Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 27, 2024, 3:22 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
#31
RE: Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
I think they'd label that under "scientific conspiracies" and forget about it Big Grin

Scientific evidence for a young earth requires the redefining of the word science.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#32
RE: Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
(January 13, 2015 at 4:23 am)TubbyTubby Wrote: How can anyone reconcile the fact that the South American coast and Southern African coasts have seperated 5000km in 6000 years? That's not too far off 2.5m/day!

Or am I wrong to assume that believers actually give any credence to tectonic plate theory?

MAGIC of skydaddy can move planets.
No tectonic plate movement required.Worship (large)
Quote:To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.
- Lau Tzu

Join me on atheistforums Slack Cool Shades (pester tibs via pm if you need invite) Tongue

Reply
#33
Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
You're both quite correct. I continue to under-estimate the depth of delusion and cognitive dissonance that we are dealing with sometimes.
Reply
#34
RE: Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
Wegener is all through the old Testament

And Lord Alfred said: "Let the mantle remain nonstatic and maketh the Continents Drift"
Reply
#35
RE: Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
(January 13, 2015 at 4:23 am)TubbyTubby Wrote: How can anyone reconcile the fact that the South American coast and Southern African coasts have seperated 5000km in 6000 years? That's not too far off 2.5m/day!

Or am I wrong to assume that believers actually give any credence to tectonic plate theory?

On the other hand, even most serious geologist - people astronomically more intelligent, reasonable and perceptive than any modern day young earth creatard, and have known since 1700s that the earth must be several orders of magnitude older than ancient Hebrews knew how to count - have managed to not believe in plate tectonics until 1965-1970, and have managed to reconcile the match between the shape of eastern coast of South American and western coast of sub Saharan Africa with pure coincidence during majority of time when geology existed as a modern science.
Reply
#36
RE: Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
It says about the power religion holds, and the way humans can blot out inconvenient knowledge and evidence, that there are still people holding such ludicrous beliefs as flat or young earth.

It's really scary. Especially as a lot of them have access to the Internet where they can learn as much as they want about the truth of things with minimal effort.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#37
RE: Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
(January 13, 2015 at 4:23 am)TubbyTubby Wrote: How can anyone reconcile the fact that the South American coast and Southern African coasts have seperated 5000km in 6000 years? That's not too far off 2.5m/day!

Or am I wrong to assume that believers actually give any credence to tectonic plate theory?

Well, let's look at it this way:
Geology is wrong - radiometric dating proves that strata aren't the age scientists claim.
Radiometric dating is wrong - even though they use it to disconfirm geology (which it doesn't do)
Anthropology is wrong - because the Bible says man was created as a unique creature
Paleontology is wrong - because the Bible says all creatures were created within a couple of days of each other
Cosmology is wrong - because the Bible says..... well, you get the point

I don't think that, after denying all other obvious discoveries of science, it is too complicated for them to deny tectonic theory.
Celebrate Reason ● Think For Yourself
www.theHeathensGuide.com
[Image: heathens-guide.png]
Reply
#38
RE: Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
I think are in so deep, and are so invested, one more lie or denial is easier than having to consider they are actually just wrong about the whole thing.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#39
RE: Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
(January 13, 2015 at 4:32 am)robvalue Wrote: I think they'd label that under "scientific conspiracies" and forget about it Big Grin

Scientific evidence for a young earth requires the redefining of the word science.

I see it more as compartmentalization. Folks like GC and Statler can support some of their arguments with disparate single lines of evidence. The problem with that is their single lines of evidence usually disagree with a large body of additional evidence that supports a different conclusion than the one they like. So they take a handful of separate facts that used alone can be argued to support their position and ignore anything that along with their argument suggests a different conclusion.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
[Image: JUkLw58.gif]
Reply
#40
RE: Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically
(January 13, 2015 at 10:11 am)robvalue Wrote: I think are in so deep, and are so invested, one more lie or denial is easier than having to consider they are actually just wrong about the whole thing.

BINGO!

And it sums up the mormon hierarchy too.

I realize by reading the Tanner's book, I've absorbed all the bullshit and folderol of LDS in a matter of just a few days. For generations of the mormon families, the crapola has oozed in just bits at a time. One more turd in the stack (which is now miles high) isn't anything to them now. Oh, blacks can be in the priesthood now, how about that? Weird we don't have an actual hard copy print out of the revelation, direct from god, on this one, since EVERY OTHER revelation has been been published, but, whatever. Let's just sit back, wear our magic underwear, and clear our minds that anything hinky has been going on now for almost 200 years . . . . .
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Young more likely to pray than over-55s - survey zebo-the-fat 16 2168 September 28, 2021 at 5:44 am
Last Post: Pat Mustard
  Creationism Silver 203 16670 August 23, 2020 at 2:25 am
Last Post: GrandizerII
  A theory about Creationism leaders Lucanus 24 8095 October 17, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Prediction of an Alien Invasion of Earth hopey 21 5312 July 1, 2017 at 3:36 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Science Vs. The Forces of Creationism ScienceAf 15 3584 August 30, 2016 at 12:04 am
Last Post: Arkilogue
  Debunking the Flat Earth Society. bussta33 24 5721 February 9, 2016 at 3:38 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  Earth Glare_ 174 25180 March 25, 2015 at 10:53 pm
Last Post: Spooky
  creationism belief makes you a sicko.. profanity alert for you sensitive girly men heathendegenerate 4 2188 May 7, 2014 at 12:00 am
Last Post: heathendegenerate
  Defending Beliefs! The Reality Salesman01 12 4497 September 2, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Last Post: NoraBrimstone
  Religion 'Cause Of Evil Not Force For Good' More Young People Believe downbeatplumb 3 2538 June 25, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Last Post: Brian37



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)