Young Earth Debate

[gbr_micah]

Before you answer:

If you are going to stick with this idea that we all just choose what to believe and it's just all up in the air, there's no need to continue this. When evidence is presented, constantly tested, and holds up under pier review, faith is not required to "believe" it. Faith is belief in spite of a lack of evidence. If you have evidence for a young Earth, you won't need to appeal to faith. The bible is a collection of anecdotes. Anecdotes are crappy evidence, and clearly not sufficient to believe extraordinary claims like the existence of a god or a story about the creation of the universe.

[lattamoney]

Before you answer:

If you are going to stick with this idea that we all just choose what to believe and it's just all up in the air, there's no need to continue this. When evidence is presented, constantly tested, and holds up under pier review, faith is not required to "believe" it. Faith is belief in spite of a lack of evidence. If you have evidence for a young Earth, you won't need to appeal to faith. The bible is a collection of anecdotes. Anecdotes are crappy evidence, and clearly not sufficient to believe extraordinary claims like the existence of a god or a story about the creation of the universe.

what you are saying is like lets have a sword fight my Bible vs your Science book but then you tell me to get rid of my sword (the Bible) now lets fight but you get to keep your sword (science Book) There is tons of evidence that points towards Creation

[SebG]

what you are saying is like lets have a sword fight my Bible vs your Science book but then you tell me to get rid of my sword (the Bible) now lets fight but you get to keep your sword (science Book) There is tons of evidence that points towards Creation

I don't think that's what was said at all.

If there's "tons of evidence" that points towards Creation by a benevolent supra-human being, then let's discuss it.

Even if the Bible is the Word of God, scientific concepts had to be explained in a manner that made sense to a non-technological society. Therefore, it would make sense that there seems very little evidence in the Bible of matters relating to modern technology and modern scientific understanding - it would not have been possible for God to convey those concepts to the writers of the Bible 3,000 and more years ago.

On the other hand, why should the Bible be interpreted as being the complete history of humans at all? It is clearly not (perhaps a separate discussion if you want). If the Bible tells stories about the spiritual relationship between God and humans, why would it need to describe scientific principles at all? It is possible you are attempting to attribute to the Bible concepts unrelated to the purpose of the document.

[gbr_micah]

what you are saying is like lets have a sword fight my Bible vs your Science book but then you tell me to get rid of my sword (the Bible) now lets fight but you get to keep your sword (science Book) There is tons of evidence that points towards Creation

>tons of evidence

So present it, then. I'm willing to read whatever you provide.

[lattamoney]

youtube Bill Nye Vs Ken Hamm Debate this is a good debate on both sides so you dont think I am just one sided they both talk bout the coconino Hermit boundary and fossils and the grad canyon then you tell me what you think creation vs evolution

[gbr_micah]

I watched that debate live. I found nothing said compelling evidence of a young Earth. Can you please just list what you consider the most compelling pieces of evidence for a young Earth, and perhaps provide links for each one so I can read about them?

[gbr_micah]

We can at least start off with the points you mentioned:

What about fossils points toward a young Earth?

What about the Grand Canyon points toward a young Earth?

What about Coconico sandstone points toward a young Earth?

[Justin A.P.]

the bible is not science. and neither are swords against the other. Perhaps only swords against your interpretation of what the bible means.

[Justin A.P.]

It seems to me you should 'debate' the flaws in Carbon Dating before you can fully have this conversation. but what do I know?

And then maybe propose another way of dating this shows the earth to be... "young"

[lattamoney]

Where does the Bible refute the possibility of a Big Bang? I don't think it does.

But, science doesn't care what we think. Science relies on observations and measurements of the natural world. It's as simple as that.

The age of the Earth has been determined scientifically using uranium-lead radioisotope dating. It's easy to say that nuclear decay is bullshit, but then you still have to be able to explain nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

The Bible doesn't include information on the science of the atom, nor the science of computer chips.

Would you agree that the Bible has too many contradictions and is incomplete on too many points to be used scientifically?

Genesis Chapter one God Created the Heavens and the Earth not the Big Bang

Scientfically Determined by people with a agenda how want to discredit everything in Bible

the Bible does not have contradict its self people who say that cherry pick verses out of it