Evidence for/against YEC

[malicious_bloke]

1. You don't have the word of God, you have the word of some ancient anonymous fallible humans CLAIMING to have transcribed the word of God. Nothing more.
1a. You now need to demonstrate the existence of God, the veracity of the accounts given of Him by these authors etc. Good luck with that.

2. Defining God as anything which has the attributes of "being eternal" and "causing everything else to exist" and then going on to simply assert that it's YOUR god with a whole bunch of other attributes (attitudes towards gays and shellfish, proclivity towards human sacrifice and lakes of fire etc) without evidencing them is a nice little fallacy of composition called Affirming the Consequent. You might want to look it up sometime.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I will repeat:

If YEC is true, why can you see Andromeda? and billions of light year worth of galaxies after that?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I see your reply dragan glas. Have it. I am not here to rebut your rebuttals. I am here simply to answer questions and defend YEC.

No. I'm asking you, not Dragan. So I want you to state it.

 

[SpecialFrog]

How can someone defend YEC if they are not willing / able to rebut the rebuttals to its claims? In what sense is that defending YEC?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Do you have more questions? You can make statements all day. I am not interested in your statements. If you wish to stop asking questions so be it. Then I will answer a few of the others.

If YEC is true, why can you see Andromeda? and billions of light year worth of galaxies after that?

 

[Dustnite]

So I can honestly say that Bernie is the most Dishonest Creationist™ to date on these boards. He can't get Kalam straight so it's even more nonsensical than usual, he agreed to definitions in the other thread and that totally debunked his claims, and now he thinks Ussher's chronology (from the KJV no less) is the correct age of the earth. He supposedly also must believe every claim ever made until proven false in order to maintain his web of nebulous fuckwittey aloft.

But in the end, can we honestly say that Bernie believes any of the shit he says? Instead, this is a lonely man on the internet who is crying out for attention. So I think we should just give him a big group hug and send him off the asylum to be with his friends.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I see your reply dragan glas. Have it. I am not here to rebut your rebuttals. I am here simply to answer questions and defend YEC.

Do you have more questions? You can make statements all day. I am not interested in your statements. If you wish to stop asking questions so be it. Then I will answer a few of the others.

As SpecialFrog notes, if you won't/can't rebut rebuttals, how can you defend anything - in this case, YEC?

[One is reminded here of why AronRa holds that he has found no-one who can defend creationism honestly.]

If you won't answer rebuttals in the form of statements, then let me rephrase them as questions.

You said:

something can not come from nothing, therefore since something exists, there is that which is eternal

That which is eternal is God.

Therefore God exists

You're claiming that something eternal is God - and, presumably, the Christian God rather than any other single- or group-entity.

However, the above doesn't hold true - here's why:

1) Can't "something eternal" just as easily be Nature?

2) Even if it were "God", couldn't it just as easily be any other creator-entity other than the Christian one?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Is Bernhard secretly Alex Trebek?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I disagree with WLC on the dates for evolution

Kalamity Kraig is a fucking moron. Also, like you, you can tell when he's lying, because his lips are moving.

On the basis that the dating methods are based on assumptions.. Which I have pointed out.

No, they're based on observation, and the same underlying principles that provided you with the technology you're employing to expose your fucking ignorance to the world.

 

[Mugnuts]

Defending the indefensible... The "You can't refute my claims because your responses will just be ignored" tactic.

Well...

If your eyes can't allow you to look past your precious book, then don't be surprised when others around you with common sense and the ability to learn what reality actually is surpass you in every way possible. It's people that hold onto these primitive notions beyond all reason, and bereft of reason that make everyone's life more difficult in this already harsh world.

 

[tuxbox]

I'm somewhere inbetween. God to me seems to be like "They need to learn on their own how to make it, that's the only way they'll progress, not with me spoonfeeding them."

Then when we royally fuck up he facepalms and decides to do something (i.e. Jesus. Took him a while though) and step in.

Heck, with the way our society is going (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2K7vmpyYSs) he may have given up at this point! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hehe, yeah if there is/was a God like that, it is either fucked up in the head, or it indeed gave up on us a long time ago.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[tuxbox]

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I won't rebut rebuttals that have no substance. I can't stop you from claiming whatever you think is true.. That does not then imply you made a rebuttal. Therefore because you are not rebutting, merely spouting verbal vomit, I don't see the necessity of rebutting.

So how do I defend YEC by not rebutting the rebuttals? I don't. I only answer questions. I defend YEC by answering questions, not wasting my time rebutting useless statements.

1) not nature: God created all things.
2) the argument for an eternal existing does not mean to answer it therefore only can be God of the bible.
That takes more arguments.

Example since there is an eternal,Jesus claims to be the eternal. Now we are starting to advocate for the God of the bible. One argument is not meant to answer all questions.

Your response explains nothing.

1) Not Nature: "God" created all things.

We know Nature exists.

There is nothing to prevent Nature from having existed - and continuing to exist - eternally in some shape or form.

Our universe - aka, post Big Bang - is just a space-time "bubble" or off-shoot of the larger Cosmos. [I suggest you, at least, read the thread on before the Big Bang, particularly hackenslash's contributions to it. The most recent data indicates that our space-time "bubble" universe is 13.798 +/- 0.037 billion years old. In contrast, our Earth is 4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years old, again based on the most recent data. Even without radiometric dating methods, as already noted, other methods show that the Earth is far older than what YECs - of any kind - claim it to be.]

Your claim that "God created all things" is a baseless claim - you have yet to show that a creator-entity of any kind is required in the first place.

What evidence can you bring in support of this without reliance on the bible or any other religious text, since all such are written by people? [Again, consider the implications of Paine's quote in my signature.]

And philosophical arguments prove nothing.

2) the argument for an eternal existing does not mean to answer it therefore only can be God of the bible.

This sentence makes no sense.

If you're trying to claim that only the God of the bible is/can be the creator-entity, then this is also a baseless claim.

All creation myths claim that their creator-entity, whether a individual or group, created everything.

There is nothing to suggest that only the Christian God can be the creator-entity.

You have still to provide evidence uniquely consistent with the claim that a creator-entity is required for Nature to exist in the first place, and that this alleged creator-entity can only be the Christian one.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You don't understand what the bible is:

The bible is a collection of evidence. A record of the Word of God.

So you claim.

The bible is a collection of a tribal culture's oral stories that were written down around a thousand years ago. We know this because we have a number of versions of different written sources.

It's written by people - not God.

You cannot claim that God "wrote" the bible through them without actual evidence that God exists in the first place and that God can intervene in human affairs.

To say you can't bring bible because of the argument you are using bible to prove bible is fundamentally misunderstanding what the bible is.

That is not what I said - to claim that is to fundamentally misunderstand what I wrote in my previous replies to you.

I am not using bible to prove bible... I'm using bible to prove there is a God.

You can't use the bible to prove the existence of God.

You're trying to claim that the bible exists because God already exists - that is the wrong way round.

That is not how evidence is used.

It's like saying you can't use science to prove science is fundamentally misunderstanding what science is.

That is not the same thing as I said in my earlier replies to you regarding using the bible as evidence for God's existence.

I'm not using science to prove science, I'm using science to prove reality that we experience.

You're not using science at all in this instance.

So to say I can't bring an argument based on the bible is your method of trying to disarm me of the greatest source of evidences. Whether you believe this or not is not my concern.

I already said God exists because there is that which is eternal. To believe that is not my problem. The truth of it is for you to decipher.

And I pointed out to you that "that which is eternal" is not necessarily God, it could be Nature - nevermind the fact that, even if it were a creator-entity, it's not necessarily the Christian God,

All religious texts claim that their creator-entities exist and caused all things to come into existence.

It remains for you to show how God exists and that this God can only be the Christian one, as against any other.

Kindest regard,

James

 

[Visaki]

You don't understand what the bible is:

The bible is a collection of evidence. A record of the Word of God.

Bible isn't evidence for the claim, Bible is the claim you need evidence for.

 

[Deleted member 619]

You don't understand what the bible is:

The bible is a collection of evidence. A record of the Word of God.

What is your evidence that the bible is the word of god?

As far as I can tell, the only thing that the bible is evidence for is that fuckwits have fucked wits, and here you are b ringing extra-biblical evidence for that as well!

BTW, bet I know the bible a fuck of a lot better than you or anyone you know, including the professional liar you call a pastor.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You don't understand what the bible is:

The bible is a collection of evidence. A record of the Word of God.

This is evidence? This is the record of the word of a god? Well, that does go a long way in explaining why you are having so many problems with basic biology.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No I don't have to show how something exists to prove something exists. Wrong. That's a fact.

You haven't proven gods exist.

You cannot quote from a book as evidence of gods.

Why not?

Because books are written by people - books are not evidence of the existence of gods.

It doesn't matter from which religious text you quote, it's not evidence of gods.

If I quoted from the Qur'an, would that prove that Allah exists?

“And I (Allah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone).” [51:56]

No, it wouldn't.

Do you understand and accept that?

I already showed you why I claim it's the Christian God.
Rev 1:17 Jesus claiming eternality
Gospel of John. Claim through Jesus all things were made
Gospel of John. Claim that Jesus existed before Abraham. The I am statement.
John 1:1 beginning was the Word, and the word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus is the Word

These are all sentences written by people.

You have yet to prove:

1) a creator-entity exists;
2) said creator-entity is the Christian one.

Quoting the bible - or any other religious text - is not evidence of their god(s).

Please don't reask the same question. If you feel your rebuttal was accurate you would see no sense in asking the same question.

I'm having to re-ask for evidence because you have yet to provide such for the existence of a creator and that that creator is the Christian one.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mugnuts]