Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Albatross wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
So I am one of those people who believes that the earth is under 10 000 years old.

But there's fossils on this planet that are older than 10,000 years.

There are cave-paintings that are older than that. To claim anything other than that the earth is many millions of years old is just infantile rubbish.

Agreed.

Tell a geologist who spent 100+ hours sorting zircon grains, so they can measure a half life that the world is only 6000 years old.

Captain Fantastic wrote:Ah, it's a great time to be an Evangelionist!

yeah being an EvangeLION is like twice as good as being a regular lion.

Ratbarf wrote:So I am one of those people who believes that the earth is under 10 000 years old. But I don't really have issues with other people who believe differently.

How exactly do you reconcile your Young Earth beliefs when standing in front of a dinosaur skeleton that has been reliably carbon dated well beyond 600 times older than 10,000 years? Or do you just avoid those dens of sin and lies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Tell a geologist who spent 100+ hours sorting zircon grains, so they can measure a half life that the world is only 6000 years old.

Maybe you should just tell him to get out more.

efarrer wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
How would you define me Seaward? I consider science to actually be a testament to the intricacy of the creation of the divine. Science doesn't explain away god, but rather is the lens by which we as the limited little simians that we are can begin to comprehend god.

One of the first things I've ever exalted.

I live to serve *bows*

Cheesecat, Albatross and Auston got all the good responses to the young earth thing so I'll let you all insert your own scornful, mocking comment deriding the concept right about *here*

 Ratbarf wrote:
So I am one of those people who believes that the earth is under 10 000 years old. But I don't really have issues with other people who believe differently.

To use an anology. I like playing 40k, (seven day adventism) and believe it's the best gaming system out there. But most people like to play WHFB, (the scientific community and their backers) Now I just really want to play table top games as much as possible, so I know the rules to both, and enjoy both. But only one is king.

I think people have more of an issue with rule set purity and the various fanboys than they do with the actual games themselves.

But it isn't about what gaming system you personally prefer to play on the weekends. That analogy works if we're talking about whether a person is an atheist, or a christian or a hindu or whatever. Because whether it's WHFB, or 40K its just personal preference. You get up early on Sunday, drag your tired ass to the local rec centre and roll dice with other people that happen to enjoy the same game system as you. Whether or not someone else is going to rec centre on the other side of the road doesn't really matter to you. And whether they're rolling dice and complaining when their Land Raider blows up or discussing their holy book doesn't matter either.

But there are lots of things that aren't just down to personal belief. Some things are a matter of scientific record. One of those facts is that this planet is about 4.5 billion years old.

So you might say that me, being an atheist, am a WHFB player, and you, being a Christian, are a WH40k player. That's cool, you have your personal preference and I have mine. We can discuss things and learn from each other. But in taking on young earth creationism as well, you stop just being a WH40K player, and start being a guy who believes that when he plays WH40K every die has a 50% chance of rolling a 6. That's a thing that just isn't true, and rejecting what we know about the world in order to believe it means you know less about the world, and less about the game you profess to love.

So many responses.....

Really? Not just a joke to stir people up?

No joke. It's what I believe. I figured it would stir people up, not to the extent that it has but I knew going in I would get a response or two.

But there's fossils on this planet that are older than 10,000 years.

I don't think they are. I mean I'm aware of the science behind it, but that doesn't meant that weren't simply created in that form 10 000 years ago.

There are cave-paintings that are older than that. To claim anything other than that the earth is many millions of years old is just infantile rubbish.

See above. There is some Metaphsyics in the philosophical explanation that I could mention for you if you want. But most people just seem to get angry whenever I mention this kind of thim. *shrugs*

That said some of the other people in my bible group are also seven day adventists and they use different justifications for it. It's actually something we've butted heads over actually.

So what you're saying is, if GW says that 40k is the best game ever, it clearly is!

Love it.

I'm partial to LotRSBG myself but I used 40k for the anology. Though I think 40k has one of the best universes to ever come out of a human mind.

Tell a geologist who spent 100+ hours sorting zircon grains, so they can measure a half life that the world is only 6000 years old.

I have, they usually just give a derisive snort and completely disregard my opinions from then on. Which I somewhat expect to happen here. I know what I'm saying sounds incredulous, I get it a lot.

How exactly do you reconcile your Young Earth beliefs when standing in front of a dinosaur skeleton that has been reliably carbon dated well beyond 600 times older than 10,000 years? Or do you just avoid those dens of sin and lies.

Hahaha, I love museaums! Basically when God created the Land he also created everything within the land. So he created dinosaur bones "ready made" so to speak.

But it isn't about what gaming system you personally prefer to play on the weekends. That analogy works if we're talking about whether a person is an atheist, or a christian or a hindu or whatever. Because whether it's WHFB, or 40K its just personal preference. You get up early on Sunday, drag your tired ass to the local rec centre and roll dice with other people that happen to enjoy the same game system as you. Whether or not someone else is going to rec centre on the other side of the road doesn't really matter to you. And whether they're rolling dice and complaining when their Land Raider blows up or discussing their holy book doesn't matter either.

But there are lots of things that aren't just down to personal belief. Some things are a matter of scientific record. One of those facts is that this planet is about 4.5 billion years old.

So you might say that me, being an atheist, am a WHFB player, and you, being a Christian, are a WH40k player. That's cool, you have your personal preference and I have mine. We can discuss things and learn from each other. But in taking on young earth creationism as well, you stop just being a WH40K player, and start being a guy who believes that when he plays WH40K every die has a 50% chance of rolling a 6. That's a thing that just isn't true, and rejecting what we know about the world in order to believe it means you know less about the world, and less about the game you profess to love.

Hmm, to continue with the anology I don't think what you countered mine with is appropriate. It's not so much that the chances of a 6 getting rolled 50% of the time (though in certain games against my brother this would seem to be the case, bloody parry saves.) And more of sticking within the system you are using at the moment. So say I walk into the rec center and there are only two 40k players, and they're already playing each other, and five WHFB players. So I sigh and take out my dwarves. So when I play that game I premeasure everything, cause you can do that in 40k now. (I think. Haven't gotten a game in since August.) And my opponent goes, wtf are you doing? Are you stupid? Can't you read??? I think thats what you were trying to explain Sebster.

What I'm trying to get at is I'm fluent in both arguments, but my preffered tongue is Seven Day Adventism. (Gosh I use anologies more than I should.) But I have no problem talking about or working within the rules of the scientific community.

I apologize for how horribly confusing these responses may seem. I assure you they work in my head.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Hmm, to continue with the anology I don't think what you countered mine with is appropriate. It's not so much that the chances of a 6 getting rolled 50% of the time (though in certain games against my brother this would seem to be the case, bloody parry saves.)

I apologize for how horribly confusing these responses may seem. I assure you they work in my head.

That's at least half my fault, my effort at expanding your analogy was pretty weak, to be honest.

What I was trying to say, basically, is that there is a difference between believing something without evidence, and believing something despite the evidence.

So, you believe in God, heaven, Jesus and all that, while I believe in nothing supernatural. And that's fine, in the absence of evidence we've each formed our opinions, intuitive guesses based on personal experience and the way we tend to see the world. Neither can claim superiority over the other, nor should we have to. It's far better to get along and enjoy the diversity of opinion.

But in arguing that the world is only 10,000 years old, you're arguing despite the evidence we have. We have scientific methods to test for the age of objects, and we have a record of human artifacts older than 10,000 years. And we have an even greater record of geological objects, more than 4 billion years.

I mean, I can get in my car, drive for 10 hours and stand among rocks that are 4.4 billion years old. These things exist, they are real and we know about them. To claim that they're not is to profess a belief despite the evidence.

What I was trying to say, basically, is that there is a difference between believing something without evidence, and believing something despite the evidence.

I think where this diversion comes from is what either of us would consider good evidence. I take my evidence from the Bible and those who study using the bible. You take your evidence from sources that are outside the bible and don't use it as a basis for investigative thought. So I think you're evidence is insufficient and you think my evidence is insufficient.

Hmm, the simplest I can put it in ways that people here would likely accept is that there is and was nothing stopping God from creating the world with everything coming into existence in the state that science would say proves it to be "x years old."

So in essence when God created the land the air and sea he decided to throw in a bunch of random stuff just to keep us amused on our way back to him.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I take my evidence from the Bible and those who study using the bible.

And you have no good reason to consider the Bible an authority on this subject, just like you don't have a good reason to consider my holy book, the Elbib* an authority on the subject. Science works, biblical literalism doesn't.

*Chapter 1: Dog said "let there be light", and there was light. And then He created the entire universe ten trillion years ago. And then He created God and wrote the Bible because He needed some comedy in His universe.

You take your evidence from sources that are outside the bible and don't use it as a basis for investigative thought.

Because there is overwhelming evidence, from multiple different fields, that all agrees that the earth is extremely old and evolution is the best explanation for how life developed over billions of years. And this cannot be wrong, because the same scientific theories that prove that the earth is old are also vital to how modern technology works. You simply can't handwave away the proof from radioactive decay without eliminating all of physics in the process.

Hmm, the simplest I can put it in ways that people here would likely accept is that there is and was nothing stopping God from creating the world with everything coming into existence in the state that science would say proves it to be "x years old."

That's true. An omnipotent being could have done it that way, but good luck coming up with a plausible reason to do it that way besides "God is an donkey-cave so he created a fake 'old' universe just to screw with everyone". It's pretty much the last resort of those who know they've lost the argument, simply yell "god did it" as an answer to everything.

Of course that same argument proves that my deity Dog just created the entire universe 15 seconds before you read this (complete with the fake timestamp on my post) with the illusion that the earth is thousands of years old. So please, tell me why your belief is any less insane than mine.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I take my evidence from the Bible and those who study using the bible.

Except there's no evidence in the bible because none of the stories can be tested or observed.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I think where this diversion comes from is what either of us would consider good evidence. I take my evidence from the Bible and those who study using the bible. You take your evidence from sources that are outside the bible and don't use it as a basis for investigative thought.

Except the bible isn't an argument about the scientific realities of the world. Anymore than the Wendy's menu is a romantic novel.

The absence of such doesn't make the Wendy's menu any less effective in it's purpose, but if a person attempts to find romance in there then they'll take away some terrible lessons about romance, and probably fail to order food at the same time.

Hmm, the simplest I can put it in ways that people here would likely accept is that there is and was nothing stopping God from creating the world with everything coming into existence in the state that science would say proves it to be "x years old."

Such a God would have the mentality of the worst internet troll.

 dogma wrote:


God must be a man,.

Obviously.

Have you ever known a woman who could keep quiet for this long ? Especially when we're getting so much wrong.

Personally I believe the entire universe is one second old, and was created in its present form including an entire false record of past events in order to convince the gullible that it is older than it seems.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I believe the entire universe is one second old, and was created in its present form including an entire false record of past events in order to convince the gullible that it is older than it seems.

HERETIC!

DOG SAYS THAT IT IS 15 SECONDS OLD AND CONSTANTLY BEING RE-CREATED TO ALWAYS BE 15 SECONDS OLD!

BURN THE HERETIC! PUNISH BLASPHEMY WITH FIRE!

Such a God would have the mentality of the worst internet troll.

God is God. He works in mysterious ways. It's impossible for the human mind to comprehend the reasoning and decision making process of an infinite being.

Except the bible isn't an argument about the scientific realities of the world.

It is in some places, such as Genesis.

Except there's no evidence in the bible because none of the stories can be tested or observed.

If you would like to bring Epistemology and Metaphysics into the discussion as well they provide a counterpoint to all empirical evidence.

Personally I believe the entire universe is one second old, and was created in its present form including an entire false record of past events in order to convince the gullible that it is older than it seems.

This is pretty much what I'm getting at. There isn't anyway to prove you wrong.

 Ratbarf wrote:
God is God. He works in mysterious ways. It's impossible for the human mind to comprehend the reasoning and decision making process of an infinite being.

That's just dodging the question. You don't honestly believe that, or you would never go to church/read the bible/etc because the limited human mind can't comprehend god's wisdom in any of that either. The fact that you claim anything other than a complete state of ignorance on the subject of god proves that "god works in mysterious ways" is nothing more than an excuse to avoid admitting you've lost.

It is in some places, such as Genesis.

Lol.

Seriously, that's about the only thing you can say to something that ridiculous. Genesis has scientific value? The same Genesis where night and day exist before the sun does? The only way you can salvage anything remotely useful out of Genesis is to accept that the entire thing is a metaphorical statement full of symbolism and pretty images and discuss its literary and philosophical value. Attempting to use it as a scientific argument makes about as much sense as reading the phone book as a chemistry textbook.

If you would like to bring Epistemology and Metaphysics into the discussion as well they provide a counterpoint to all empirical evidence.

No they don't. The fact that you are able to function in everyday life proves that you trust empirical evidence above any theoretical speculation.

This is pretty much what I'm getting at. There isn't anyway to prove you wrong.

There also isn't any reason to believe that your "10,000 years" belief is any more credible than one second, or 15 seconds (THE TRUTH!@!!!!!!!). All of them are equally ridiculous claims based on laughably false or nonexistent evidence, and all of them should be rejected as obvious nonsense. Until you demonstrate that your "10,000 years" claim is any more valid than ours your belief in that particular date is completely irrational.

That's just dodging the question. You don't honestly believe that, or you would never go to church/read the bible/etc because the limited human mind can't comprehend god's wisdom in any of that either. The fact that you claim anything other than a complete state of ignorance on the subject of god proves that "god works in mysterious ways" is nothing more than an excuse to avoid admitting you've lost.

I do believe that, but that's why we have scripture. To help us in understanding in whatever small capacity we can the ultimate will of God.

Seriously, that's about the only thing you can say to something that ridiculous. Genesis has scientific value? The same Genesis where night and day exist before the sun does? The only way you can salvage anything remotely useful out of Genesis is to accept that the entire thing is a metaphorical statement full of symbolism and pretty images and discuss its literary and philosophical value. Attempting to use it as a scientific argument makes about as much sense as reading the phone book as a chemistry textbook.

Lol, [Vader Voice]Your lack of reading comprehension is disturbing.[/Vader Voice]

No they don't.

Lol, [Vader Voice]Your lack of knowledge on those subjects is disturbing.[/Vader Voice]

Also, your vehemence is palpable.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I do believe that, but that's why we have scripture. To help us in understanding in whatever small capacity we can the ultimate will of God.

I also have scripture, and mine says that there is no god but Dog, and that if you believe in your god you will burn in hell for eternity.

Now, here's the problem: since there is no credible objective evidence that your scripture is anything other than a work of fiction (don't worry, there isn't any for mine either) you have no rational justification for believing in yours but not in mine. So, you have two choices here:

1) Concede that your belief in your scripture and religion is entirely arbitrary, has no justification in reality, and generally fails to rise above the level of the fanboy desperately telling himself that his favorite anime character is real and loves him.

or

2) Believe in every single religion humanity has ever created, even when they contradict each other.


I would say that you have a third option, to provide objective proof that your scripture has any value as more than a work of fiction, but the odds of you successfully doing that are worse than the odds of me winning every single lottery everywhere in the world for the entire rest of the century. While being struck by lightning every time I collect a prize.

Also, your vehemence is palpable.

And your trolling is pathetic.

 Peregrine wrote:
And your trolling is pathetic.

But at least it's good natured and has Darth Vader references.

For the sake of my Dakka Account I think I should stop conversing with you Sir. Consider yourself outside of my perception of reality.

Good day.

Never mind. I'll just take your concession and leave it at that.

Which seems an admirable place to end this...this.. whateverthehellit is.

Happy Xmas to all and peas to all men. Or something.