If there is an enormous amount of evidence that the earth is 6000 years old, then why isn't the scientific consensus that the earth is 6000 years old?

I've heard scientists talk about the age of the earth, and I've heard young earth creationists talk about the age of the earth, and I've got to admit that the scientists appear to me to have more and stronger evidence.

So was the sun also created 6000 years ago? What about the stars?

http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/religulous/

watch that documentary if you want to see how ignorant people are of their own religion.

WARNING: this documentary may actually open your eyes and possibly allow you to realize what a load of bull religion really is.

Just shows how ignorant you are as well.
And nobody reported my post, it normally says when a post has been reported. Nice try though. I honestly don't care because I didn't break any rules.

It's all based on faith and your ignorant for not seeing it.

I AM NOT saying that science/evolution/natural selection/whatever is wrong. I am not saying it is right either. I am saying that I don't know.
You don't know either, so don't act like you do.

You act like you are so superior to everyone else because you have a different faith then them. So you insist on putting them down for their faith. If you haven't noticed, you are just as bad as the religious extremist. You've just become what you fought to defeat.

Also you didn't debunk s**t. I think you completely misunderstood my post.
I was speaking from a personal perspective.

All the things YOU know about science.
Have you PERSONALLY (PERSONALLY BEING THE KEYWORD) run experiments to PROVE evolution/natural selection/god doesn't exist/gravity/whatever?
If you haven't then you are taking it on FAITH (FAITH WORD HERE!!!) that someone else did these experiments and correctly recorded the results. These results were then passed around
the world and eventually made it to you without any adjustments or false modifications (Ever play the telephone game? The integrity of data is lost the more it is transferred).

So until you have run experiments to PROVE 100% every single fact that you ever state you are taking it on FAITH that what you are saying is indeed, a fact.

At least can accept that my way might not be correct.
It is you who is ignorant of other ideas and believes that only your way is the right way.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Dec 27 2008, 10:10 am by KilaByte.

OK. I'm not here to force anyone's beliefs on anyone else (mine on yours), but I do think it is neccessary to make things clear for you. An evidence, in this case, is a fact that is part of a logical chain, that can lead you to some conclusion using strictly logical arguments. I hope you have faith in a logical 'God', which implies he follows the simple rules of logics.

Do you agree that science based on logics has so far given us stabile and reliable results (which are updated every day to improve it even more, thus making it more and more accurate) that are proven every day by observations? I doubt you'll disagree, because if that statement is false, we would not be able to have technical progress, because it is based on science.

If science has worked so far, the methods used by it can effectively observe, draw conclusions and make predictions about the objects and events existing/happening in our universe.

Let us assume the opposite of what we're trying to prove and use your specific beliefs that God created the universe.

Therefore, if God is somehow connected to our universe (which must be true, since, by your beliefs, he created it) and follows the laws of logics, it must be possible to prove 'God' by science. Until it has been proven by science (therefore, by logics), you cannot say that God is proven. If you claim you've proven God without today's scientific methods, you are challenging everything mankind has achieved so far, and the basic laws of logics, which you know are true, thus making your proof invalid.

Personal experience cannot be considered as evidence to prove God, because it is not science, so leave it out of the debate please.

I do not quite understand how does the Bible prove the existance of God. Or, how does the existance of any book (note: not the original, just copies of it), that does not have any powers that we have observed by science but cannot explain with science, is proof of 'God'. Please explain more.

I used to believe in God and, like I described in some previous post in this topic, I had my own 'God' with his own rules, rituals of faith expression and other specifics. I did not go to church and no organized religion had any influence on me. I did not try to prove my God, because it was just a psychological need I had at that time. I have nothing against faith in God, but never go around saying 'God exists' to other people - you're trying to impose your personal psychological needs and methods of expression on others.

I like how that is not my quote and you randomly placed my name there.

...

There, I debunked your whole argument.

Yes it's a shame. But does that automatically rule out god's existence?

Historical evidence is perfectly valid evidence.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that God's existence doesn't make predictions (other than the obvious, apocalypse etc.), because it's not supposed to. I never equated God with science, and God has no place in science, so this conversation is basically moot. Saying that God doesn't exist just because he can't be proven via the scientific method at this time is a logical fallacy. The correct position is "I don't know, but you can believe in him if you have evidence for his existence".

You've misunderstood all of my posts. My position is simple: as an explanation for the universe, "goddidit" is no better than any of the other theories put forth, therefore it's ridiculous to call theists irrational, and all the atheist-supremacists can get off their high horses.

Anybody claiming that they can prove God's existence is full of it. I didn't say I could prove God. The OP (Krayzee) is making a bunch of claims i.e. that Christians are wrong. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him.

Not necessarily. Go to the link I provided a while back.

It's simple. If the bible has basis in historical fact, it can be considered credible. I saw a preview for a recent Nova special where archeologists uncovered an Egyptian glyph that referenced the people of Israel (things like that).

Read my posts before you jump the gun like that. My main post in this thread was directed towards Krayzee (who has yet to reply). Everyone here for some reason else felt the need to interject into the conversation under the assumption that I'm trying to prove god.

As part of this conversation, I have two statements from you made in different posts, which contradict eachother:
(this one was a reply to EzDay, not KrayZee)
You have evidence for a God, but you can't prove God? I thought evidence is supposed to be the basis of any proof. Be careful about what you say.

I did not say that God does not exist. I said that the only possible proof of God is a scientific one and that 'personal experience' is not one of those.

You dodged my arguments there. You said that 'God did it' is something worth considering when contemplating about the birth of our universe (for example, where did the energy to create it come from). I understand your point, but I made a statement about how God must follow the same laws of logics present in our universe, thus making a scientific proof of God the only valid and the only possible one. Your reply wasn't very connected to my statement.

The fact that it describes some (I stress 'some') real historical facts does not imply that everything it desctibes is true (literal understanding) or that it is somehow connected to God or that God exists.
Sorry, I should have clarified. That part was not directed at you in particular; just an overall statement I wanted to make.

...

And about your response in general: I made my post with a general idea of 'you do not have any real evidence of God' as a response to you saying you do have some evidence. It was not intended as an overall comment on all of your posts, containing all your thoughts on this matter.

You're logic is undeniable.

Good work, that was a mature, well-presented post that clearly represented your views and personal knowledge. (i.e. I now know that you sir, are an idiot. Incapable of understanding even the simplest concepts.)

Also you are attacking me for saying that neither of us knows the truth? That's just stupid. You are less open-minded than any of the religious extremist.

He may have evidence, but not enough to fully prove something. You need more than one piece of evidence to truly prove something.
He is also not claiming that he has proof that God exists. Only evidence that he might. Evidence enough to have faith.


This is exactly what I am trying to say.
Confront and debunk this statement instead of pulling apart bits of other statements to prove something.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Dec 27 2008, 6:35 pm by KilaByte.

Are you aware that things such as anecdotal evidence are still considered evidence, even if they don't prove something 100%. Take a look at a simple court case. Anecdotal & other less substantial evidence is brought in to "prove" a person's guilt, and said person was indicted. I don't have 100% irrefutable proof for the existence of god, and courts usually don't have 100% irrefutable evidence for someone's crimes. Sometimes the courts are wrong, I can accept the fact that I might be wrong as well. But when faced with overwhelming evidence, even if it is unsubstantial, it is ludicrous to dismiss the case because you don't have 100% irrefutable proof.

First off, I don't dodge arguments on purpose. Either I misunderstood what you said or it's the other way around. You are correct in saying that when trying to prove god a scientific proof should be the only valid & possible one. But I'm not trying to do that. And since you're under the assumption that all evidence has to be 100% irrefutable evidence and that the only possible way for something to be valid is for it to fit your specific criteria, you misunderstood my post and thought that I was dodging your argument.

Science is a useful tool to help us understand the physical world. But as mentioned above, it is not an end-all-be-all tool for deciding issues, especially those that deal with such issues as how should people live their lives, or what the true path for humans really is. Some people need something shoved right in front of their faces and offered 100% irrefutable proof to believe in it, which is fine. But others don't, like the courts for example. That's what I was saying.

Can you imagine what it would be like if everything would have to be validated via the scientific method? Consider this scenario: David Jackson was a man who lived in the 1800s according to the U.S. census. However, his existence can't be proven via the scientific method and his existence makes no testable predictions about the universe. Therefore let's ignore him and say that he never existed. What a ridiculous argument... =/

Of course not. But the history of the people of Israel is entwined too closely with God and the things he did to help them. If the bible has historical accuracy, then it lends credence to God's existence.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 27 2008, 8:27 pm by Aedus.

The bible is full of contradictions in its scripture and its historical context. If it truly were the word of a god, would it not be flawless and not written in the style of the men at the time? Or is the god supposed to have the ignorant mindset of the people of the time?



An example of one of the hundreds if not thousands of bible contradictions, I have more if you so please.

In a scientific context, the bible is wrong yet again. For instance, the bible claims that god places the planets and the sun in firmament spheres and the Earth at the centre, which is ludicrous, as the work of Galileo and Copernicus mathematically proved this wrong, and we have physically sent Human constructed Probes to the furthest reaches of the Solar System.


Here, the claim is that King Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Egyptian civilization, but there is no record in Greek(their trading partner), Egyptian, or Babylonian history. Huh?

Claim: Bible is the word of god.
Facts: Bible is riddled with errors and misconceptions similar to the mindset of the people at the time.
Bible Verse: "Num. 23: 19, "19 God in not a man, that He should lie..."
Observation: The "word of god" is filled with contradictions, misconceptions, and false data, but God is supposed to all knowing and not wrong, right?
Conclusion: Either God is wrong in his own teachings, contradicting the idea of god, or the bible was solely written by men of the time based on their own beliefs.

The Bible can not be used as a backbone in an argument for a god, it simply has too many contradictions and an early 1st century mindset.

Aedus, you appear to be a man of faith, so I'd like you to take this with some faith: when you become an Atheist, you feel as if you've been freed, and that you're looking down on the box* and the world from the outside, rather than being inside a box looking out at the world.

*Box being the window of religion and religious faith.


Btw: Welcome to Serious Discussion!

Your whole written argument was entirely delusional, which asks us "What is KilaByte trying to write here?", "What on Earth did he just say?", "What the hell does that mean?", a confused "What?". You think I'm an idiot who is incapable of understanding the simplest concepts, yet despite the fact that you are completely ignoring everyone here who are trying to tell people like you how science works. Science is not a faith, nor is it a religion or gives anyone salvation if they do X things or don't do X things or they go to X place.

Oh and secondly, people that knows how science works, of course they (we) made experiments before, with the use of public schools. Safety glasses, gloves, and all other basic materials, why not? If the experiment failed and the student failed to manage to write out what happened, either there is something wrong with the equipment or the person doing the experiment did something wrong.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 27 2008, 9:59 pm by KrayZee.

Please do not compare science and courts. In science, you must have 100% irrefutable proof of something for it to be considered valid. It must agree with every existing theory/concept/formula there is.

Science does not deal with questions such as 'how should we live our lives', obviously. My initial ardument was that God can be only proven by science, and it was successful. I did not make any claims about science having answers to philosophical questions you gave as examples; nor should it.

That statement is too general. Of course in real life, I do not need to take fingerprints or examine the DNA of sweat particles to find out who stole my donut, but when I'm solving a mathematical problem I need 100% proof, and that's the only way to go in science. In everyday life, we all have the luxury of simplifying the proof process.

Nor is his existance a scientific theory (and we're talking about those, remember!). THe General Theory of Relativity would be a good example, because it allows us to make conclusions and accurate predictions. The existance of [insert name here] is of no concern to us in this discussions. So your example is useless.

I wouldn't expect anything less from primitive men to be honest. I'm sure they were all writing their own interpretations of what a god should be, etc. However, as long as the general history matches archeological evidence, for example, then at the least, it bolsters the argument for a god.

The bible is not used as my backbone; my own personal experience is used as my backbone, among other things.

I can indeed imagine the abolition of all responsibility feeling like that.

Thanks.

Excuse me? You said that two of my statements contradict each other. I've shown you why they don't. I didn't say anything about science. In fact I've said a dozen times that I'm not equating god with science. You seem to be ignoring this for some reason.

I'm showing you why a belief in god is logical & valid, not scientific. Why would I try to convince you that it's scientific if I myself said it's not?

Do you plan to address the questions I asked you or are you just going to keep reiterating things that noone disagrees with?

I for one think you're an atheist supremacist who is trying to bolster your own confidence at the expense of the believers by attempting to prove how "enlightened" and scientific you are. It's too bad that you failed completely, as your original post was riddled with fallacies, errors and incorrect stereotypes.

And I've given you a comment where I show that the only way for God to exist is to follow the laws of science. I'd like to see you post a counter-argument for it. I'm sorry I didn't bring this up in my previous post.

If you look at Exodus 31:17 in its entire context, you'll see that the point was to briefly recap to the israelites who were just led out of Egypt on the idea that God was responsible for the creation of this world and that on the "seventh" day, the day where God "rested" (this does NOT mean he got tired. In fact, if you look at the New International Version it does not even make the slightest hint that he got tired or "refreshed.") is suppose to be a day to worship God.

And where does the Bible say that according to science the Earth IS the center of our world? Like i said in my previous post, sure you can find passages mentioned things about Earth being at the center of our universe or whatever, but if you look at the context in which these passages were said they are used as metaphoric descriptions of who the Lord God is and the authority he has over his people. The Bible was not written as a science manual where everything it mentions has to do with science. Instead the Bible was written as a book of lessons, teachings, ideals, as well as a little touch on history and its relevance to said teachings. It resembles more a book on philosophy than a book on science.

If there is no record of King Nebuchadnezzar doing such things, then he must be a made-up fictional character.

However, that's not what history (books) tell us. Here's one example.
http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn26.htm
King Nebuchadnezzar accomplishments are mentioned everywhere. The difference between the Bible and all the history books out there is that God is mentioned only in the former. Just like how history tells us that Jesus Christ was in fact a real person, but whether he was truly the son of God is something that is debatable. Whether God/religion was the primary motive or drive behind such actions can be debatable, this is probably what you were thinking about.

Just goes to show how ignorant you are. You're post WAS reported I saw it myself. The "This post has been reported" disclaimer disappears when a moderated has addressed it. Maybe you should read your own book that you make such a fuss about "Be Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak"

I'm not going to write a giant wall of text, replying to all of the things you said because 1. Wastes my time and 2. You just flame.

First off, I'm catholic because according to history, the spaniards had colonized my country origin and had spread christianity until the Americans came in. And because of that, I actually went to church in my early childhood. Like many, I don't go to church.

Secondly, you failed to find facts, then you push your opinion around upon me just because I have an opinion about religion. It's like you never thought that I actually went to a public school, where I get some basic, obvious logic about science, history of religion, warfare, math and whatnot. Oh and, my city has a higher standard of education across the nation.

Thirdly, I created this topic because I got sick how christians are pursuing others, trying to believe in god by asking them to read the god damn bible. The bible is like any other book, it has stories. And there's a whole lot of stories written by authors ranging from Shakespeare to modern books. Because the stories have drama, and a decent plot, it's a story. Of course, the readers didn't force themselves to put their life on some book to find salvation... unless they are really geeky and gullible. Yet again comparing that to religion, people believes in it the bible/whatever.

Let me compare a person pursuing a person to read a book/bible. Person A is the person asking Person B to read a book. And person B is not a christian.


Person A: Hey, you should read this book. The plot, characters, etc. is excellent.
Person B: Really? I'd like to check that out.

Person A: Hey, you should read the bible. It's a good way to convince you that god is real.
Person B: What?

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 28 2008, 6:40 am by KrayZee.

You're asking me to take up a position which is extremely easy to refute and one that I don't endorse? What do you think this is? lol. But seriously, it's not my responsibility to prove god to you. And I don't have to since, if you recall, you were the one who interjected into my conversation with the OP. I've already made my stance clear in this thread, hopefully.

Sorry if it sounded harsh, but that's really all I'm seeing. You're stereotyping all Christians as ignorant & unreasonable. Prove me wrong then.

How am I pushing my opinion on you? I'm asking you to back up your statements. I thought this was Serious Discussion. But if you're not interested in discussing, that's fine with me too.

You're just repeating things that can be learned in an 8th grade science class. Sorry pal, not impressed.

The bible is meant to inspire you. It contains philosophical truths, not necessarily literal ones. It does not contain scientific proof of god. If people tell you to read the bible it's because it might strengthen your faith. Then there's also the obvious distinction that the bible was never meant to be taken as a fictional piece of literature. It's nobody's job to prove god to you.

Yes, if people tell you to read the bible because they think that there's 100% irrefutable proof of god in there, they're stupid. But I personally haven't met anybody like that. And if you have, it's your job to figure out what the majority of Christians think instead of propagating your false stereotypes based off of one experience.

Way to accuse me, Aedus. Unfortunately that it not part of the argument. There are Christians such as the pope who agrees that Evolution works, at least I'm not talking stereotyping about him. If you are willing to talk shit, you're not helping here.

Welcome to Serious Discussion. And you ARE pushing your opinion on me.

And what the hell are you doing? Going to Sunday School? Anyone can go to Elementary/Primary School and learn could at least learn some evaporation, volcanic eruption, dry ice, and whatever. And besides, if I weren't to repeat what schools said, I can say nanotechnology is part of science.

School books is meant to teach you. It contains psychological facts, not necessarily morals. It does contain the myth of god. If people tell you to read a book, it's because it might strengthen your knowledge. Then there's also the obvious distinction that books can always be meant to be taken as a non-fictional piece of literature. It's the church's/rednecks/Christians job to prove god to me.

EDIT: Inspire? That's a joke.

...

Check the first paragraph on the first post? That was the whole damn point why I created this topic.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 28 2008, 4:43 pm by KrayZee.