The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Darwinning]

Evolution is a fact, and those who choose to deny it are denying a fact.

I hope you realize by now that when you make baseless assertions like this I am going to simply make the opposite claim back since it holds as much water, so here goes…

“Creation is a fact, and those who choose to deny it are denying a fact.”

Evolution is a process which can be (and has been) proven to occur. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Specific_examples]

Perhaps you do not ascribe to the idea that all life on Earth was formed this way, but surely you accept the fact that evolution through natural selection as a process is real?

Creation is also a process, but I have yet to see any evidence that it can occur.

I, for one, cannot accept any explanation for life on Earth that relies on a process that cannot be proven to occur. If you have any references (so no talky, just links) to support the claim that Creation as a process is real, please share.

The laws of nature may not align with your absurd and offensive belief that the earth is only 6000 or so years old,

What law of nature are you referring to? Stop making assertions and actually back them up with at least something please.

I believe that quote is referring to the current scientific consensus that the Earth is about four and a half billion years old, based mostly on radiometric dating. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth]

"Goddidit" is not a fucking answer, it's something people made up a long time ago because they had no real answers.

So when a person looks at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and says “Michelangelo did it”, that’s also not the correct answer? It’s just an answer because we don’t have the real answer?
 

I find it a lot easier to believe a man named Michelangelo existed and painted a ceiling a few hundred years ago than I find it to believe some supernatural being named God existed and created the universe 6.000 years ago. The latter requires far more assumptions and fantasizing about the world around us.

Also, I do not believe that was the point. It's not that "Goddidit" is not the correct answer (it isn't, but that's irrelevant here), it's that it fails to explain the world around us without requiring extreme assumptions that cannot be substantiated. Meanwhile, “Michelangelo did it” requires us only to assume a man named Michelangelo could paint rather well.

Occam's razor is a marvelous tool. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor]

I am not trying to be insulting but saying that science is built on the assumption that God exists seems to be unsubstantiated. With what you believe of course science is based on the existence of God. Based on what I do not believe though it most certainly is not. Making that statement does not prove anything other than what you believe to be true as quantifying how science is based on God seems to be a matter of theology and philosophy.

No insult taken, science is based on the principle of induction. The principle of induction assumes uniformity in nature which can only be justified by the existence of a providential God. The God of scripture is unique in the fact that He has revealed Himself to us and is also providentially controlling over all of His creation.

Induction may be flawed, but it hardly proves the existence of God. However, I like your argument. It has a certain elegance to it, like those mathematical tricks that show that 1=2.

However I am curious as to how God is simply evident through creation. If that were true and I for whatever reason do not see that to be true what does that leave? In my mind that leaves several alternatives: 1) I am being deceived, 2) I am willing not accepting the evidence, 3) It isn't true, and of course 4) something else I potentially didn't put down .

Well the Biblical position on that is that everyone knows God exists in their heart of hearts because of His creative work; unbelievers simply suppress this knowledge because of its implications. So it is a form of self deception really.

I firmly believe the opposite it true. Everyone in his or her hearts of hearts knows there is no God, but some surpress this knowledge because they are afraid of being alone (and wrong).

Surely it had to be made and programmed by somebody? It is actually harder to believe that a supreme deity managed to programme something so complex, not just for us but for billions and trillions of other things too. It's just too easy an answer. Goddidit.

Where do you get this notion that easy answers are always wrong answers?

An answer is not the same as an explanation. "Goddidit" is the former, but not the latter. It's not easy either, because it requires the assumption that God exists in the first place and thus begs the question "Who made God?".

Over TIME. Give it enough time and enough interactions can occur.

So you are essentially using the “Timedidit” answer?

Yes, but it's our friend Occam's razor again. Even if there was no evidence (see above) for the old age of Earth (and thus seas of time), I would still have less trouble /assuming/ the existence of said seas of time than the existence of God.

People don't often seem to me to really comprehend how long a time 4.5 billion years really is. It's just a number right, a big number right, but you need to understand the hugeness of it. Think of light. It travels at c186,000 miles per second. Around 670 million mph. Travelling at the speed of 670 million mph it still takes over 4 years to reach the nearest star. The vast distance travelled in that 4 years is mindboggling, yes? We all understand that right?

If people actually comprehended how long 4.5 billion years is nobody would believe the ridiculous notion that the Earth has been around that long.

Thanks for the laugh. What a silly thing to say.

If people actually comprehended the implications of using God or scripture as an answer or explanation of the world around them (and the assumptions required) nobody woud believe the ridiculous notion that these things are true in the first place.