own nursery. They're associated with concentrations of interstellar gases, which I think is replenished in part by the supernovae of the hottest stars. It might be worth noting that stars are so tiny compared to interstellar distances that however dense a galaxy looks in a pretty Hubble image, the star systems within them rarely ever cross paths. The Sun could pass right through one of these arms over many millions of years and it would be all the same to us.


----------



## ugh1979

senkora said:


> How you search for information is important. If you search for things that are unexplained, you will find things that are unexplained, and much more that is explained quite well but which the writers are ignorant or under-informed about. Many people after all find things that are unexplained to be exciting, either in themselves or because it fits in with what they want to validate.
> 
> If you simply search on a topic though, it is less exciting to read about so many things that are simply known, but it's astounding how much there is out there to learn which, while known, is not commonly known. Any one of the objections you bring about science you can look up on the internet and find far more information about if you simply look it up in order to learn about it and not to find out what some people on the internet think is wrong with it.
> 
> I'll answer this one a little because I think it's pretty cool and I wondered about it as a kid too. Apparently the spiral arms of galaxies with them aren't concentrations of stars orbiting the galactic center together like you would initially think. Stars orbit in a galaxy like planets in the solar system do with tighter orbits being quicker and more distant ones much slower. The spiral arms are fronts of star formation, and are brighter because the lifespan of the brightest stars is so short they only make it tiny fraction of an orbit around the galaxy before going out, dying in their own nursery. They're associated with concentrations of interstellar gases, which I think is replenished in part by the supernovae of the hottest stars. It might be worth noting that stars are so tiny compared to interstellar distances that however dense a galaxy looks in a pretty Hubble image, the star systems within them rarely ever cross paths. The Sun could pass right through one of these arms over many millions of years and it would be all the same to us.


Good answers senkora. 

Regarding the point from his OP that you chose to debunk; the claim he made is typical of something people without much information on the subject are inclined to say. Many such lay people think such things should obey simple behaviours they have observed or can understand, when the reality is the science is unknown to them and the effects of it may well be counter-intuitive to them. The truth often is stranger than fiction, but certain people are quick to dismiss something that doesn't fit their limited familiar world view even if there is overwhelming evidence which shows it to be correct.


----------



## hoddesdon

jimity said:


> According to the laws of information science information originates from a mind. Information in dna must have originated from a mind. Mutations adding information over long periods of time to dna is contrary to the law of information transmission. It has not been demonstrated for mutations to add information to dna.





ugh1979 said:


> jimity you are really showing your ignorance again. These are all gaps and confusion in your knowledge, along with many fallacious claims.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you just copied most if not all of it from other ignorant people on creationist forums as well. :roll


Well, when the very first single-celled organism abiogenesized (spontaneously combusted from the primeval slime) did it have fully-formed DNA, which is quite complex? If not, how did function?


----------



## TicklemeRingo

> Evidence for a young earth


 None.


----------



## jimity

hoddesdon said:


> Well, when the very first single-celled organism abiogenesized (spontaneously combusted from the primeval slime) did it have fully-formed DNA, which is quite complex? If not, how did function?


Are you asking me or ugh1979? But anyway I have no idea.


----------



## whocares187

to the science loving bible haters: All religions can be complete bogus and there could still be a god. Using arguments against 'religious facts' to disprove god is silly. 

There is no way we'll find out where we came from.


----------



## ugh1979

hoddesdon said:


> Well, when the very first single-celled organism abiogenesized (spontaneously combusted from the primeval slime) did it have fully-formed DNA, which is quite complex? If not, how did function?


Well the first single cells organisms probably didn't 'spontaneously combust' from the primeval slime. They probably evolved in an RNA world, so slowly emerged, probably many times in many places, very slowly rather than suddenly.

How DNA evolved from RNA is a bit too advanced for here but feel free to look it up.


----------



## BAH

The old Earth sitting in it's rocking chair slowly decaying


----------

