(October 13, 2010 at 7:08 pm)Ace Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 7:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Between 6000 and 7000 years.

I'm gonna piss myself!

I think your position is equally as funny. So you have proven nothing. Nobody on here has even come close to proving otherwise. Starlight and Radio-metric dating are the best they have? Seriously?

---

(October 13, 2010 at 7:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I told you guys, just another creationist asshole.

Personal attack, read the forum rules that you agreed to when you made an account.

(October 13, 2010 at 7:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I think your position is equally as funny. So you have proven nothing. Nobody on here has even come close to proving otherwise. Starlight and Radio-metric dating are the best they have? Seriously?

I'm not even going to bother debating with you. Not worth it.
Like Richard Dawkins, I don't debate with creationists.

It's not just because of the speed of light that I think the earth is billions of years rather than a few thousand. Evolution, ice core layers, continental drift, fossils, rock formations with fossils in the right layers all seem to add up to a billion-year process.

But I am interested in the psychology behind this. Why is the 6,000-year earth theory so important that it is necessary to have such elaborate theories to make the physics fit? Is it a kind of psychological first line of defence? Do you really need physics to be explainable in order to believe in God? A lot of Christians are ok with the 4.5 bn year analysis. Their faith doesn't seem to be shaken by the debunking of the literal bible. Why hang on to it? Is it a measure of insecurity?

(October 13, 2010 at 7:21 pm)Ace Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 7:18 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I think your position is equally as funny. So you have proven nothing. Nobody on here has even come close to proving otherwise. Starlight and Radio-metric dating are the best they have? Seriously?

I'm not even going to bother debating with you. Not worth it.
Like Richard Dawkins, I don't debate with creationists.

It's not that Dawkins doesn't debate with Creationists, it's that he can't debate with Creationists. He'd get his smug little British toosh handed to him if he did. Seems to me that you are in the same boat as him. If Creationists are so far off the mark you'd think it would be a pretty easy debate right? No reason to be scared there buddy.

(October 13, 2010 at 1:18 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How old you think the Earth is.

4.5 Billion years.

Quote:Why you think this.

Because the best truth gathering mechanism we know of point towards this conclusion, and thus this is the conclusion that we have most reason to believe is true.

Quote:What presuppositions you had before examining the evidence and making your conclusions. [/i]

Just a solid epistemology.

What about you?

(October 13, 2010 at 7:40 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It's not that Dawkins doesn't debate with Creationists, it's that he can't debate with Creationists. He'd get his smug little British toosh handed to him if he did. No reason to be scared there buddy.

Hardly.

Quote:If Creationists are so far off the mark you'd think it would be a pretty easy debate right?

Yes easy, thing is...it never fucking ends. That's the problem. I have no problem going into discussion with other theists, just not creationists. I'm going to be honest with you, I don't debate with creationists because I think they're too stupid to debate with. Just not worth the time and effort...mate.

Quote:No reason to be scared there buddy

Scared or wise? Should I conserve my energy or waste it on an endless argument with a creationist?
Easy choice.
Anyway, other atheists here have already said what needed to be said.

(October 13, 2010 at 7:29 pm)Existentialist Wrote: It's not just because of the speed of light that I think the earth is billions of years rather than a few thousand. Evolution, ice core layers, continental drift, fossils, rock formations with fossils in the right layers all seem to add up to a billion-year process.

But I am interested in the psychology behind this. Why is the 6,000-year earth theory so important that it is necessary to have such elaborate theories to make the physics fit? Is it a kind of psychological first line of defence? Do you really need physics to be explainable in order to believe in God? A lot of Christians are ok with the 4.5 bn year analysis. Their faith doesn't seem to be shaken by the debunking of the literal bible. Why hang on to it? Is it a measure of insecurity?

Well all of the things you mentioned in the first paragraph can be explained with a Young Earth view just like they can with an Old Earth view, so I do not believe they should be used to back one position over the other.

As to your second paragraph, you ask a very good question and I applaud you for asking it. I first of all do not believe the Science denies a Young Earth, but for the purpose of the discussion let's say it appeared to. I think a literal view of Scripture should be taken for many reasons but here are four. . .

1. If you don't take the book of Genesis literally then why take any of the rest of the Bible literally? Maybe Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead. Maybe he was not actually born of a Virgin? If you start compromising on all of these cornerstones of the Faith then you start believing in something that is not Christianity at all.

2. Why compromise on it to begin with? It will not help anyone come to the Faith. "Well I just can't except a Young Earth because Science does not back it, but I will accept Virgins giving birth." You see my point?

3. Jesus seemed to take the Genesis account literally, so if the Son of God did, then so too must His followers.

4. People will believe when God wants them to believe. So it is my job to present and support what scripture says, not water it down to make it more appealing. One Creationist said it very well, "It's God's job to open their hearts, it's our job to shut their mouths." :-)

Science requires interpretation, it can all be interpreted to support the Biblical view of creation. So I really do not see any reason to abandon that view.

Thanks for being civil in your response!

---

(October 13, 2010 at 7:51 pm)Ace Wrote:

(October 13, 2010 at 7:40 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It's not that Dawkins doesn't debate with Creationists, it's that he can't debate with Creationists. He'd get his smug little British toosh handed to him if he did. No reason to be scared there buddy.

Hardly.

Quote:If Creationists are so far off the mark you'd think it would be a pretty easy debate right?

Yes easy, thing is...it never fucking ends. That's the problem. I have no problem going into discussion with other theists, just not creationists. I'm going to be honest with you, I don't debate with creationists because I think they're too stupid to debate with. Just not worth the time and effort...mate.

Quote:No reason to be scared there buddy

Scared or wise? Should I conserve my energy or waste it on an endless argument with a creationist?
Easy choice.
Anyway, other atheists here have already said what needed to be said.

Well you certainly don't add any credit to your position by being too scared to debate the opposing position. I never run from a debate because I am secure in my beliefs. I suggest you re-evalucate your's.

Could you imagine if the top Creation Scientists in the World acted like Dawkins? "Well we know we are right but we will not debate any Evolutionists", there would be outrage! Yet, they are the ones who have extended the open invitation to debate any Atheist anywhere on Earth and they'd even pay the expenses. They are still waiting for someoen to accept that invitation.

(October 13, 2010 at 7:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well you certainly don't add any credit to your position by being too scared to debate the opposing position. I never run from a debate because I am secure in my beliefs. I suggest you re-evalucate your's.

Refusing to argue with creationists doesn't imply the emotion of fear. There are people in the world who believe the earth is flat, now I would refuse to debate with them as well. It's just not worth it.

I don't debate with total idiots. End of.

Though I shall add this, because I wants too.

Now old chap, if you don't mind. I'm going to have some rest. It's really late over here. If you want to argue with someone over your beliefs, find someone else. Quite frankly the banana nightmare and the crock-a-duck did the trick on convincing me to never waste time with a creationist.

Good night.

Quote:That's just sad.

Not to mention typical.

I guess he believes in a world-covering flood that killed all but 8 people, too?


There are two classes of xtians. One thinks that the Garden of Eden is allegorical and Noah's Ark was part of the folklore of the region. The second bunch swears that its all TOTALLY FUCKING REAL. The second group is truly worth nothing more than being used as a floor mat.