How old is the earth?

[sandorski]

The only train ATOT ran was the personal attack one, which isn't surprising. Ad-hominem is the best you have because most of ATOT seems to not be capable of having an intelligent discussion. Heck you guys can't even just simply disagree with someone else, you feel the need to attempt to tear him down instead.

Whatever. I'm used to it. But I do have a recommendation - try to act like adults sometimes, instead of some 10 year olds screaming at each other, "You're stupid!" when you have a disagreement.

Peace out. If peace is really capable among you.

lol, ok.

 

[DominionSeraph]

But I do have a recommendation - try to act like adults sometimes, instead of some 10 year olds screaming at each other, "You're stupid!" when you have a disagreement.

You are stupid.
Disagree? Prove us wrong. Lay out a coherent system that usefully explains every observation in nature. Oh and in case you were wondering: "Goddidit" is NOT useful. All that says is, "I don't even know where to begin in explaining this."
You can't design an internal combustion engine or a microprocessor or anything with the basis of, "It's a complete buttfucking mystery to me how any of this 'reality' works."

Science works. If you don't have something better, you have nothing.

 

[Ichinisan]

Newsflash: Christian |= Creationist, and Creationist |= Christian.

Gosh darn those facts are mighty inconvenient, aren't they?

"|=" != "!="

 

[sandorski]

"|=" != "!="

1=.9999999999999......

 

[SparkyJJO]

You are stupid.
Disagree? Prove us wrong. Lay out a coherent system that usefully explains every observation in nature. Oh and in case you were wondering: "Goddidit" is NOT useful. All that says is, "I don't even know where to begin in explaining this."
You can't design an internal combustion engine or a microprocessor or anything with the basis of, "It's a complete buttfucking mystery to me how any of this 'reality' works."

Science works. If you don't have something better, you have nothing.

I never said that science doesn't work, and I never intend to, making your whole attack worthless.

I think the burden of proof should be on you. Prove to me that God does not exist, and prove to me that evolution is 100% true. Then we'll go from there.

I'm not holding my breath, because I don't believe that you can do so. After all, you started off with lowering your credibility by again using ad hominem, then dropped it even further down by blindly attacking the wrong thing altogether. Nice one

Something I learned in a logic class: the use of fallacies in an argument, such as straw man and ad hominem - both of which you have used - only serve to break down your position, and never strengthens it

 

[Jeff7]

Back when I ascribed to similar belief, I've heard a similar idea espoused by Creationists. They certainly seem to think the Flood is responsible for the plethora of fossils lying about everywhere.

Then that somehow gets reconciled with the fact that they can freely discard any of the unpleasant things in the Old Testament as being "metaphors" or some such thing.

Originally Posted by randay
6000 years ago god created a 4.5 billion year old earth. there you go now lets all hug and make up.

Omphalism is generally incompatible with Christianity. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork." Psalm 19:1.

If the heavens are false, then the glory of God is false. Try selling that one at your next church group meeting.

Creating a temporal pardox is pretty impressive though.

I never said that science doesn't work, and I never intend to, making your whole attack worthless.

I think the burden of proof should be on you. Prove to me that God does not exist, and prove to me that evolution is 100% true. Then we'll go from there.

I'm not holding my breath, because I don't believe that you can do so. After all, you started off with lowering your credibility by again using ad hominem, then dropped it even further down by blindly attacking the wrong thing altogether. Nice one

Something I learned in a logic class: the use of fallacies in an argument, such as straw man and ad hominem - both of which you have used - only serve to break down your position, and never strengthens it

....rrrright.

Ricky Gervais - "It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: 'You came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?' I could tell you I’ve got superpowers, but you can’t go up to people saying 'Prove I can’t fly.' They’d go: 'What do you mean ‘Prove you can’t fly’? Prove you can!"

 

[SparkyJJO]

....rrrright.
It doesn't work that way.
Ricky Gervais - "It annoys me that the burden of proof is on us. It should be: 'You came up with the idea. Why do you believe it?' I could tell you I’ve got superpowers, but you can’t go up to people saying 'Prove I can’t fly.' They’d go: 'What do you mean ‘Prove you can’t fly’? Prove you can!"

Since DS had a total fail of an argument, I decided to bring one up of my own. Am I not allowed to do so?

Fine. How about this, forget the first part. Let's look at the second part for a moment.

My stance is that God created the universe. With all creatures as they are, right now, and that they will continue to be this way until the end.

Your stance is that the creatures, as they are now, have all come from some lesser form, and in time, will evolve into a greater form, correct?

Since I'm saying that things have not and will not change, and you're claiming that things have been and continue to change, I think it is perfectly fair for me to ask you for proof of these things changing.

Sigh, it is 2 AM and I need to be at work in the morning, and I was going to be in bed a while ago, but I've gotten carried away with this stuff again lol.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I never said that science doesn't work, and I never intend to, making your whole attack worthless.

At the very least, you do not understand how science works. Behold...

...prove to me that evolution is 100% true.

Proof is for mathematics and beverage alcohol. Science works with testable (i.e. predictive) hypotheses. The theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy of genetic interrelatedness of all biological organisms.

Guess what we observe?

 

[darkswordsman17]

The only train ATOT ran was the personal attack one, which isn't surprising. Ad-hominem is the best you have because most of ATOT seems to not be capable of having an intelligent discussion. Heck you guys can't even just simply disagree with someone else, you feel the need to attempt to tear him down instead.

Whatever. I'm used to it. But I do have a recommendation - try to act like adults sometimes, instead of some 10 year olds screaming at each other, "You're stupid!" when you have a disagreement.

Peace out. If peace is really capable among you.

Aww, does baby want a Zima?

Ah, falling back on the good old, "I'll ignore when people actually point out how stupid my argument is and just focus on them pointing out the my clear lack of intelligent thought" ploy.

Its not a disagreement. Its you pretending that what you believe resembles facts in any way and people making fun of you for it.

because I don't believe

Wait, so you're an atheist? WTF are you even arguing?

 

[IronWing]

I'm pretty sure earth was made in China.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Your stance is that the creatures, as they are now, have all come from some lesser form, and in time, will evolve into a greater form, correct?

No, that is not correct. Evolution doesn't go from "lesser" to "greater." These terms have no scientific meaning. Evolution predicts that allele frequencies in genetic populations will vary over time, and natural selection pressures will sort out evolutionary traits that are reproductively advantageous.

Since I'm saying that things have not and will not change, and you're claiming that things have been and continue to change, I think it is perfectly fair for me to ask you for proof of these things changing.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Did you know that a species of bacteria evolved that sustains itself entirely by consuming and digesting nylon? Nylon didn't even exist until it was invented in the 1930s.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Omphalism is generally incompatible with Christianity. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork." Psalm 19:1.

The problem is that the declarations of the heavens and the earth are generally incompatible with Christianity. If they're not lying, Christianity has major problems.
We've sent probes into space and they've never run into the firmament. They should have -- if the windows in the firmament opened up to flood the earth with the "waters above" the firmament must be local. Yet it (and the "waters above") are conspicuously absent.
All of our observations lean in the direction that this "firmament" idea was just stupid goat herders being stupid.
Sorry.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I think the burden of proof should be on you. Prove to me that God does not exist,

I don't care what your retarded ass thinks. The positive assertion is yours, thus the burden lies on you.

If I claimed to have turned myself invisible and intangible, grown a pair of fairy wings, teleported myself to your location and am now flying around your head, the burden would be on me to support the notion. There is no requirement for you to believe that my assertion is true outside of absolute disproof that my invisible and intangible self is there.

Now go away until you grow a brain. I am no elementary school teacher, so holding your hand through this level of nonsense is beneath me. I am not here to tie your shoes nor wipe the snot from your nose -- come back when you're capable of doing at least that much for yourself.

 

[eits]

i think it's something like 4.5 billion years old.

 

[randay]

Omphalism is generally incompatible with Christianity. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork." Psalm 19:1.

If the heavens are false, then the glory of God is false. Try selling that one at your next church group meeting.

let me just being with im an aethist and if you quote bible scriptures to me i will just glaze over it because its nonsense and open to interpretation.

but exactly how does god creating a thing make it false? is it because im saying he created it old? cus that is confusing as fuck.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

but exactly how does god creating a thing make it false? is it because im saying he created it old? cus that is confusing as fuck.

God creating a universe 6000 years ago that convincingly appears to be billions of years old is what makes it false.

 

[sdifox]

God creating a universe 6000 years ago that convincingly appears to be billions of years old is what makes it false.

I am God and I tell you you are wrong.


Proof? I don't need to prove anything to you lower creatures, you are proof.

 

[slayer202]

Since DS had a total fail of an argument, I decided to bring one up of my own. Am I not allowed to do so?

Fine. How about this, forget the first part. Let's look at the second part for a moment.

My stance is that God created the universe. With all creatures as they are, right now, and that they will continue to be this way until the end.

Your stance is that the creatures, as they are now, have all come from some lesser form, and in time, will evolve into a greater form, correct?

Since I'm saying that things have not and will not change, and you're claiming that things have been and continue to change, I think it is perfectly fair for me to ask you for proof of these things changing.

Sigh, it is 2 AM and I need to be at work in the morning, and I was going to be in bed a while ago, but I've gotten carried away with this stuff again lol.

Next time just go to bed. All you're doing is making a fool out of yourself. Just because YOU don't know the evidence and proof of evolution doesn't mean you can be ignorant and claim there is none. Go read a book. You gotta be a complete moron to not think evolution is real

 

[shortylickens]

I think we've been trolled by a newb.

 

[Iron Woode]

Since DS had a total fail of an argument, I decided to bring one up of my own. Am I not allowed to do so?

Fine. How about this, forget the first part. Let's look at the second part for a moment.

My stance is that God created the universe. With all creatures as they are, right now, and that they will continue to be this way until the end.

Your stance is that the creatures, as they are now, have all come from some lesser form, and in time, will evolve into a greater form, correct?

Since I'm saying that things have not and will not change, and you're claiming that things have been and continue to change, I think it is perfectly fair for me to ask you for proof of these things changing.

Sigh, it is 2 AM and I need to be at work in the morning, and I was going to be in bed a while ago, but I've gotten carried away with this stuff again lol.

science fail.

Evolution has no goal or final accomplishment. Life evolves to meet the requirements to survive in environmental conditions that are continuously changing. Evolution through natural selection determines how lifeforms change. Only arrogant religious people believe that humans are the be all and end all of life on this world.

Evolution has been proven. This is why it is a scientific theory and not a hypothesis.

Creationists have people like Kirk Cameron displaying a crocoduck and the banana hypothesis. I think that about says it all.

 

[Jeff7]

Since DS had a total fail of an argument, I decided to bring one up of my own. Am I not allowed to do so?

Fine. How about this, forget the first part. Let's look at the second part for a moment.

My stance is that God created the universe. With all creatures as they are, right now, and that they will continue to be this way until the end.

God forgot to tell evolution to stop. We can see it happening. Finches have been seen adapting to new food supplies with changes to their beak geometry. And of course there's the whole problem in medicine with bacteria and viruses becoming resistant to medicines. As was put in the other thread, if you accept that type of change as being true, but won't accept "macro" evolution, it's no different than believing in inches, but not miles.

Your stance is that the creatures, as they are now, have all come from some lesser form, and in time, will evolve into a greater form, correct?

Greater form? That isn't necessarily the case. Evolution favors that which can survive best. The lineage of crocodiles has been around for a very long time, and has arguably been more successful than any primate. It's a basic format that seems to function quite well in terms of survival.
Bacteria also do quite exceptionally well, but they're not terribly complex either. Again, it's a basic format that is good at surviving.

Since I'm saying that things have not and will not change, and you're claiming that things have been and continue to change, I think it is perfectly fair for me to ask you for proof of these things changing.
...

The evidence favoring evolution is quite exceptionally overwhelming, some of which is cited above. Bacteria are great for this, as they reproduce very rapidly, and some of them get a lot of attention because they cause disease, so it's easy to see the effects of their ongoing evolution.