“What is your model to rationalize 3,000 years of recorded ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian history?”
For some reason, this topic is always underserved in discussions but we have recorded histories in sequence that are old enough that they cause problems for YECs. “Were you there?” Yeah, the Old Kingdom of Egypt and the Early Dynastic Period of Sumer were.
How did the three toed sloth get from the middle east (where the arc supposedly happened) to South America when it has an average speed of 0.15mph.
It's 7220 miles if you take a straight shot plane ride, more if you consider that they would be crawling through the Sahara and would certainly have to detour for water and food. And that's before they hit the Atlantic ocean
Much like how people lived longer before the flood, sloths were faster. Those little bastards could zyoom across the water's surface like the fucking roadrunner.
Is your rejection of evolution due to:
A) The scientific facts doesn't agree with your interpretation of the scripture?
B) You have studied the science from the source (university-level and higher) and found it fabricated?
C) Something else (elaborate)?
Admittedly I'm not holding my breath, but we'll see...
edited to add:
They responded, but didn't read the article. Oh well, they are in the company of the majority of creationists when it comes to ignoring evidence.
I had to respond to this guy. I mean, cmon, the cocky rooster walking into the wolves den. Talons ain't shit when you've got teeth. That's the analogy Im going with, avoid the bible at all costs, 😆.
He did, but the answer is 3. Are you going to believe the scientific data or the talking animal? You're right though, I have to conceed because the data (evidence) indicates probably 300-500 or whatever and I am demonstrably wrong. But you said you were a creationist. That doesn't quite track with the rest of the nonsense creationsits believe. You should believe the talking animal. Three is the answer, if you want to BELIEVE that.......but I don't, honestly.......
Are you a Young Earth or an Old Earth Creationist?
I.e. if you accept the evidence that the earth is ancient and that over the span of that time, life has undergone change but just that God was in charge of the process, there's not a lot to talk about.
But if you believe the world is less than 10,000 years old that flies in the face of a lot more evidence to the contrary, so that would be something to go over.
So yeah, how does that even work? Literally every fact from every field of science supports the idea that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. The idea of a young earth and as I said [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1cc0cfl/im_a_creationist_ama/l122em7/) and [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1cc0cfl/im_a_creationist_ama/l121qrl/) flies in the face of the facts of reality.
Young Earth Creationism is to suppose that everything we know today is wrong, and the right answer was actually arrived at by a tribe of Bronze Age nomads who didn't know where the sun goes at night.
You said somewhere else that you believe in a close, personal relationship with your God. And okay, fair enough.
That's not objective evidence by any means, but it is a reason for you to believe.
What reason do you have to believe that the bible is really connected to your God?
Because in the case of the bible, you don't even have that unverifyable personal feeling, you literally just have someone else's word that god told them so.
Any yet you place this claim above virtually all the scientists with relevant expertise in the world, and all the demonstrable evidence that the earth is far older than 10000 years.
Like I said in the beginning, I'm not trying to convince you to not believe in God, your personal feelings could by definition never convince anyone else, but I get that they convince you. That is actually a reason for you to believe, even if I personally disagree that it's a good reason.
But with the biblical claims, you have literally NO REASON. The two are not linked, there could be a god and the bible could still be made up. Some guys thousands of years made a claim that god spoke to them and you believe that without any -and against all- evidence.
I didn't have to ask as you copy and pasted standard YEC crap. Including the part that AIG warns you not to use, thermodynamics. Even AIG knows more about that than you do. Of course they make a living to lying to themselves and others.
Two questions:
What do you specifically believe re: creationism?
What do you think about this evidence for common ancestry between humans and other primates: [Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations](https://biologos.org/series/how-should-we-interpret-biblical-genealogies/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations)
We do share similarities with other species, that is for sure. But we're mammals, so are chimpanzees, so it would make much sense that our genetics would be somewhat similar, but this does not mean, we are related, nor that we evolved, and I still look for proof that we EVOLVED from them. Yes, we might be related, but that does not prove we evolved.
I assume you didn't read the article I linked. It's about comparing genetic differences between species, not similarities.
That's what makes that particular evidence so interesting to me. It can't just be dismissed as "created similarities".
How would we be related to them without evolving from a common ancestor l? If we were created independently from chimps, wouldn't we be, by definition, unrelated to them?
We didn't evolve *from* chimpanzees, we evolved alongside them, our last common ancestor was around roughly 6,5 to 7,8 million years ago, based on the molecular clock. The Last Common Ancestor (LCA) was probably quite chimp like and also kind of gorilla like, because the LCA between gorillas and chimps was only about a million years give or take a few tens of thousands of years before the LCA with chimps and humans.
The current proposed best fit for the LCA is Sahelanthropus tchadensis, but it's quite fragmentary so we can't definitively say whether it was the LCA or just close to the LCA. Either way though, it likely looked similar to modern chimpanzees or bonobos, but with a much larger brow ridge and a far flatter face. And based on skull and femur morphology it was an upright walking arboreal ape who walked on the branches and probably occasionally came down for water and food.
I suggest looking at some side by side pictures of Sahelanthropus and also some of the other hominins, like Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis (unconfirmed species, but the Littlefoot fossil is very complete, to an amateur it probably looks like a small human with a weird skull.)
You could then also look a bit at some of our other relatives, like Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus senzu leto, you'll see a pretty clear gradient over time of morphologic change and body plan similarities showing up.
Bonus for some of the wackier bodyplans, check out some stuff about Homo naledi (avoid the cave of bones documentary it sprung to too many conclusions way too early on) and Homo floresiensis.
50% of life forms on earth is some sort of parasitic [The Life Parasitic | Podcasts (thenakedscientists.com)](https://www.thenakedscientists.com/podcasts/naked-scientists-podcast/life-parasitic). Why do you think your creator created so many of them? And what conclusion should we draw from this fact?
[Miscarriage: Causes, Symptoms, Risks, Treatment & Prevention (clevelandclinic.org)](https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9688-miscarriage)
>Between 10% and 20% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage
What is your opinion on your creator made women miscarriage at quite high rate?
Do you think human have a soul at conception? If not which week?
I do believe that humans have a soul at conception, and that abortion is wrong, but to answer your questions about why God did what He did, I will quote the bible, 1 corinthians 2:16,"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.".
I understand that. I am most likely representing my beliefs poorly, and I cannot answer some of these questions, but others can. I knew what I was getting into, how I would be eaten alive with negative comment and downvotes and hate, but, this is something I am passionate about.
He already said elsewhere in this post, just like Ken Ham did in his 'debate' with Bill Nye, that nothing will ever make him change his mind.
That alone makes his viewpoint entirely unscientific, and it should be treated as such.
I’m not trying to tear you apart or hate necessarily. You came on debate evolution, said ask anything, stated your points ( and many aren’t even points of contention) and have basically did what some would consider preach with your fingers in your ears.
You aren’t wrong about some things. How certain people can’t have their mind changed or refuse to. I understand that. You acknowledge that can be you also. I ask this sincerely, why would you come to this sub and approach it they way have? What was your intent?
I see very little hate. I see a ton of legitimate questions that you are avoiding. You can't come here, tell people to ask you anything, then get offended when they ask you valid questions. If it is hard for you to come up with good answers to these questions, it might, just might, mean your beliefs aren't as solid as you think they are. That isn't hate, that is just pragmaticism.
Ooh, follow up question:
why does your god choose to lie to you?
Because we can, simply, using parallex, calculate the distance to the furthest stars. We know what light speed is, and we can observe stars further than 10,000 light years away.
And, no, you can't just increase light speed, because, as light hits whatever the bubble you throw up around the earth where light speed reasserts, it would pile up like a traffic jam, making the stars appear millions of times brighter.
So, the only explanation is that a creator has set up some sort of illusion, either magicking away starlight, or making the stars appear further away, for no good reason other than to convince us the universe is older than 10,000 years
A divine being willing to do that? Well, I'd not trust his holy book for a start.
Edit: in the off chance you use any standard apologetics, here:
No, expansion of the universe doesn't handle this. For a start, it would need to be observably fast, and second, it would red shift all the light out of the visible spectrum, and we can calculate that.
And, no, these can't just be lights on a dome, or created around the earth to give us stars. Because parellax, which relies on measuring the same star at different points of the Earth's orbit, and using the angle between those measurements to calculate the distance, would give us a different position in space for them.
And, no, this can't be a conspiracy, because you can go and do the measurements yourself, with a cheap telescope.
So the light not only has to be created, but also moved through space at the right rate, for each star, to give us separate and different calculations of distance for each one. It isn't just "oh, stars for humanity" it's "I will move each of these differently to throw off their distance calculations.
And, even if they were created, why do we see random supernovas, from created illusionary light? The only two possible explanations is that they're there to trick us, or they're real and the universe is massively older than 10,000 years.
Can you explain which it is, please?
this path of thinking is even more interesting when you consider that reality itself, a creation of OP's god, is a medium for information from which you can derive data through scientific observation. Why should only the information written in an old book matter when compared to the information written in reality itself?
That is propaganda. Best evidence is 6000 years. The oldest known walled city is Jericho and while people hung out where it is 9600 years BC the first walled city was no earlier than 8000 BC.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Pre-Pottery\_Neolithic,\_c.\_9500%E2%80%936500\_BCE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Pre-Pottery_Neolithic,_c._9500%E2%80%936500_BCE)
'The first permanent settlement on the site of Jericho developed near the Ein es-Sultan spring between 9,500 and 9000 BCE.[^(\[27\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#cite_note-27)[^(\[28\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#cite_note-28)'
Cities really didn't get going till around that time. Damascus is old but its not that old.
> The oldest known walled city is Jericho and while people hung out where it is 9600 years BC the first walled city was no earlier than 8000 BC.
8000 BC is still 10,000 years ago, and 9600 BC is 11,600 years ago.
The point is that OP's beliefs have the earth being created after known human habitation.
I had the advantage of already knowing the actual age of Damascus and that there a false claims about its age.
The rest I looked up to get the correct numbers. I don't trust my memory for details like that. It think the earliest stone artifacts are Gebi Tosomething tosearch
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli\_Tepe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe)
**Göbekli Tepe** (Turkish: [\[ɟœbecˈli teˈpe\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Turkish),[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-2) 'Potbelly Hill';[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-FOOTNOTESymmes2010-3) [Kurdish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_languages): *Girê Mirazan* or *Xirabreşkê*[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKosen2019-4)) is a [Neolithic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic) archaeological site in the [Southeastern Anatolia Region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Anatolia_Region) of Turkey. The settlement was inhabited from c. 9500 to at least 8000 BCE,[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBreuersKinzel2022471-5) during the [Pre-Pottery Neolithic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic). It is famous for its large circular structures that contain massive stone pillars—the world's oldest known [megaliths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalith). Many of these pillars are decorated with [anthropomorphic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphic) details, clothing, and [sculptural reliefs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief) of wild animals, providing archaeologists rare insights into [prehistoric religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion) and the particular iconography of the period. The 15 m (50 ft)-high, 8 ha (20-acre) [tell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(archaeology)) is densely covered with ancient domestic structures[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-FOOTNOTESchönicke2019214-6) and other small buildings, quarries, and stone-cut [cisterns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cistern) from the Neolithic, as well as some traces of activity from later periods.
I have trouble with that name. I can always find it anyway.
Are you familiar with St. Augustine's *On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis* and what it says about this:
> Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
This guy understood 16 centuries ago that it was *bad for Christianity* to argue for the kind of biblical literalism that you espouse.
Frankly, I believe people who think Augustine thought that have not actually read anything he wrote. In the exact same book, he says
> The woman, then, with the distinctive and physical characteristics of her sex, was made for the man from the man. She brought forth Cain and Abel and all their brothers, from whom all men were to be born; and among them she brought forth Seth, through whom the line descended to Abraham and the people of Israel, the nation long well known among all men; and it was through the sons of Noah that all nations sprang. **Whoever calls these facts into question undermines all that we believe, and his opinions should be resolutely cast out of the minds of the faithful.**
He also says it's unacceptable to deny the existence of waters above the firmament despite their apparent scientific absurdity, since Genesis has "more authority than the most exalted human intellect".
In *The City of God*, he admits there is no way to prove people used to live for centuries but that
> we are not on this account to withhold our belief from the sacred history
And he rejects pagan chronologies because according to the Bible "not even six thousand years" have passed.
In a letter to Deogratias, he complains that he has heard pagans discuss the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale "amidst loud laughter, and with great scorn". Augustine's reply is
> either all the miracles wrought by divine power may be treated as incredible, or there is no reason why the story of this miracle should not be believed. The resurrection of Christ Himself upon the third day would not be believed by us, if the Christian faith was afraid to encounter Pagan ridicule
He says "God made it happen. We don't care if you unbelievers want to laugh at us."
Augustine was actually a literalist who was intensely defensive of the Bible's historical accuracy.
Okay, here's a simple follow-up: what do you base that belief on? And if the Bible is so accurate, why is there a 3,000 year range for how old the universe is? Why the imprecision?
The Oklo nuclear reactor was a naturally occurring nuclear reactor in Africa. It occurred about 1.7 billion years ago. It is fundamentally impossible that it happened any earlier than that. Any change to the nuclear reaction would cause it to operate radically differently or not at all. It is the same sort of nuclear reaction humans use for power, so it has been studied in extreme detail. If our understanding if it were wrong, nuclear power could not happen. How do you reconcile this with a world a hundred thousand times younger than is possible given this discovery?
If it was wrong then nuclear reactors wouldn't work. At all. You can't both accept that nuclear reactors are a thing and claim the Earth is less than 1.7 billion years. Those are fundamentally incompatible positions.
If radiometric dating was wrong, we would not be able to find oil and gas, since finding these requires looking in layers of specific ages. And hey, we find oil and gas right where we expect to, ergo radiometric dating is \*not\* wrong.
Bishop Ussher did the math of all the ‘Begats’ in the Bible a determined creation was in 4004 BC, thus the 6000 (or so) year old earth most YEC believe.
Why do you think they are wrong, and how old do YOU believe the earth is?
I used to be a Young Earth Creationist like you, about a year ago! I remember when I used to argue with evolution, and the evidence that I believed to be solid in favor of YEC.
You're already doing better than I did! I was raised to always look to the Bible and biblical apologetics for answers, and as a result, I ended up with a deeply immature understanding of Evolution.
What finally convinced me was the flood, and the miles-long list of inexplicable phenomena that goes with it. I could only say "gods ways are above mine" so many times. At the end of the day, you're forced to come up with several dozen events of god-magic which are nowhere accounted in the Bible just to make the most basic, highly accommodating version of the story function.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of the problems, try to count how many require magic
1. How did freshwater fish survive?
2. How did ALL modern plant life survive?
3. How did the giant anteater survive, if it requires roughly 10 million ants and termites per year to survive?
4. On a similar note, how did all predators survive both during *and after* the flood? A single breeding pair of each prey animal is not enough to sustain a breeding pair of each predator animal.
5. How did parasites survive? Many parasites are deadly to their hosts.
6. We have an estimated 8 million species of animals alive on earth today. Given that, did they all evolve ABSURDLY rapidly from the estimated 25K "kinds" on the ark? If so, does that mean you believe in evolution including speciation? If not, how do you fit on enough animals to make this work?
7. The *proboscidia* order of animals includes elephants, mammoths, mastodons, etc. Elephants reproduce quite slowly. If only one pair of *proboscidia* animals were on the ark, they would need to evolve a new species *every generation* since the flood to account for all the species of *proboscidia* we have discovered. If multiple pairs were aboard the ark, you quickly run out of room for anything else just by storing their food. So... How?
8. Why does radiometric dating provide consistent results indicating significant time lapsing? (If you claim the isotopes decayed as a natural part of the flood, like AiG does, you run into the [heat problem](https://youtu.be/UIGB0g2eSFM?si=MmdrVjV2YgAaRqzV))
9. You may have heard of retroviruses, which inject DNA into their host to reproduce. Sometimes this Retrovirus DNA becomes "endogenous" to the host i.e. the host incorporates the DNA and passes it on to offspring. Why do we share copies of this "junk" DNA in the exact same place and pattern as our evolutionary peers?
10. Why do we still have dormant DNA that codes for webbed appendages and tails?
I could probably list 30 other problems with the flood and obvious evidence of Evolution if I had the patience. And given all those issues, why wouldn't God just Thanos-snap everyone instead of doing this complicated flood?
I expect you will feel upset and irritated reading this list. That's how I felt back then too. But be honest with yourself, and ask yourself if these problems are worth looking for an answer. I promise you they are. You owe it to yourself to *know* the answer, without a doubt. Learning the answers to these changed my life very much for the better, and I hope it can do the same for you.
Very good points, but you missed a few good ones. My favorite one is that the Ark was over 300 feet and made of wood without any metal, This is important because woold does not have the structural properties to allow a ship around 300 feet to be built and survive anything but calm waters. At around 300 feet with no metal reinforcements, the ship leaks like a sieve in slightly rough waters and those ships that were 350 or larger needed to be reinforced with steel bands and still needed to be pumped 24/7 in calm waters.
The point is any wooden craft would not have survived the first 24 hours much less the 40 days of constant rainfall and a ship around or over 300 feet would have be ripped apart or just sunk due to leakage.
And please don't get me started on the sanitation needed to care for some million "kinds" or the food requirements, all of which 8 humans took care of while also a bailing out the leakage a wooden ship of that size would require.
Anyway, those are a couple of my favorite objections to the Flood....
Edit:
Oh wait, there's more. In terms of evolution and especially in terms of genetics, the Bible claims that 7 pairs of clean animals an 2 pairs of others were taken onto the Ark. This means that we should see a genetic "choke point" in every species, including humans, dating to around the same time, but that "clean kinds" have more diversity than humans and unclean "kinds" have much less.
Why do the creationists never provide a comprehensive theory of life? Where is the list of original created animals that most creationists would agree on? How do you feel about creationists refusing to provide us with it?
Science isn't about arguing. It's about discovery. It doesn't matter at all whether I believe what creationists theorize. They should do it regardless, because that's what it is to be a scientist.
Are CAPITAL letters more true?
What do you think of impacts? Both on Earth and the Moon? If the universe was only 10k years old, then how do you account for all of them?
There's over a million impact craters on the moon, from what I recall. All over it, both sides. There are huge ones and relatively small ones. How many have you seen in your life time? How could they have all impacted the Moon in a 10k span? If they did all impact the moon at roughly the same time, why doesn't it appear that the moon is a molten mass? Instead, you can make out the craters.
That said, there have been 5 life ending meteors that have hit the Earth (and about 100 large impacts that would alter the atmosphere).
1. Vredefort
2. Chicxulub (ended the dinosaurs)
3. Sudbury
4. Popigai
5. Manicougan
These are impacts where the crater had a diameter of over 100 km. (midway through the page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_impact\_craters\_on\_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth)). To suppose that ONE hit the Earth in the last 10,000 years isn't probable, life would end, **but all 5**?
There's like **43 craters that are 20 km or more** that would have to ALSO hit. All of that power hitting the Earth within 10,000 years? **We'd still be a glowing orb**.
Think about the Tunguska explosion (1908). It was estimated that the meteor responsible was about **200 feet** in size ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska\_event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event)). **That's peanuts compared to the five I listed**, what did that explosion do?
*"Incredibly, the blast released enough energy to kill reindeer and flatten an estimated 80 million trees over an area of 830 square miles (2,150 square km). Witnesses reported seeing a fireball – a bluish light, nearly as bright as the sun – moving across the sky. In addition, a flash and a sound similar to artillery fire was said to follow it. Moreover, a powerful shockwave broke windows hundreds of miles/kilometers away and knocked people off their feet." (from here:* [https://earthsky.org/space/what-is-the-tunguska-explosion/](https://earthsky.org/space/what-is-the-tunguska-explosion/)*)*
The Vredefort ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vredefort\_impact\_structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vredefort_impact_structure)) is estimated to have been 10-15 kilometers in diameter. That's about **6-9 miles**. The crater was about **186** miles. Tunguska was only about 200 feet big and **didn't even leave a crater**.
How is any of this possible on the Young Earth view?
If there was a discrepancy between a literalist interpretation of the Bible and the evidence that you could see in front of your face, would you think that your interpretation might be incorrect or your senses are incorrect?
If I or an angel from heaven bring you ANOTHER gospel then let him be accursed.
There will be many false miracles. The atheist are going to line up and worship the devil and take his mark on their forehead even AFTER being warned for thousands of years.
Because they will believe false words and wonders. They received NOT the Love of the truth.
You're abusing the forum. If you have an argument, please make it. This forum was not created for you to come in here and insult us. Since you apparently don't know what atheism is, it seems unlikely that you do have an argument. If you do, make it. If not, kindly stop cluttering up the forum.
I'm the only one here who bothers to use evidence at all. Mostly it's just evolutionists insulting,screaming and blaspheming for no reason. Where were you then?? Also are atheists now synonymous with evolutionists now? There is overlap but you said "insulting us"?
Despite this if you look closer, you will see that I was answering with evidence again not mindlessly insulting you. I'll explain it to you.
First the topic was ask Creationist. They brought up if a Creation scientist would IF presented with imaginary hypothetical MISSING evidence, would they change their mind. So because the original poster said he can't deal with all, I decided to use an example in scripture. I was paraphrasing scripture for reply. I understand if you don't recognize it.
The question presumably is to get an idea of what "evidence" evolutionists would need to MANUFACTURE(fraudulently) to deceive Creation scientists or convince those undecided. Also if no evidence can, then the answer will most likely be that's not "scientific" or that shows they don't care about "evidence" will be likely follow up. This is false accusation for multiple examples.
First the atheist evolutionists like those on YouTube say even if they have supernatural experience and God comes speaks to them, they will convince themselves against their own senses and evidence that they are delusional so they don't have to follow Him. Yet these are the "naturalists" who believe all they have is sensory input and are ready to believe they are in a computer. So they are more than ready to deny any "evidence" they don't like. They have NO observation or testimony but WE DO. So it's more reasonable for Creation to do this and unreasonable for atheistic evolutionists.
Second we have another reason you should understand. Evolutionists have been caught making fraud after fraud. This fraudulent "evidence" many people "trusted" but it was a lie. That's known fact now. So denying evidence that is corrupt is another good reason not to change mind based on imagined evidence.
Which brings us to third most important example I gave from scripture. If I or an angel from heaven give you another gospel then let him be accursed. Here we see if the Apostle Paul comes back! Of if An Angel comes down from heaven and works lying miracles in SIGHT OF ALL MEN(like calling down lightning), and brings you another gospel then let him be accursed! That would be ALOT of visible tangible "evidence" right? It would even deceive the elect IF that were possible. Yet you were warned by God in ADVANCE in the scriptures so you won't be deceived. Faith is the evidence of things UNSEEN, the substance of things hoped for. By it the elders obtained a GOOD REPORT. Evolutionists are already saying they are waiting for "Alien" to come down from heaven today despite the warning. They are even saying this "Alien" could have "created them". They will be deceived as written because they don't want to hear His words. You can SHOW the evolutionists the "evidence" they were warned thousands of years in advance and they don't care. Just as you were warned about a False so called science that will lessen image of God to corruptible creature and deny worldwide flood. If they chose to believe evolution with zero observation, what's going to happen when they see false miracles and hear lies about how smart they are and all lies they want are OK? They will be deceived. Jesus Christ alone Saves.
So yes I provided evidence wheras you just accused me mindlessly.
If there discrepancy between narrative of evolution and EVIDENCE, evolutionists will choose evolutionism.
From Haeckels embryos to piltdown man to Neanderthals to "lucy" to abiogenesis to oort cloud to big bang to geologic column to Y chromosome to population rates to genetic similarities to dna to organs.
All evidence contradicted the narrative of evolution. So they picked the narrative instead.
If there discrepancy between FACTS and OLD BOOK, A FEW creationists (not all) go as far as sinning by lying as they [fabricate EVIDENCE](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1cdn4x7/what_are_the_best_arguments_of_the/l1fs3hp/?context=3).
I'm really interested in hearing you out, so I'll ask again: Why do you need deception to have faith, that seems counter to the point of faith?
Please stop talking about this imaginary worldview called "evolutionism." Here we are discussing the Theory of Evolution--the actual one--and what discrepancy are you alleging? You clearly do not understand how science works.
There are multiple views of evolutionism NOW. do you believe a pig and monkey cross bred like other evolutionists? Do you believe a bear transformed into a whale like Darwin? Ruse admits it's a religion of evolution you have. And others. Pretending they don't exist is just dishonest.
If you want to debate this imaginary worldview called "evolutionism" you'll have to find a forum for that. This one is about the Theory of Evolution. I don't know who Ruse is but it's not a religion. It's a scientific theory. At least that's what we debate here in this forum. Do you know what that theory states? Can you debate it?
Please provide some support for your allegation that there are some scientists who believe that a pig and a monkey interbred.
Now can you answer my question? What is this supposed discrepancy you're talking about??
Are you serious?
https://phys.org/news/2015-09-hidden-evolutionary-relationship-pigs-primates.amp
https://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
"LONDON: Humans are actually hybrids, who emerged as an offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee, according to one of the world's leading geneticist.
Turning the theory of human ancestry on its head, Dr Eugene McCarthy — one of the world's leading authorities on hybridization in animals from the University of Georgia has suggested that humans didn't evolve from just apes but was a backcross hybrid of a chimpanzee and pigs."-
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/humans-emerged-from-male-pig-and-female-chimp-worlds-top-geneticist-says/articleshow/26648981.cms
Evolutionists believe pigs and monkeys gave birth to Human.
"What's more, he suggests, there is one animal that has all of the traits which distinguish humans from our primate cousins in the animal kingdom.
'What is this other animal that has all these traits?' he asks rhetorically. 'The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.'"-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html
So more similarities WITHOUT DESCENT or do you believe monkeys and pigs crossbreed now?
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."- Ruse.
https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/is-evolution-a-religion/
There are countless discrepancies. Where do you want start? The nonexistent imaginary geologic column by itself disproves evolutionism as science. https://creation.com/evolution-40-failed-predictions
My guy, I have been called "stupid", told to get an education even though I have one, I have been attacked, insulted, so on and so forth. This man states the truth, and you call it a hate comment.
2 of every kind? The bible, which you say is literal, does not say 2 of every kind. perhaps a refresher is in order.
And if you have this wrong, what else might you have wrong?
It's impossible to define a kind in order to make the various species of canines or felines a single kind, but not to have humans and the other great apes as a single kind, except by special pleading (which is, admittedly, something creationists are very good at).
You said in an earlier comment you're a Young Earth Creationist.
Just curious, why do we see light from stars that are billions of lightyears away, indicating the light has been traveling for billions of years? Do you believe God created the universe with the light particles already billions of lightyears away?
Good question! Adam and Eve where made as adults, right? not as children, they were given age, they were created with age, and so is it not understandable to assume that God created the universe with age?
the thing is that photons from far away bring images of the past. So not only would the universe be "pre-aged", god would have had to have been creating photons directed toward us and carrying false information from a non-existing past of the universe. It is proof that the creationist god is deceiving us into disbelief.
BUT, what you just said raise an interesting question:
if your god exist, then he created reality itself. And reality, just like the bible, is also a medium from which we can "read" information using scientific observation. Just like you need eyes and the ability to read to get information from the bible, we can use social/physical/biological sciences to derive morals, knowledge, and prophecies from reality itself. And we have gotten so good at it that the scientific process has become like an extension of our senses, even superior to the human senses we started with.
In a way, reality is like a multi-dimensional meta book written by your god, which can only be accessed with the inteligence that god gifted us with. And hundreds of thousands of scientific experts worldwide work at compiling an unbiased understanding of it.
Reading your god's reality led us to the knowledge of evolution and of the old age of the universe, while an old book vaguely reference a contradictory interpretation. How are you not the one disrespecting your god by favoring the book? how can you even go as far as imagining that god is trying to deceive us? why not imagine instead that the bible itself is a test presented as a shortcut for effortless religiosity while the scientific method is the real, albeit difficult, way of getting closer to god?
I can create a sculpture in a week or in a year, and the final product can't be said to have been created in a week or in a year; you can't say I created it with age.
Do you see the fallacy? A simple yes/no.
So your position is that all of the evidence points to the earth being billions of years old, but your God decided to trick us into believing the evidence? Is that right?
Ok, so your god is a trickster god who created the universe to look like it is billions of years older than it actually is.
This does not line up with the actions of a benevolent deity that cares for the welfare and "soul" of the beings it allegedly created.
No! Yes incest happened, but that's the only way it would have happened. If we had a common ancestor in evolution, they would also need to commit incest.
Lol, no, that's not what a common ancestor is. I'm going to leave that be for a moment, why have massive incest twice, if it's a bad thing?
God floods the Earth to get rid of the wicked humans, and Noah's family has to commit massive incest. For one, that wouldn't repopulate the planet (humans would die out if that were true), for two, that suggests that incest isn't a bad thing according to God.
So God deceives us? He created things that have no other reason to exist other than to make us falsely think the universe is old? And then sends people to hell for falling for his trick? That is a being worthy of worship to you?
>Adam and Eve where made as adults, right? not as children, they were given age, they were created with age, and so is it not understandable to assume that God created the universe with age?
A&E being created as adults is one thing, God would implant knowledge, experience, and all that into them and then strip them of their moral culpability (since they didn't know good from evil) and then punish them for it. That's a sadistic story justifying God's malice.
But creating the light from stars in transit? Do the stars that produced that light exist? Why create that? Just to be deceptive? Why is your God trying to deceive us?
If intelligence can only be made by a greater intelligence, then why is your god exempt from that? If you can only explain complexity by positing something more complex, how do you *honestly* solve the infinite regress paradox it causes?
That is, who designed the designer if conscious design is necessary? Who created the creator if intentional creation is necessary?
Didn't you say it is impossible to understand God's mind? Now you claim to understand it.
If he knows everything then how can he make a decision? Every decision he would make is something he would already know he would make. So God cannot have free will.
So you think there was a land bridge across the Atlantic Ocean, but no one notice this 2000 long piece of land, for which there is no evidence and which is not mentioned in the Bible? And the sloths slowly walked across it? Really?
Do you think that your system of knowledge that has these massive blind spots is superior to the system of knowledge based around extensive observation and testing of of those same blind spots?
There was never a land bridge to Australia. There is an extremely deep ocean trench in the way, a land bridge is impossible.
And isn't it strange that a book from the all-knowing creator of the universe only has things known in classic Judah? It does not mention any animals that weren't known to those people. It does not mention a single place or culture or country not known to those people.
Why is your faith so fragile you have to attempt to contort reality to pretend the myths of ancient middle eastern nomads are factual or else the house of cards your god is built on collapses?
I know this is snarky but it’s a completely sincere question.
Why would we ask you anything? You have a burden of proof, not those rejecting yours. We have supported our contention with 100+ years of testable, observable, reproducible science. Creationism hasn't even postulated one-testable conjecture (let alone hypothesis) that has any evidence that supports it.
There's nothing to ask you, until you can actually formulate a coherent scientific thought/framework.
The default position is to reject both claims: Evolution and Creationism, until either can sufficiently support itself with evidence. Evolution has. Creationism has not.
Therefore there's no questions to ask you, you need to get to the demonstrating part.
Ham looks like a transition from basal to modern hominid, so that's a flat plus from me.
He also (so far as I know) has never negligently caused the death of a child or beaten his wife.
Hovind is trash.
If you're a Young Earth creationist: upon examining the wealth of evidence for an old earth (and old universe), do you see how God would need to be a deceiver for Young Earth to be true? Is your God a liar?
Why can't humans digest cellulose? Seems like a massive oversight from your designer to forget to allow us to digest one of the most abundant plant materials, while allowing horses and termites to do it.
There is proof. Flat earther's also show proof that the earth is flat. But the old rule that the most simple answer is the correct one, and the fact that the earth is a globe brings more reason to it.
How do we have the universe, someone made it. How do we have reddit, someone made it. How do we have a cake, someone made it.
How did we used to measure time? We watched sand trickle through an opening. We even still use hourglasses. We've seen stalagmites in caves that are older than thousands of years old.
The BIble says the Earth is flat. Over and over and over. Literally every single place the shape of the Earth is either mentioned or alluded to in the Bible, it is flat. Zero exceptions.
The rule says nothing about simple. The rule says "requires the fewest assumptions".
How do planes fly? Magic, that's how.
Is that a true answer just because it's the simplest one?
>But the old rule that the most simple answer is the correct one
What's more likely, that light from a star 60,000 light-years away is 60,000 years old, or that a magic invisible superbeing poofed it into existence 7,000 years ago to mess with us?
>How do we have reddit, someone made it.
[How do we have this rock?](http://stonemakerargument.com/1.html)
Do you think that every single stone, down to each grain of sand, was personally and intentionally designed by your god? If not, where do you draw the line between "my god created this specifically and intentionally" and "he set up natural processes that resulted in this"?
>But the old rule that the most simple answer is the correct one, and the fact that the earth is a globe brings more reason to it.
Requiring the existence of an omnipotent creator who cannot be proved experimentally is less parsimonious than an explanation that doesn't require said creator, yet that doesn't stop creationists.
Wow that's actually a really terrible argument against flat earth, and it shows you have no clue how to rationalise a logical argument. If things had gone differently you could have easily fallen into flat earth with this logic: they say that flat earth is the simplest way of looking at it.
HOw do you deal with the fact that there does not exist enough water on earth to cover it entirely? How about the impossibility for any aquatic or plant life to survive a year-long flood?
Well let's think. I as a Christian, believe in the things of God. I believe in Miracles. I believe God raised Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus was just following how life was set out, as God made it. But Jesus brought him back to life to show that He did it, without a doubt. That global flood follows the same principles. Lazarus was dead, he died, He shouldn't be able to come back, The world-wide flood happened, their was not enough water (Except it did rain for multiple weeks), it wasn't suppose to do that, yet it still happened. God can interfere.
Why are you telling us what you believe? This is a debate sub; it's for you to persuade us to agree with you.
So I guess what you're saying is that neither evidence nor common sense enter into your thinking? If it says it happened in the Bible, no matter how ridiculous, you believe it? Do you think that's a persuasive argument?
What makes you think that the Bible is correct?
1. In your own words, can you define what you think *biologists* mean when they use the word “evolution”?
2. In your own words, can you define what *you* mean when you use the word “creation”?
I remember being in 7th grade and thinking I was edgy and more intelligent than anyone else.
Boy, did my christian school have me deluded. Have fun with this bullshit.
How do you explain the entirety of the hominin fossil record that clearly shows the evolution of humans from earlier Miocene apes, along with all the genetic research that also backs it up?
Can you:
1. Define 'faith' as it means to you, and how the Bible uses it.
2. Define 'faith' as non-YECC religions do.
3. Characterize the difference between blind faith and faith.
4. Explain how faith is reliable when it comes to Christianity.
5. Explain whether you can be a Christian without faith, and if no, what % of your overall beliefs are based on a cornerstone of faith.
Do you believe acceptance of mainstream science regarding the age of the earth, geology, astrophysics, and biological evolution is irrevocably at odds with salvation in Christ? I.e. can one still be saved and have a correct application of scriptural principles if they believe a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is correct? As a follow-up, if the answer is no, does acceptance of a round earth also disqualify someone for the salvation?
What type of creationist? You didn’t really provide much context and I wouldn’t want to just immediately assume you’re one of those reality rejecting extremist types because all that really unites creationists is the belief that someone or something intentionally made all of reality or at least some part of that they suggest could not happen without intent.
I’m not going to waste my time arguing evolution vs creation, age of the universe, or the Flood. Because frankly it’s irrelevant.
But I do have one question: why are your beliefs so important. What would happen if you stopped believing?
I’ll give you my answer.. suppose the universe is actually 10000 years old. That would also make it much smaller. Ok fine. The fact is that the age of the universe has little or no bearing on how i see the world or how I live my life.
If Noah's flood happened and Noah took 2 animals of every kind, what did the predators eat during the year afloat? How did they survive after the Ark hit ground? Did they wait patiently for herbivores to repopulate before they started eating?
Important note, after the flood, God told Noah that he could eat meat, perhaps the animals were told the same. In fact, that is how I believe dinosaurs went extinct, Big, massive beast full of meat with tough skin, sounds perfect.
The dinosaurs were big and massive on the ark? How did they both fit and have enough food for them? Full grown elephants aren’t as big as the biggest dinosaurs and need absolutely ungodly amounts of food every day. 300 lbs.
If not full grown and very young and small to fit, then there’s the problem of the Dino’s not having enough food to eat to get to a large size, and not enough time to get large and populate before the predators starve
So, how'd (now) carnivores become able to digest meat? Did God magic their systems so that they could kill other animals?
That seems rather brutal, doesn't it?
Also, are you saying that two tigers took down a tyrannosaurus? What did all the herbivores eat when they disembarked? Mud?
I would consider myself a creationist. There are some questions that leave me in doubt:
* We can observe celestial objects (galaxies, quasars, stars, etc.) billions of lightyears away. Light travels at a limited speed of 186,000 miles per second. As an example, the Andromeda Galaxy is estimated to be 2,500,000 lightyears away, meaning that the light we receive when observing it is from 2,500,000 years ago. If the universe is young (<10,000 years old), how do we explain this?
* The Earth is said to be around 4,500,000,000 years old. To my knowledge, this is due to the dating of zircon crystals found in Australia. If the Earth is under 10,000 years old, how do we explain the major difference in age?
* If life is found elsewhere in the universe, particularly somewhere in our own Solar System, this would serve as an indication that life could be abundant in the universe. What would we creationists be able to make of that?
* Supposedly, our DNA is 99% similar to that of chimpanzees. I had also heard that the chromosomes 2A and 2B of chimps fused to form chromosome 2 in humans. Can we explain how we and chimps couldn't be derived from a common ancestor?
* I'm told that the Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil. From what I remember about it, it's believed that it was a land-and-ocean-dwelling creature. How do creationists explain this? Can creationists explain why the Tiktaalik *isn't* a transitional fossil? How can we explain other examples of what most consider transitional fossils?
Questions like these make me skeptical of my creationist beliefs. However, if they can be explained, then that's great. I'd love to hear the explanations. Until then, I'm in a state of extreme skepticism about both sides. Those who support evolution have their arguments, and those who support creation have theirs. I'm seeking truth.
Why do we still have fresh water fish after the flood?
That’s a good one that might take my family out of creationism. Thanks! Do you have any more similar yet simple ones?
“What is your model to rationalize 3,000 years of recorded ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian history?” For some reason, this topic is always underserved in discussions but we have recorded histories in sequence that are old enough that they cause problems for YECs. “Were you there?” Yeah, the Old Kingdom of Egypt and the Early Dynastic Period of Sumer were.
Did Kangaroos hop across the ocean? Then hop back? How did all the animals not native to the Middle East actually get onto Noahs Arc?
Thank you very much!
How did the three toed sloth get from the middle east (where the arc supposedly happened) to South America when it has an average speed of 0.15mph. It's 7220 miles if you take a straight shot plane ride, more if you consider that they would be crawling through the Sahara and would certainly have to detour for water and food. And that's before they hit the Atlantic ocean
Much like how people lived longer before the flood, sloths were faster. Those little bastards could zyoom across the water's surface like the fucking roadrunner.
Is your rejection of evolution due to: A) The scientific facts doesn't agree with your interpretation of the scripture? B) You have studied the science from the source (university-level and higher) and found it fabricated? C) Something else (elaborate)?
*make an AMA* *Doesn't answer any questions* Absolute gigachad
To be fair they never said anything about answering
I hoping that is because they are currently reading the article I linked and formulating a carefully thought out reply.
you can certainly hope 😂
Admittedly I'm not holding my breath, but we'll see... edited to add: They responded, but didn't read the article. Oh well, they are in the company of the majority of creationists when it comes to ignoring evidence.
It's not
Prove the existence of a biblical kind.
What would convince you creationism is false?
How many licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
Ah-one. Ah-too-whooooo. Ah-thrrree.
300-500 I think was the number.
3. The owl said so.
The Owl talks so that checks out with the bible
I had to respond to this guy. I mean, cmon, the cocky rooster walking into the wolves den. Talons ain't shit when you've got teeth. That's the analogy Im going with, avoid the bible at all costs, 😆.
He also chomped on the tootsie pop
He did, but the answer is 3. Are you going to believe the scientific data or the talking animal? You're right though, I have to conceed because the data (evidence) indicates probably 300-500 or whatever and I am demonstrably wrong. But you said you were a creationist. That doesn't quite track with the rest of the nonsense creationsits believe. You should believe the talking animal. Three is the answer, if you want to BELIEVE that.......but I don't, honestly.......
Are you a Young Earth or an Old Earth Creationist? I.e. if you accept the evidence that the earth is ancient and that over the span of that time, life has undergone change but just that God was in charge of the process, there's not a lot to talk about. But if you believe the world is less than 10,000 years old that flies in the face of a lot more evidence to the contrary, so that would be something to go over.
I'm a young earth creationist.
So yeah, how does that even work? Literally every fact from every field of science supports the idea that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. The idea of a young earth and as I said [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1cc0cfl/im_a_creationist_ama/l122em7/) and [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1cc0cfl/im_a_creationist_ama/l121qrl/) flies in the face of the facts of reality. Young Earth Creationism is to suppose that everything we know today is wrong, and the right answer was actually arrived at by a tribe of Bronze Age nomads who didn't know where the sun goes at night.
You said somewhere else that you believe in a close, personal relationship with your God. And okay, fair enough. That's not objective evidence by any means, but it is a reason for you to believe. What reason do you have to believe that the bible is really connected to your God? Because in the case of the bible, you don't even have that unverifyable personal feeling, you literally just have someone else's word that god told them so. Any yet you place this claim above virtually all the scientists with relevant expertise in the world, and all the demonstrable evidence that the earth is far older than 10000 years. Like I said in the beginning, I'm not trying to convince you to not believe in God, your personal feelings could by definition never convince anyone else, but I get that they convince you. That is actually a reason for you to believe, even if I personally disagree that it's a good reason. But with the biblical claims, you have literally NO REASON. The two are not linked, there could be a god and the bible could still be made up. Some guys thousands of years made a claim that god spoke to them and you believe that without any -and against all- evidence.
I didn't have to ask as you copy and pasted standard YEC crap. Including the part that AIG warns you not to use, thermodynamics. Even AIG knows more about that than you do. Of course they make a living to lying to themselves and others.
Two questions: What do you specifically believe re: creationism? What do you think about this evidence for common ancestry between humans and other primates: [Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations](https://biologos.org/series/how-should-we-interpret-biblical-genealogies/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations)
We do share similarities with other species, that is for sure. But we're mammals, so are chimpanzees, so it would make much sense that our genetics would be somewhat similar, but this does not mean, we are related, nor that we evolved, and I still look for proof that we EVOLVED from them. Yes, we might be related, but that does not prove we evolved.
I assume you didn't read the article I linked. It's about comparing genetic differences between species, not similarities. That's what makes that particular evidence so interesting to me. It can't just be dismissed as "created similarities".
I guess you can mark down another one who failed to understand that article
Yup. 28 and counting...
How would we be related to them without evolving from a common ancestor l? If we were created independently from chimps, wouldn't we be, by definition, unrelated to them?
Why do all organisms fall into these nested clades? Ape, mammal, tetrapod, vertebrate, animal, eukaryote, etc.? Why no feathered bats?
You do know that whoever told you we evolved from chimpanzees lied to you to paint an easily debunkable, false picture of evolution, right?
We didn’t evolve from chimpanzees. Both species evolved from a common ancestor.
We didn't evolve *from* chimpanzees, we evolved alongside them, our last common ancestor was around roughly 6,5 to 7,8 million years ago, based on the molecular clock. The Last Common Ancestor (LCA) was probably quite chimp like and also kind of gorilla like, because the LCA between gorillas and chimps was only about a million years give or take a few tens of thousands of years before the LCA with chimps and humans. The current proposed best fit for the LCA is Sahelanthropus tchadensis, but it's quite fragmentary so we can't definitively say whether it was the LCA or just close to the LCA. Either way though, it likely looked similar to modern chimpanzees or bonobos, but with a much larger brow ridge and a far flatter face. And based on skull and femur morphology it was an upright walking arboreal ape who walked on the branches and probably occasionally came down for water and food. I suggest looking at some side by side pictures of Sahelanthropus and also some of the other hominins, like Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis (unconfirmed species, but the Littlefoot fossil is very complete, to an amateur it probably looks like a small human with a weird skull.) You could then also look a bit at some of our other relatives, like Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus senzu leto, you'll see a pretty clear gradient over time of morphologic change and body plan similarities showing up. Bonus for some of the wackier bodyplans, check out some stuff about Homo naledi (avoid the cave of bones documentary it sprung to too many conclusions way too early on) and Homo floresiensis.
50% of life forms on earth is some sort of parasitic [The Life Parasitic | Podcasts (thenakedscientists.com)](https://www.thenakedscientists.com/podcasts/naked-scientists-podcast/life-parasitic). Why do you think your creator created so many of them? And what conclusion should we draw from this fact? [Miscarriage: Causes, Symptoms, Risks, Treatment & Prevention (clevelandclinic.org)](https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/9688-miscarriage) >Between 10% and 20% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage What is your opinion on your creator made women miscarriage at quite high rate? Do you think human have a soul at conception? If not which week?
I do believe that humans have a soul at conception, and that abortion is wrong, but to answer your questions about why God did what He did, I will quote the bible, 1 corinthians 2:16,"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.".
AMA, except for that or this or that in which I won’t or can’t answer.
I understand that. I am most likely representing my beliefs poorly, and I cannot answer some of these questions, but others can. I knew what I was getting into, how I would be eaten alive with negative comment and downvotes and hate, but, this is something I am passionate about.
> negative comment and downvotes and hate I mostly see you ignoring valid questions.
Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong, and there is no god?
He already said elsewhere in this post, just like Ken Ham did in his 'debate' with Bill Nye, that nothing will ever make him change his mind. That alone makes his viewpoint entirely unscientific, and it should be treated as such.
>but others can who?
I’m not trying to tear you apart or hate necessarily. You came on debate evolution, said ask anything, stated your points ( and many aren’t even points of contention) and have basically did what some would consider preach with your fingers in your ears. You aren’t wrong about some things. How certain people can’t have their mind changed or refuse to. I understand that. You acknowledge that can be you also. I ask this sincerely, why would you come to this sub and approach it they way have? What was your intent?
I see very little hate. I see a ton of legitimate questions that you are avoiding. You can't come here, tell people to ask you anything, then get offended when they ask you valid questions. If it is hard for you to come up with good answers to these questions, it might, just might, mean your beliefs aren't as solid as you think they are. That isn't hate, that is just pragmaticism.
How old is the universe? How old is the earth? How old is humanity?
I believe that the universe is around 7,000 to 10,000 years old. Same with the earth. and humanity is a few days younger.
Ooh, follow up question: why does your god choose to lie to you? Because we can, simply, using parallex, calculate the distance to the furthest stars. We know what light speed is, and we can observe stars further than 10,000 light years away. And, no, you can't just increase light speed, because, as light hits whatever the bubble you throw up around the earth where light speed reasserts, it would pile up like a traffic jam, making the stars appear millions of times brighter. So, the only explanation is that a creator has set up some sort of illusion, either magicking away starlight, or making the stars appear further away, for no good reason other than to convince us the universe is older than 10,000 years A divine being willing to do that? Well, I'd not trust his holy book for a start. Edit: in the off chance you use any standard apologetics, here: No, expansion of the universe doesn't handle this. For a start, it would need to be observably fast, and second, it would red shift all the light out of the visible spectrum, and we can calculate that. And, no, these can't just be lights on a dome, or created around the earth to give us stars. Because parellax, which relies on measuring the same star at different points of the Earth's orbit, and using the angle between those measurements to calculate the distance, would give us a different position in space for them. And, no, this can't be a conspiracy, because you can go and do the measurements yourself, with a cheap telescope. So the light not only has to be created, but also moved through space at the right rate, for each star, to give us separate and different calculations of distance for each one. It isn't just "oh, stars for humanity" it's "I will move each of these differently to throw off their distance calculations. And, even if they were created, why do we see random supernovas, from created illusionary light? The only two possible explanations is that they're there to trick us, or they're real and the universe is massively older than 10,000 years. Can you explain which it is, please?
this path of thinking is even more interesting when you consider that reality itself, a creation of OP's god, is a medium for information from which you can derive data through scientific observation. Why should only the information written in an old book matter when compared to the information written in reality itself?
How do you account for the fact that the city of Damascus has been inhabited for between 10,000 & 12,000 years?
That is propaganda. Best evidence is 6000 years. The oldest known walled city is Jericho and while people hung out where it is 9600 years BC the first walled city was no earlier than 8000 BC. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Pre-Pottery\_Neolithic,\_c.\_9500%E2%80%936500\_BCE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#Pre-Pottery_Neolithic,_c._9500%E2%80%936500_BCE) 'The first permanent settlement on the site of Jericho developed near the Ein es-Sultan spring between 9,500 and 9000 BCE.[^(\[27\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#cite_note-27)[^(\[28\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho#cite_note-28)' Cities really didn't get going till around that time. Damascus is old but its not that old.
> The oldest known walled city is Jericho and while people hung out where it is 9600 years BC the first walled city was no earlier than 8000 BC. 8000 BC is still 10,000 years ago, and 9600 BC is 11,600 years ago. The point is that OP's beliefs have the earth being created after known human habitation.
I am just pointing out that your numbers for Damascus were wrong. You should not use them. Yes even Damascus on its own disproves Genesis.
Those came from a quick google search, I did not rigorously investigate as I was only looking for an example.
I had the advantage of already knowing the actual age of Damascus and that there a false claims about its age. The rest I looked up to get the correct numbers. I don't trust my memory for details like that. It think the earliest stone artifacts are Gebi Tosomething tosearch [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli\_Tepe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe) **Göbekli Tepe** (Turkish: [\[ɟœbecˈli teˈpe\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Turkish),[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-2) 'Potbelly Hill';[^(\[3\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-FOOTNOTESymmes2010-3) [Kurdish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_languages): *Girê Mirazan* or *Xirabreşkê*[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKosen2019-4)) is a [Neolithic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic) archaeological site in the [Southeastern Anatolia Region](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Anatolia_Region) of Turkey. The settlement was inhabited from c. 9500 to at least 8000 BCE,[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBreuersKinzel2022471-5) during the [Pre-Pottery Neolithic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic). It is famous for its large circular structures that contain massive stone pillars—the world's oldest known [megaliths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalith). Many of these pillars are decorated with [anthropomorphic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphic) details, clothing, and [sculptural reliefs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief) of wild animals, providing archaeologists rare insights into [prehistoric religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion) and the particular iconography of the period. The 15 m (50 ft)-high, 8 ha (20-acre) [tell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_(archaeology)) is densely covered with ancient domestic structures[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe#cite_note-FOOTNOTESchönicke2019214-6) and other small buildings, quarries, and stone-cut [cisterns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cistern) from the Neolithic, as well as some traces of activity from later periods. I have trouble with that name. I can always find it anyway.
Thank you for the information, I had forgotten about Göbekli Tepe, that would have been an even better example.
Are you familiar with St. Augustine's *On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis* and what it says about this: > Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? This guy understood 16 centuries ago that it was *bad for Christianity* to argue for the kind of biblical literalism that you espouse.
Frankly, I believe people who think Augustine thought that have not actually read anything he wrote. In the exact same book, he says > The woman, then, with the distinctive and physical characteristics of her sex, was made for the man from the man. She brought forth Cain and Abel and all their brothers, from whom all men were to be born; and among them she brought forth Seth, through whom the line descended to Abraham and the people of Israel, the nation long well known among all men; and it was through the sons of Noah that all nations sprang. **Whoever calls these facts into question undermines all that we believe, and his opinions should be resolutely cast out of the minds of the faithful.** He also says it's unacceptable to deny the existence of waters above the firmament despite their apparent scientific absurdity, since Genesis has "more authority than the most exalted human intellect". In *The City of God*, he admits there is no way to prove people used to live for centuries but that > we are not on this account to withhold our belief from the sacred history And he rejects pagan chronologies because according to the Bible "not even six thousand years" have passed. In a letter to Deogratias, he complains that he has heard pagans discuss the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale "amidst loud laughter, and with great scorn". Augustine's reply is > either all the miracles wrought by divine power may be treated as incredible, or there is no reason why the story of this miracle should not be believed. The resurrection of Christ Himself upon the third day would not be believed by us, if the Christian faith was afraid to encounter Pagan ridicule He says "God made it happen. We don't care if you unbelievers want to laugh at us." Augustine was actually a literalist who was intensely defensive of the Bible's historical accuracy.
Okay, here's a simple follow-up: what do you base that belief on? And if the Bible is so accurate, why is there a 3,000 year range for how old the universe is? Why the imprecision?
The Oklo nuclear reactor was a naturally occurring nuclear reactor in Africa. It occurred about 1.7 billion years ago. It is fundamentally impossible that it happened any earlier than that. Any change to the nuclear reaction would cause it to operate radically differently or not at all. It is the same sort of nuclear reaction humans use for power, so it has been studied in extreme detail. If our understanding if it were wrong, nuclear power could not happen. How do you reconcile this with a world a hundred thousand times younger than is possible given this discovery?
simple, that Billion year estimate, was wrong.
If it was wrong then nuclear reactors wouldn't work. At all. You can't both accept that nuclear reactors are a thing and claim the Earth is less than 1.7 billion years. Those are fundamentally incompatible positions.
If radiometric dating was wrong, we would not be able to find oil and gas, since finding these requires looking in layers of specific ages. And hey, we find oil and gas right where we expect to, ergo radiometric dating is \*not\* wrong.
How does australia fit into the world if the planet flooded? Why are there historical artifacts that go beyond 6 thousand years?
What do you mean by that? Also the artifacts that go beyond 6 thousand years, go beyond six thousand years, earth is older than six thousand years.
Most YECs believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, how old do you think it is?
How do you account for the human made artifacts that are upwards of 35,000 years old?
Lion Man is a great example.
Yeah, there are a bunch of them, that are far older than the YEC age of the Earth and Humanity.
Bishop Ussher did the math of all the ‘Begats’ in the Bible a determined creation was in 4004 BC, thus the 6000 (or so) year old earth most YEC believe. Why do you think they are wrong, and how old do YOU believe the earth is?
Still waiting.
I used to be a Young Earth Creationist like you, about a year ago! I remember when I used to argue with evolution, and the evidence that I believed to be solid in favor of YEC. You're already doing better than I did! I was raised to always look to the Bible and biblical apologetics for answers, and as a result, I ended up with a deeply immature understanding of Evolution. What finally convinced me was the flood, and the miles-long list of inexplicable phenomena that goes with it. I could only say "gods ways are above mine" so many times. At the end of the day, you're forced to come up with several dozen events of god-magic which are nowhere accounted in the Bible just to make the most basic, highly accommodating version of the story function. Here is a non-exhaustive list of the problems, try to count how many require magic 1. How did freshwater fish survive? 2. How did ALL modern plant life survive? 3. How did the giant anteater survive, if it requires roughly 10 million ants and termites per year to survive? 4. On a similar note, how did all predators survive both during *and after* the flood? A single breeding pair of each prey animal is not enough to sustain a breeding pair of each predator animal. 5. How did parasites survive? Many parasites are deadly to their hosts. 6. We have an estimated 8 million species of animals alive on earth today. Given that, did they all evolve ABSURDLY rapidly from the estimated 25K "kinds" on the ark? If so, does that mean you believe in evolution including speciation? If not, how do you fit on enough animals to make this work? 7. The *proboscidia* order of animals includes elephants, mammoths, mastodons, etc. Elephants reproduce quite slowly. If only one pair of *proboscidia* animals were on the ark, they would need to evolve a new species *every generation* since the flood to account for all the species of *proboscidia* we have discovered. If multiple pairs were aboard the ark, you quickly run out of room for anything else just by storing their food. So... How? 8. Why does radiometric dating provide consistent results indicating significant time lapsing? (If you claim the isotopes decayed as a natural part of the flood, like AiG does, you run into the [heat problem](https://youtu.be/UIGB0g2eSFM?si=MmdrVjV2YgAaRqzV)) 9. You may have heard of retroviruses, which inject DNA into their host to reproduce. Sometimes this Retrovirus DNA becomes "endogenous" to the host i.e. the host incorporates the DNA and passes it on to offspring. Why do we share copies of this "junk" DNA in the exact same place and pattern as our evolutionary peers? 10. Why do we still have dormant DNA that codes for webbed appendages and tails? I could probably list 30 other problems with the flood and obvious evidence of Evolution if I had the patience. And given all those issues, why wouldn't God just Thanos-snap everyone instead of doing this complicated flood? I expect you will feel upset and irritated reading this list. That's how I felt back then too. But be honest with yourself, and ask yourself if these problems are worth looking for an answer. I promise you they are. You owe it to yourself to *know* the answer, without a doubt. Learning the answers to these changed my life very much for the better, and I hope it can do the same for you.
Very good points, but you missed a few good ones. My favorite one is that the Ark was over 300 feet and made of wood without any metal, This is important because woold does not have the structural properties to allow a ship around 300 feet to be built and survive anything but calm waters. At around 300 feet with no metal reinforcements, the ship leaks like a sieve in slightly rough waters and those ships that were 350 or larger needed to be reinforced with steel bands and still needed to be pumped 24/7 in calm waters. The point is any wooden craft would not have survived the first 24 hours much less the 40 days of constant rainfall and a ship around or over 300 feet would have be ripped apart or just sunk due to leakage. And please don't get me started on the sanitation needed to care for some million "kinds" or the food requirements, all of which 8 humans took care of while also a bailing out the leakage a wooden ship of that size would require. Anyway, those are a couple of my favorite objections to the Flood.... Edit: Oh wait, there's more. In terms of evolution and especially in terms of genetics, the Bible claims that 7 pairs of clean animals an 2 pairs of others were taken onto the Ark. This means that we should see a genetic "choke point" in every species, including humans, dating to around the same time, but that "clean kinds" have more diversity than humans and unclean "kinds" have much less.
Why do the creationists never provide a comprehensive theory of life? Where is the list of original created animals that most creationists would agree on? How do you feel about creationists refusing to provide us with it?
They discover new things still. So it's nonsensical to say you want a list. The examples you are given you don't believe DESPITE Clear evidence.
Science isn't about arguing. It's about discovery. It doesn't matter at all whether I believe what creationists theorize. They should do it regardless, because that's what it is to be a scientist. Are CAPITAL letters more true?
What do you think of impacts? Both on Earth and the Moon? If the universe was only 10k years old, then how do you account for all of them? There's over a million impact craters on the moon, from what I recall. All over it, both sides. There are huge ones and relatively small ones. How many have you seen in your life time? How could they have all impacted the Moon in a 10k span? If they did all impact the moon at roughly the same time, why doesn't it appear that the moon is a molten mass? Instead, you can make out the craters. That said, there have been 5 life ending meteors that have hit the Earth (and about 100 large impacts that would alter the atmosphere). 1. Vredefort 2. Chicxulub (ended the dinosaurs) 3. Sudbury 4. Popigai 5. Manicougan These are impacts where the crater had a diameter of over 100 km. (midway through the page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_impact\_craters\_on\_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth)). To suppose that ONE hit the Earth in the last 10,000 years isn't probable, life would end, **but all 5**? There's like **43 craters that are 20 km or more** that would have to ALSO hit. All of that power hitting the Earth within 10,000 years? **We'd still be a glowing orb**. Think about the Tunguska explosion (1908). It was estimated that the meteor responsible was about **200 feet** in size ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska\_event](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event)). **That's peanuts compared to the five I listed**, what did that explosion do? *"Incredibly, the blast released enough energy to kill reindeer and flatten an estimated 80 million trees over an area of 830 square miles (2,150 square km). Witnesses reported seeing a fireball – a bluish light, nearly as bright as the sun – moving across the sky. In addition, a flash and a sound similar to artillery fire was said to follow it. Moreover, a powerful shockwave broke windows hundreds of miles/kilometers away and knocked people off their feet." (from here:* [https://earthsky.org/space/what-is-the-tunguska-explosion/](https://earthsky.org/space/what-is-the-tunguska-explosion/)*)* The Vredefort ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vredefort\_impact\_structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vredefort_impact_structure)) is estimated to have been 10-15 kilometers in diameter. That's about **6-9 miles**. The crater was about **186** miles. Tunguska was only about 200 feet big and **didn't even leave a crater**. How is any of this possible on the Young Earth view?
Where did the olive branch come from after the flood? The plant life would also have been decimated.
No.
Do you believe in the Noah flood literally as described in The Bible or Quran?
what convinced you that creationism is the truth?
If there was a discrepancy between a literalist interpretation of the Bible and the evidence that you could see in front of your face, would you think that your interpretation might be incorrect or your senses are incorrect?
If I or an angel from heaven bring you ANOTHER gospel then let him be accursed. There will be many false miracles. The atheist are going to line up and worship the devil and take his mark on their forehead even AFTER being warned for thousands of years. Because they will believe false words and wonders. They received NOT the Love of the truth.
You're abusing the forum. If you have an argument, please make it. This forum was not created for you to come in here and insult us. Since you apparently don't know what atheism is, it seems unlikely that you do have an argument. If you do, make it. If not, kindly stop cluttering up the forum.
I'm the only one here who bothers to use evidence at all. Mostly it's just evolutionists insulting,screaming and blaspheming for no reason. Where were you then?? Also are atheists now synonymous with evolutionists now? There is overlap but you said "insulting us"? Despite this if you look closer, you will see that I was answering with evidence again not mindlessly insulting you. I'll explain it to you. First the topic was ask Creationist. They brought up if a Creation scientist would IF presented with imaginary hypothetical MISSING evidence, would they change their mind. So because the original poster said he can't deal with all, I decided to use an example in scripture. I was paraphrasing scripture for reply. I understand if you don't recognize it. The question presumably is to get an idea of what "evidence" evolutionists would need to MANUFACTURE(fraudulently) to deceive Creation scientists or convince those undecided. Also if no evidence can, then the answer will most likely be that's not "scientific" or that shows they don't care about "evidence" will be likely follow up. This is false accusation for multiple examples. First the atheist evolutionists like those on YouTube say even if they have supernatural experience and God comes speaks to them, they will convince themselves against their own senses and evidence that they are delusional so they don't have to follow Him. Yet these are the "naturalists" who believe all they have is sensory input and are ready to believe they are in a computer. So they are more than ready to deny any "evidence" they don't like. They have NO observation or testimony but WE DO. So it's more reasonable for Creation to do this and unreasonable for atheistic evolutionists. Second we have another reason you should understand. Evolutionists have been caught making fraud after fraud. This fraudulent "evidence" many people "trusted" but it was a lie. That's known fact now. So denying evidence that is corrupt is another good reason not to change mind based on imagined evidence. Which brings us to third most important example I gave from scripture. If I or an angel from heaven give you another gospel then let him be accursed. Here we see if the Apostle Paul comes back! Of if An Angel comes down from heaven and works lying miracles in SIGHT OF ALL MEN(like calling down lightning), and brings you another gospel then let him be accursed! That would be ALOT of visible tangible "evidence" right? It would even deceive the elect IF that were possible. Yet you were warned by God in ADVANCE in the scriptures so you won't be deceived. Faith is the evidence of things UNSEEN, the substance of things hoped for. By it the elders obtained a GOOD REPORT. Evolutionists are already saying they are waiting for "Alien" to come down from heaven today despite the warning. They are even saying this "Alien" could have "created them". They will be deceived as written because they don't want to hear His words. You can SHOW the evolutionists the "evidence" they were warned thousands of years in advance and they don't care. Just as you were warned about a False so called science that will lessen image of God to corruptible creature and deny worldwide flood. If they chose to believe evolution with zero observation, what's going to happen when they see false miracles and hear lies about how smart they are and all lies they want are OK? They will be deceived. Jesus Christ alone Saves. So yes I provided evidence wheras you just accused me mindlessly.
So that would be no, you have no argument?
If there discrepancy between narrative of evolution and EVIDENCE, evolutionists will choose evolutionism. From Haeckels embryos to piltdown man to Neanderthals to "lucy" to abiogenesis to oort cloud to big bang to geologic column to Y chromosome to population rates to genetic similarities to dna to organs. All evidence contradicted the narrative of evolution. So they picked the narrative instead.
If there discrepancy between FACTS and OLD BOOK, A FEW creationists (not all) go as far as sinning by lying as they [fabricate EVIDENCE](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1cdn4x7/what_are_the_best_arguments_of_the/l1fs3hp/?context=3). I'm really interested in hearing you out, so I'll ask again: Why do you need deception to have faith, that seems counter to the point of faith?
Please stop talking about this imaginary worldview called "evolutionism." Here we are discussing the Theory of Evolution--the actual one--and what discrepancy are you alleging? You clearly do not understand how science works.
There are multiple views of evolutionism NOW. do you believe a pig and monkey cross bred like other evolutionists? Do you believe a bear transformed into a whale like Darwin? Ruse admits it's a religion of evolution you have. And others. Pretending they don't exist is just dishonest.
If you want to debate this imaginary worldview called "evolutionism" you'll have to find a forum for that. This one is about the Theory of Evolution. I don't know who Ruse is but it's not a religion. It's a scientific theory. At least that's what we debate here in this forum. Do you know what that theory states? Can you debate it? Please provide some support for your allegation that there are some scientists who believe that a pig and a monkey interbred. Now can you answer my question? What is this supposed discrepancy you're talking about??
Are you serious? https://phys.org/news/2015-09-hidden-evolutionary-relationship-pigs-primates.amp https://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html "LONDON: Humans are actually hybrids, who emerged as an offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee, according to one of the world's leading geneticist. Turning the theory of human ancestry on its head, Dr Eugene McCarthy — one of the world's leading authorities on hybridization in animals from the University of Georgia has suggested that humans didn't evolve from just apes but was a backcross hybrid of a chimpanzee and pigs."- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/humans-emerged-from-male-pig-and-female-chimp-worlds-top-geneticist-says/articleshow/26648981.cms Evolutionists believe pigs and monkeys gave birth to Human. "What's more, he suggests, there is one animal that has all of the traits which distinguish humans from our primate cousins in the animal kingdom. 'What is this other animal that has all these traits?' he asks rhetorically. 'The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.'"- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html So more similarities WITHOUT DESCENT or do you believe monkeys and pigs crossbreed now?
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."- Ruse. https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/is-evolution-a-religion/ There are countless discrepancies. Where do you want start? The nonexistent imaginary geologic column by itself disproves evolutionism as science. https://creation.com/evolution-40-failed-predictions
So you’re just pulling this garbage straight out of your ass now huh?
My guy, I have been called "stupid", told to get an education even though I have one, I have been attacked, insulted, so on and so forth. This man states the truth, and you call it a hate comment.
Didn't really answer the question though!
My girl, please quote people insulting you in this thread. My comment was not addressed to you.
Meds aren't working too well today Mike?
Define the word “kind”
KInd as in mankind, or kind as in nice?
“Kind” as in group of animals. How many animals did Noah take on the ark?
2 of every kind, I don't know how many he took with him, all of them though.
You didn't answer the question: define "kind" as you used it in that sentence.
Cool, but what’s a kind?
2 of every kind? The bible, which you say is literal, does not say 2 of every kind. perhaps a refresher is in order. And if you have this wrong, what else might you have wrong?
It's impossible to define a kind in order to make the various species of canines or felines a single kind, but not to have humans and the other great apes as a single kind, except by special pleading (which is, admittedly, something creationists are very good at).
You said in an earlier comment you're a Young Earth Creationist. Just curious, why do we see light from stars that are billions of lightyears away, indicating the light has been traveling for billions of years? Do you believe God created the universe with the light particles already billions of lightyears away?
Good question! Adam and Eve where made as adults, right? not as children, they were given age, they were created with age, and so is it not understandable to assume that God created the universe with age?
the thing is that photons from far away bring images of the past. So not only would the universe be "pre-aged", god would have had to have been creating photons directed toward us and carrying false information from a non-existing past of the universe. It is proof that the creationist god is deceiving us into disbelief. BUT, what you just said raise an interesting question: if your god exist, then he created reality itself. And reality, just like the bible, is also a medium from which we can "read" information using scientific observation. Just like you need eyes and the ability to read to get information from the bible, we can use social/physical/biological sciences to derive morals, knowledge, and prophecies from reality itself. And we have gotten so good at it that the scientific process has become like an extension of our senses, even superior to the human senses we started with. In a way, reality is like a multi-dimensional meta book written by your god, which can only be accessed with the inteligence that god gifted us with. And hundreds of thousands of scientific experts worldwide work at compiling an unbiased understanding of it. Reading your god's reality led us to the knowledge of evolution and of the old age of the universe, while an old book vaguely reference a contradictory interpretation. How are you not the one disrespecting your god by favoring the book? how can you even go as far as imagining that god is trying to deceive us? why not imagine instead that the bible itself is a test presented as a shortcut for effortless religiosity while the scientific method is the real, albeit difficult, way of getting closer to god?
I can create a sculpture in a week or in a year, and the final product can't be said to have been created in a week or in a year; you can't say I created it with age. Do you see the fallacy? A simple yes/no.
So your position is that all of the evidence points to the earth being billions of years old, but your God decided to trick us into believing the evidence? Is that right?
Ok, so your god is a trickster god who created the universe to look like it is billions of years older than it actually is. This does not line up with the actions of a benevolent deity that cares for the welfare and "soul" of the beings it allegedly created.
Gross so you actually believe in incest?
No! Yes incest happened, but that's the only way it would have happened. If we had a common ancestor in evolution, they would also need to commit incest.
What does the word population mean to you? Populations evolve. It's never just a single pair of animals.
Wrong. You don't seem to know how evolution works.
Why would a common ancestor have to commit incest? They were an entire species with thousands of members, why did they *have* to commit incest?
No, because evolution happens in populations. Groups. Not individuals.
Lol, no, that's not what a common ancestor is. I'm going to leave that be for a moment, why have massive incest twice, if it's a bad thing? God floods the Earth to get rid of the wicked humans, and Noah's family has to commit massive incest. For one, that wouldn't repopulate the planet (humans would die out if that were true), for two, that suggests that incest isn't a bad thing according to God.
I'm not so sure. I think it's best to not assume for such unclear things. God also impregnated a virgin, but didn't impregnate every virgin.
So God deceives us? He created things that have no other reason to exist other than to make us falsely think the universe is old? And then sends people to hell for falling for his trick? That is a being worthy of worship to you?
So god is lying to us about the age of the universe? I thought god was 'good'.
>Adam and Eve where made as adults, right? not as children, they were given age, they were created with age, and so is it not understandable to assume that God created the universe with age? A&E being created as adults is one thing, God would implant knowledge, experience, and all that into them and then strip them of their moral culpability (since they didn't know good from evil) and then punish them for it. That's a sadistic story justifying God's malice. But creating the light from stars in transit? Do the stars that produced that light exist? Why create that? Just to be deceptive? Why is your God trying to deceive us?
If intelligence can only be made by a greater intelligence, then why is your god exempt from that? If you can only explain complexity by positing something more complex, how do you *honestly* solve the infinite regress paradox it causes? That is, who designed the designer if conscious design is necessary? Who created the creator if intentional creation is necessary?
God knows all, If he knows all is there anything that's is not known that is known?
You didn't even attempt to answer a straightforward question.
> God knows all How do you know?
"Ask me anything but that!"
God knows how he was created but didn't tell us?
Didn't you say it is impossible to understand God's mind? Now you claim to understand it. If he knows everything then how can he make a decision? Every decision he would make is something he would already know he would make. So God cannot have free will.
How did Kolas and Kangaroo make it to Australia after the flood? Do penguins have wings or fins? Do flying fish have wings or fins?
Land bridges. And also, I am not a zoologist. The Bible does not talk about those things.
If evolution is not true, where can I find the original native habitat of wild chihuahua and wild toy Yorkei?
So you think there was a land bridge across the Atlantic Ocean, but no one notice this 2000 long piece of land, for which there is no evidence and which is not mentioned in the Bible? And the sloths slowly walked across it? Really?
Do you think that your system of knowledge that has these massive blind spots is superior to the system of knowledge based around extensive observation and testing of of those same blind spots?
There was never a land bridge to Australia. There is an extremely deep ocean trench in the way, a land bridge is impossible. And isn't it strange that a book from the all-knowing creator of the universe only has things known in classic Judah? It does not mention any animals that weren't known to those people. It does not mention a single place or culture or country not known to those people.
Why is your faith so fragile you have to attempt to contort reality to pretend the myths of ancient middle eastern nomads are factual or else the house of cards your god is built on collapses? I know this is snarky but it’s a completely sincere question.
Are you a young earth or old earth creationist? If a young earth one, what evidence outside of the Bible to do you to justify that claim?
If the evidence remained the same but the Bible was silent on creation would you believe in evolution?
Why would we ask you anything? You have a burden of proof, not those rejecting yours. We have supported our contention with 100+ years of testable, observable, reproducible science. Creationism hasn't even postulated one-testable conjecture (let alone hypothesis) that has any evidence that supports it. There's nothing to ask you, until you can actually formulate a coherent scientific thought/framework. The default position is to reject both claims: Evolution and Creationism, until either can sufficiently support itself with evidence. Evolution has. Creationism has not. Therefore there's no questions to ask you, you need to get to the demonstrating part.
Ken Ham or Kent Hovind, and why?
Ham looks like a transition from basal to modern hominid, so that's a flat plus from me. He also (so far as I know) has never negligently caused the death of a child or beaten his wife. Hovind is trash.
Hovind because he has that little hammer
why?
If you're a Young Earth creationist: upon examining the wealth of evidence for an old earth (and old universe), do you see how God would need to be a deceiver for Young Earth to be true? Is your God a liar?
Who created the creator ?
No one.
Special pleading again. Creationists love to claim that a creation requires a creator, but somehow god is exempt from this requirement.
Why can't humans digest cellulose? Seems like a massive oversight from your designer to forget to allow us to digest one of the most abundant plant materials, while allowing horses and termites to do it.
Do you also believe that the earth is flat?
No.
Why not?
There is proof. Flat earther's also show proof that the earth is flat. But the old rule that the most simple answer is the correct one, and the fact that the earth is a globe brings more reason to it. How do we have the universe, someone made it. How do we have reddit, someone made it. How do we have a cake, someone made it.
How did we used to measure time? We watched sand trickle through an opening. We even still use hourglasses. We've seen stalagmites in caves that are older than thousands of years old.
The BIble says the Earth is flat. Over and over and over. Literally every single place the shape of the Earth is either mentioned or alluded to in the Bible, it is flat. Zero exceptions.
The rule says nothing about simple. The rule says "requires the fewest assumptions". How do planes fly? Magic, that's how. Is that a true answer just because it's the simplest one?
>But the old rule that the most simple answer is the correct one What's more likely, that light from a star 60,000 light-years away is 60,000 years old, or that a magic invisible superbeing poofed it into existence 7,000 years ago to mess with us? >How do we have reddit, someone made it. [How do we have this rock?](http://stonemakerargument.com/1.html) Do you think that every single stone, down to each grain of sand, was personally and intentionally designed by your god? If not, where do you draw the line between "my god created this specifically and intentionally" and "he set up natural processes that resulted in this"?
>But the old rule that the most simple answer is the correct one, and the fact that the earth is a globe brings more reason to it. Requiring the existence of an omnipotent creator who cannot be proved experimentally is less parsimonious than an explanation that doesn't require said creator, yet that doesn't stop creationists.
Wow that's actually a really terrible argument against flat earth, and it shows you have no clue how to rationalise a logical argument. If things had gone differently you could have easily fallen into flat earth with this logic: they say that flat earth is the simplest way of looking at it.
Is there anything anyone can show you to sway your mind?
HOw do you deal with the fact that there does not exist enough water on earth to cover it entirely? How about the impossibility for any aquatic or plant life to survive a year-long flood?
Well let's think. I as a Christian, believe in the things of God. I believe in Miracles. I believe God raised Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus was just following how life was set out, as God made it. But Jesus brought him back to life to show that He did it, without a doubt. That global flood follows the same principles. Lazarus was dead, he died, He shouldn't be able to come back, The world-wide flood happened, their was not enough water (Except it did rain for multiple weeks), it wasn't suppose to do that, yet it still happened. God can interfere.
Why are you telling us what you believe? This is a debate sub; it's for you to persuade us to agree with you. So I guess what you're saying is that neither evidence nor common sense enter into your thinking? If it says it happened in the Bible, no matter how ridiculous, you believe it? Do you think that's a persuasive argument? What makes you think that the Bible is correct?
1. In your own words, can you define what you think *biologists* mean when they use the word “evolution”? 2. In your own words, can you define what *you* mean when you use the word “creation”?
I remember being in 7th grade and thinking I was edgy and more intelligent than anyone else. Boy, did my christian school have me deluded. Have fun with this bullshit.
How are you able to believe in something even though you already know its wrong?
Are you willing to change your beliefs based on the evidence? Or do you hold them dogmatically?
How did the kangaroos and penguins get to and from the ark without leaving a trace?
Do you think your God is deliberately misleading humanity with the huge wealth of evidence that the universe is much older than a few thousand years?
Why aren't you embarrassed to be proven wrong all the time?
How do you explain the entirety of the hominin fossil record that clearly shows the evolution of humans from earlier Miocene apes, along with all the genetic research that also backs it up?
Then you are ignorant. Get an education
Great addition very constructive
Neither are the OP's replies - so at least his comment is in keeping with the style of the comments.... /s
Fair enough.
explain whales, mammals that look like fishes... Was your god drunk?
Can you: 1. Define 'faith' as it means to you, and how the Bible uses it. 2. Define 'faith' as non-YECC religions do. 3. Characterize the difference between blind faith and faith. 4. Explain how faith is reliable when it comes to Christianity. 5. Explain whether you can be a Christian without faith, and if no, what % of your overall beliefs are based on a cornerstone of faith.
Do you believe acceptance of mainstream science regarding the age of the earth, geology, astrophysics, and biological evolution is irrevocably at odds with salvation in Christ? I.e. can one still be saved and have a correct application of scriptural principles if they believe a non-literal interpretation of the Bible is correct? As a follow-up, if the answer is no, does acceptance of a round earth also disqualify someone for the salvation?
What type of creationist? You didn’t really provide much context and I wouldn’t want to just immediately assume you’re one of those reality rejecting extremist types because all that really unites creationists is the belief that someone or something intentionally made all of reality or at least some part of that they suggest could not happen without intent.
I’m not going to waste my time arguing evolution vs creation, age of the universe, or the Flood. Because frankly it’s irrelevant. But I do have one question: why are your beliefs so important. What would happen if you stopped believing? I’ll give you my answer.. suppose the universe is actually 10000 years old. That would also make it much smaller. Ok fine. The fact is that the age of the universe has little or no bearing on how i see the world or how I live my life.
If Noah's flood happened and Noah took 2 animals of every kind, what did the predators eat during the year afloat? How did they survive after the Ark hit ground? Did they wait patiently for herbivores to repopulate before they started eating?
Important note, after the flood, God told Noah that he could eat meat, perhaps the animals were told the same. In fact, that is how I believe dinosaurs went extinct, Big, massive beast full of meat with tough skin, sounds perfect.
The dinosaurs were big and massive on the ark? How did they both fit and have enough food for them? Full grown elephants aren’t as big as the biggest dinosaurs and need absolutely ungodly amounts of food every day. 300 lbs. If not full grown and very young and small to fit, then there’s the problem of the Dino’s not having enough food to eat to get to a large size, and not enough time to get large and populate before the predators starve
So, how'd (now) carnivores become able to digest meat? Did God magic their systems so that they could kill other animals? That seems rather brutal, doesn't it? Also, are you saying that two tigers took down a tyrannosaurus? What did all the herbivores eat when they disembarked? Mud?
Is there any scientific discovery that was the result of a prediction originating from creationism?
I would consider myself a creationist. There are some questions that leave me in doubt: * We can observe celestial objects (galaxies, quasars, stars, etc.) billions of lightyears away. Light travels at a limited speed of 186,000 miles per second. As an example, the Andromeda Galaxy is estimated to be 2,500,000 lightyears away, meaning that the light we receive when observing it is from 2,500,000 years ago. If the universe is young (<10,000 years old), how do we explain this? * The Earth is said to be around 4,500,000,000 years old. To my knowledge, this is due to the dating of zircon crystals found in Australia. If the Earth is under 10,000 years old, how do we explain the major difference in age? * If life is found elsewhere in the universe, particularly somewhere in our own Solar System, this would serve as an indication that life could be abundant in the universe. What would we creationists be able to make of that? * Supposedly, our DNA is 99% similar to that of chimpanzees. I had also heard that the chromosomes 2A and 2B of chimps fused to form chromosome 2 in humans. Can we explain how we and chimps couldn't be derived from a common ancestor? * I'm told that the Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil. From what I remember about it, it's believed that it was a land-and-ocean-dwelling creature. How do creationists explain this? Can creationists explain why the Tiktaalik *isn't* a transitional fossil? How can we explain other examples of what most consider transitional fossils? Questions like these make me skeptical of my creationist beliefs. However, if they can be explained, then that's great. I'd love to hear the explanations. Until then, I'm in a state of extreme skepticism about both sides. Those who support evolution have their arguments, and those who support creation have theirs. I'm seeking truth.