Red pill me on young earth creationism. What is the Sup Forums approved Christian stance?

Red pill me on young earth creationism. What is the Sup Forums approved Christian stance?

It's complete garbage, I have immense respect for the Bible and Christianity, but the notion that the earth is 6,000 years old is truly laughable. I can find limestone deposits much, much older than that where I live.

I must interject, if rates of decay are co stant then I can agree with this; however, it is virtually impossible to prove radioactive decay and the speed of light have truly been without variations through time immemorial. It is possible they have been faster.

Yeah, I'll entertain that notion, it's plausible

The universe is created

It's 14 billion years old

The genesis myth is metaphorical and takes the semitic creation myths and expresses them in orthodox monotheistic terminology

God created us and we need to breathe air otherwise we die
Why did he create us like this being all powerful?

Young Earth Creationism is not tenebale. If we were to disregard science and history, than from a purely scriptural standpoint it’d be reasonable to believe in an old Earth due to how God perceives time according to the Bible, as shown in Psalm 90:4 “A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”

Psalms are poetic and it also says a day is like a thousand years, so it can't be evidence for or against. While in genesis there is no ambiguity with what is being said. 6 literal days and one of rest.

God could have created the universe a second ago and you would have no way to tell otherwise. Back-history can also be created, like booting up a pre-coded save point.

Look it dosent just say day in genesis friend the full reading goes: Gen1:5 "God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was EVENING and there was MORNING, one day."
Pretty straight forward if you ask me.

yes --- Sup Forums is an echo chamber that agrees 100% on everything

> young earth creationism
> Sup Forums approved
> Christian stance?

fag

>orthodox monotheistic terminology

>let us create man in our image, after our likeness
>And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us...
>Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language

monotheistic

The bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old, just that it was created 6000 years ago.
You have to break away from the assumption that people understand how the universe works and how God created it.

Sup Forums approved is probably unlikely.
However, I can give you a reasoned response in favor or a 6000 year old earth:
Given that God created everything, including time and space, He is therefore not bound by them. It is reasonable to assume that it is possible He has created the earth, and the universe along with it's 14 billion year history in total by one act a mere 6000 years ago.
Just as Tolkien created Middle Earth, all of its races, languages, art and history in fiction, God is able to create a universe, and it's history, in fact.

Religion is nothing but a tool used by the authoritarians to keep the masses docile and uneducated.

Learn something faggots:

Humans and lobsters split some 350K years ago. We share a nervous system.

About 9K-12K years ago 2 large extraterrestrial objects collided with the Earth and created a giant flood that swept away all but about 2,000 to 10,000 humans and drown the megalithic sites whilst setting sea levels at their current depths.

There's a reason almost all religions, myths and belief systems that are extremely old speak about a Great Flood and the fall of man.

There's your Noah's flood.

i like that painting

...

This post is why I can't stand Christcucks. You literally cannot use reason and logic with them, it always. Let me emphasize that: ALWAYS devolves into one simple ideology "Just blindly accept God exists. Don't question it, because you can't question it. You can't ask those questions because you can't understand God, so just believe it without question." It's so infuriating to watch a large group of people blindly follow something and any questions asked are waved away. We do understand how the universe works. Obviously not fully, but we have literal millions of years where humans have been observing the universe and watching these natrual laws take place. That's why I believe in gravity. I can watch it in practice every single time, with out any variation. If I have a question about gravity, I can ask and someone can explain the law of attraction to me. All of these things are based in sound logic and reason that we can see every single day. I don't know how the universe started, and I do believe in a higher power. But it's not God, or at least not in the Christian sense.

"Science" is merely man's attempt to explain observable facts. An answer to the question "why", which is often as wrong as it is right.
If God can create facts by simply saying they are so, then nothing is impossible to Him.
The universe can actually be 14 billion years old but created 6000 years ago.

I'll not try to argue you into any sort of belief then. But there is a reason why you can't argue logic with Christians: that is because logic fails when faced with a God that can create time and space by simply saying so.

And that's the problem. You all willingly admit your ignorance and your complete complacency to remain that way. From a non Christian 3rd party perspective you are worshipping an imaginary friend. Which is fine, spend your time however you please. But Christians are the ultimate man children.
>Who are you talking to?
>My imaginary friend, God
>Oh, that's nice. What does God do?
>Literally everything and anything. He created the entire universe, and then made us.
>Wow, that's spectacular.
>Yeah, and if you don't follow his rules you will spend an infinite amount of time in hell
>Also, you have to give him tithing or you go to hell
>Also, if you ever have another imaginary friend, you go to hell
>Also, if you believe the Sun is the center of the solar system. We lock you in your room until death. Then you go to hell.
>Oh shit. That's just actually how physics works. Sorry Copernicus.

I know that's an oversimplification of the entire religion, but imagine yourself having that conversation with a child, and replace 'God' with 'Steve'. You would think that child is crazy. It's a rough example, but that's what it looks like from the outside.

>The bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old, just that it was created 6000 years ago.
sounds like a distinction without a difference to me

TFW you have extended family who believe Ken ham, the Universe is 6000 years old AND they think jews are gods chosen people and we must support israel And they race mixed with asians....

...

user, the centerpiece of all of this is testimony or also called witness. As such the validity of someones belief requires them to accept a given statement based on reason. What we have is not our own experiences necessarily, but that of others, those whom God has met. Likewise even if I say I had a religious experience myself its still second hand to you. Its not a theory like in science but a statement of trust like in court.

But then you hinge your (non-religious, purely scientific and well founded supported by evidence) beliefs on your ability to interpret your observations, and as you might well be willing to concede, humans are fallible and science is the process of righting previous mistakes as more evidence becomes available.

What I'm suggesting isn't even without scientific support.
What I propose is that the past is created much like the future is, a procedural generation based one preexisting states.
simply put, the universe begins in the middle and works itself back to the "big bang" and forward towards "heat death"

Not a single scientist can explain why the universe began to expand, and it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to do so on its own.

Newton's first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.

something or another has to initiate the big bang unless it doesn't bang
however if we perceive the contraction of the universe in reverse as an expansion, there is not problem with the big bang as it would just be the universe collapsing onto itself.

On the face of it, your viewpoint is extremely naive. Why do you assume that belief is the result of ignorance or complacency simply because you don't share it?
Because "Galileo"?
That was simply a political argument that had little to do with either science or religion.
There is no way to either prove or disprove God's existence with logic. THAT"S why it fails.
Let's take your imaginary conversation, and replace God with Steve let's assume it's not "My imaginary friend Steve" because the person is talking to someone he, at least, thinks is real.
>Where is Steve?
>Well he is here, because he answers me.
>Can you see him?
>No, can you?
>No. I can't see or hear him. You must be crazy or imagining things.
>Maybe you can't hear him because he isn't talking to you, or maybe you are deaf to his voice. Here. take my ear bud, and say hello.

I don't think that's a very good comparison. In fact, eyewitnesses are considered extremely unreliable. I can google it for you if you would like, but you made this comparison, so I would suggest at least reading a couple of studies on this. 19 out of 21 misconvicted criminals in 2011 were convicted due to eyewitness testimony. As a criminal justice major your comparison really didn't do anything but solidify my own point. The eyewitnesses for those 19 people probably weren't lying on purpose. They just saw something and their misperception of it skewed their beliefs. They weren't lying when they were on the stand, they truly believed what they had saw and told what they believed to be the truth. However through logical, rational, actual material evidence these people were freed. Thank you for that example.

You're right, but that's the difference between me and your post here If I see something and I don't understand I ask 'why?' and then I investigate.
>If I drop this apple, it falls to the ground every time. Why? Something must be pulling it pushing it down to the Earth.
And then we developed the theory of gravity. Instead of.
>If I drop this apple it falls to the ground. I better not ask why, I couldn't understand it anyway. It's just God's will.
I don't know what started the Big Bang, and I can't possibly know. You're right when you involve Newton's first something can't come from nothing. But I want to know what that something is. I don't want it waved away and simply chalked up to 'God'.

I need some clarification on your hypothetical. Is Steve on the phone? Because if Steve is "someone he, at least thinks is real." If you hand me an ear bud and say "I'm talking to my friend Steve." and there is no Steve on the other end, you will have to logically provide more evidence that Steve is on the other end.

but you were created about 9-10 months before you were born, you're older than the amount of years you've celebrated

My point is, how can you trust your interpretation of your observations when they are rooted in human bias ?

Because in my opinion God is man made. Believing in God also represents a human bias.

WHITE POWER! THATS HOW!

WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!WHITE POWER!

Does anyone post sauce in thisbthread or just talk out their bums?

If Steve hung up the phone because he didn't want to waste his time talking to you?
Prove he wasn't talking to me.
You assumed "phone" because you were handed an ear bud. But that wasn't obvious to you until that happened.
You didn't see it, so to you it didn't exist, until it did.

Yeah, and that I totally agree with. I can't prove Steve wasn't talking to you. But that in effect is my point. As a reasonable person because you were talking to Steve you could show me. You could pull up his Facebook, you could call him back, because Steve actually exists, we could walk to Steve's house. If I said "prove Steve exists" you could do so. There is plenty of evidence, and you as a reasonable person could provide some. But it's not the same for God. You can't call God back, you can't show me God. If Steve is an actual person, you can prove it. But you absolutely lack the evidence to prove God.

"Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer"
But you can also argue that man was created with a need for God.
Faced with a world that is deadly, capricious and hard to understand, a God with a purpose for human life is the beginning of reason.

Oh but I believe that humans create reality, not god.
God is fictional, and thus perfect in all ways, both existing (conceptually) and non-existing (materially)

1. Christianity is false like every other religions ever and blatantly plagiarized from other religions like Zoroastrianism
2. Human history goes much farther back than modern academics will concede, let alone 6000 years which apart from being amazingly stupid in and of itself, depends on Christianity being legit, which I've already addressed is not the case.
3. We are not the most advanced humans in history.
There are your redpills for the night.

Just as likely as Last Tuesdayism.

I'm not sure if we just started arguing the same thing, or your definition of fictional is skewed. Fictional actually means it doesn't exist. If god is fictional, he's nothing more than a story book character. If humans create reality and therefore create God, he is nothing more than an abstract being that only exists in our minds. I guess in your theory of a 2 directional time scale this makes sense, but time is a human construct which means it is also reality and time can only move forward, not back.
I wouldn't say man has a need for God, but a need for knowledge and where we fail to understand something we simply applied an all encompassing supernatural force. Or God.

If you lacked the knowledge of "phone" or "computer", if Steve decides to not answer his phone, if Steve's house wasn't within walking distance?
You assume that you know, but you don't.
20 years ago I would say "ear bud" and you wouldn't even know what that is.
So that leaves me with an absolute lack of evidence for Steve. Maybe we could still walk to Steve's house and see him, even if I live in Omaha and he lives in Great Briton? Given the distance (and ocean), would you have the patience and time to do so?
Not likely.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

But my entire point is that it can be done. Even in your hypothetical situation, if Steve lived in Great Britain you could still prove it. It may take time, hard work and dedication, but it can be done. This is literally impossible with God. Millions upon millions of men have dedicated their entire lives to the pursuit of god over thousands of years. Not a single one of them could provide even the slightest shred of evidence. Again, that's the difference. If Steve exists, we can prove it. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but only a fool blindly believes another. Even under the guise of faith.

it is merely our perception that tells us we're moving "forward" in time but that sounds like petty semantics.

I take offence at the "nothing more than" everything exists in our minds, it's all in our heads, all of our experiences are but the reflections of reality, not reality itself.

Ideas are far more powerful and tangible than many a physical object.
Even I am but a fictional being existing only within your mind, am I not real, do I not exist ?

While you cannot undo the past that led you to this point, you can also not perceive whether or not time is moving on one direction or another.
You've made so many assumption that noone ever cares to question so they have become truth without having been presented evidence for them.

You're just some weird clog-fucker behind a computer screen, the fact we're reading your waffle doesn't really then justify 2000 years of Christendom, God or no God.

This is a pretty good stance for a Christian

hey, how do you know I fuck clogs, are you watching me during private time ?

Deus Vult XD amirite?

In all honesty, I don't believe time is 'reality' I was simply using that in the context of your argument. I don't know if you're real, but the difference is I can check. You and I could meet and shake hands, it's not simply in my mind. You actually exist, there is evidence for it. You eat, you sleep, you leave waste, you physically exist. I do believe the mind is powerful, but again. You have your definition skewed in the literal sense an idea cannot be tangible. That's not what tangible means. You're blurring the line so heavily here, it really does make me wonder if you are on drugs. You're assuming we are all masters of our own reality and we can simply control it with our minds; that the idea of something makes it reality. That's simply dillusional.

This
This
This

you can meet the meat, but you've met the mind

Yes, but the point is that I can meet the meat. That's. What. Makes. You. Tangible. That's. Why. God. And. Ideas. Are. Not. Tangible. That. Is. The. Definition. Of. Tangible.

You can just as easily say we use knowledge and science to replace a need for God. Because we fail to understand an all encompassing supernatural force, we use our mind to create one: or Science...or Knowledge...
But science is simply a tool to explain "why" a "thing" works the way it does. Knowledge is a compilation of "facts" that may or may not be true. The "why" and the "facts" could be false, or at best incomplete. Neither can communicate its truth to me.
God both can, and does.
..and like Steve's existence, I can't prove it to you, for pretty much the same reasons.

>Red pill me on young earth creationism. What is the Sup Forums approved Christian stance?

we Orthodox nao shill, take a hike

Nah dude. Just take me to Steve. Then I will believe in Steve.

but is it the meat or the meeting that makes me tangible ?

Both? I can't physically meet you, if you don't have a physical substance.

If Steve lived on Mars instead?
Sure, improbable, but not impossible.
People didn't know Mars was a "place" for thousands of years.
You say "thousands of years" as if time was proof, but it so obviously isn't. "Atom" was the figment of some Greeks imagination for thousands of years.
Plenty of fools have faith their phone works, and it's not just the devil whispering in their ear, but science and engineering. But they have to take that on blind faith, because they can't understand it.

so if a concept is made physical it becomes tangible ?
and if so, wasn't the concept always as tangible as the physical presence would be if you never met the physical presence ?

...only if the meat is beef. Don't like chicken.

>please tell me what to think
Quality thread,

how about pork, or isn't that kosher ?

The quality of the meal isn't the plate it's served on, but how good the food is on it.

Damn it, now I am hungry...

God is said to have made eve out of Adam's rib, I bet he slathered that thing in a ton of barbecue sauce, then just made eve out of dirt instead.

No. A concept cannot be tangible.

Whoops.

but all material creations made by man started out as an idea, which was made into an object.
You can't make an axe without first conceiving of the axe as a concept

Ok, so the wood in the handle is tangible. The metal head is tangible. An idea is not tangible. Stop trying to warp definitions to fit your reality. An axe is tangible, an idea of an axe is not tangible. If I can touch it, it is tangible. If the idea is abstract, it is not tangible.

but the axe is the idea, without the idea the axe is just an object, if you didn't know what an axe was you wouldn't know one if you found it.

I never mentioned the composition of the axe, you created that for yourself made it more tangible just by thinking.

Mutliverse theory. So our universe was born from the black hole singularity of another universe - imagine this black hole ingests matter until it reaches a certain critical point. At which point, it folds in on itself, closing off the singularity in the other universe and new universe is born. The forces involved in this are what caused the big bang. You know it makes sense, and you can't prove me wrong

There is no such thing as 'more tangible'. Fuck dude, this isn't a hard concept. There isn't varying degrees of tangible. If I can reach my hand out and touch it, then it is tangible. I can't reach my hand out and touch an idea. I can reach my hand out and touch an axe. It doesn't matter whether you mentioned the composition of the axe, because it is irrelevant. As long as it's matter it is tangible. I'm tried of going in circles around this, so I'm going to propose a test. Every time you are debating on whether or not something is tangible, hit your self in the head with it. Try and hit yourself in the head with an axe, boom. Tangible. Think about an axe and then try and hit yourself in the head with that idea. Not tangible.

but this means that the axe is intangible, and the material it is comprised of IS tangible

so its the endless circle of buckets each filling the next until the last fills the first.
Still doesn't explain what makes the first bucked fill the next, nor how this last bucket filled the first.
If everything exists within the same instance, than the concept of one universe "creating" another is superfluous

It must be a language barrier thing, because I do not believe you grasp this concept very well. I'm going to take screen shots of this. No one will ever believe me when I tell them that a Dutch man tried to tell me an Axe is not tangible because it started as an idea. If I could reach through this screen, I'd smack you hard enough that you understood my hand is very tangible.

but you said, you can't hit yourself on the head with an idea, and an axe is an idea, the materials it is made of do not constitute the idea itself,
the axe never ceases to be an idea, you as a person empower the composition but the materials have no power to convey the idea on their own.

You cannot touch the axe only the material form, the axe is an idea which as you have said cannot be, or can become tangible. Your words not mine

the wood in the handle is tangible. The metal head is tangible. An idea is not tangible.

That's what you were trying to get at? You tried to flip that back on me? You're telling me I can't hold an axe because it's made out of wood? So technically I'm not hold an axe, I'm holding a piece of wood with an axe head on it? Fun fact, we call that an axe. You're so far into arguing semantics at this point that it's not worth it. You've skewed and twisted every word I've said to try and make some kind of abstract point. You're literally trying to tell me right now that axe's don't exist and they're not tangible. For fucks sake dude, take a step back from whatever you're trying to argue and genuinely think about what you are saying.

You hold the object, but without knowing of axes, you wouldn't be holding the axe, just an object whose purpose is unknown to you.

You are the one arguing that ideas are intangible.
I've merely pointed out that an axe is an idea first and foremost.

"we call that an axe." see you admit that the object must be given its nature rather than it possessing its nature without us to empower it to possess it.

A dog cannot pick up an axe, it has no idea what an axe is, but it can take the object in its mouth.

but the object != the idea, your words not mine.

I know the fucking idea isn't tangible. The simple fact that the dog can pick isntye axe means it's tangible, regardless if the dog understands it's purpose or what it's called. It's still fucking tangible.

the object is, but the axe is not tangible

The axe is an object. An axe is a noun, meaning it is a person, place or thing. A thing is an object, and axe isn't thing. Therefore an axe is an object. How can you be this dumb? You're literally arguing against definitions right now. This is some brain dead bullshit.

Something something original sin reshaped the world something.

If you are Christian and take God's inspired word over the traditions of men, you will know Earth is 6000 years old(more or less) and Adam and Eve were real. It says death entered the world through Adams sin, if evolution was a fact(it's not and a religion intself, people assume it to be true without seeing one species turning into another or ever recording inorganic matter turning into organic), then animlas could have not died before Adam.
The view that creation and evolution from species to species is not compatible.
Micro-evolution for lack of a better world, like different breeds of dogs and races, are observable, but they are still the same species.
Kent Hovind does a decent job in teaching this but there are more scholarly scienctists out there

i wasn't brought up religiously and have been teaching myself science / engineering since about the age of 9, and have a degree in it, and have worked in scientific R&D labs.

i do find the idea that people and the world simply 'happened' is questionable.

the vast, vast majority of scientists i've met are unable to see the assumption they themselves are making. e.g. that they could outsmart a god, that the universe didn't exist before, but then happened to come into being, that there is nothing outside of the 14 billion light years (because we can't see / measure any further).

it's literally impossible to argue the point scientifically that god does not exist as they are mutually incomparable explainations.

where are you going to get a 'god measuring' device?

i see it as two explanations of a similar thing, or looking at a similar thing from different perspectives. one measures the world, the other asks why your conscious even exists to begin with.

when you consider that modern 'known human civilization' has only existed for ~3 to 4000 years, that's not actually a whole lot of time.

it is the only acceptable stance
Christians who think otherwise doubt the Bible and God's power

also God could have simply made them "pre-decayed"

>what is the trinity
>what is the majestic plural

That's the perfect definition of the Ad Hoc fallacy

a noun is still just an idea, without people nouns do not exist, regardless of how many objects they refer to.

it's a fact though, if God is powerful enough to make world why couldn't He

>Red pill
>young earth creationism
You can only pick one

>also God could have simply made them "pre-decayed"
This kind of rationalization is substantial evidence that theists have completely lost their ability to think rationally.

see
if God exists then it is an undeniable possibility

>Because we fail to understand an all encompassing supernatural force
You mean "fail to believe". Fictional characters can be ascribed any attributes we please, so there's no "understanding" necessary.

>but you were created about 9-10 months before you were born,
Wasn't "created". Was a product of two already living biological organisms, an egg and a sperm. We are a continuation of life until we die.

>purely scientific
>beliefs
Pick only one

>Kent Hovind does a decent job in teaching
Kent's already out of prison?

>it's a fact though,
It's not a fact. It's an opinion based on a factless belief. It's irrational conjecture.

The moment you add supernatural beings with magical powers to a logical equation, the equation immediately ceases to be logical.

>if God exists then it is an undeniable possibility
>if the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists then it is an undeniable possibility, too.
Seems unlikely. Both are inventions of the mind.

>What is the Sup Forums approved Christian stance?
Denominations that call out Jewry, like Christ.