A question for Young Earth Creationists...How do you explain this?

[goodboy]

Young Earth Creationists believe the Earth and universe is 6,000 years old, and man walked with dinosaurs.

How would they explain this?
At a relatively bright magnitude of +8, M104 is just beyond the limit of naked-eye visibility and is easily seen through small telescopes. The Sombrero lies at the southern edge of the rich Virgo cluster of galaxies and is one of the most massive objects in that group, equivalent to 800 billion suns. The galaxy is 50,000 light-years across and is located 28 million light-years from Earth.

<>

[karlrschneider]

1. Just one of Yahweh's little jokes...the light from those nonexistant objects

was created in mid-flight 6000 years ago. Or so I've been told. :eyes:

[Rabrrrrrr]

9. That's one theory. Another I've read is that the speed of light used to be greater.

I've read too many "Creation Science" books - it's my "bad car crash" voyeuristic instinct. I laugh all the way through them, sometimes swear in anger, and very often thump my head in amazement at the bullshit they offer forth as "science".

The two main theories, and each seem to get equal weight so far as I can tell, is that a) God created the photons mid-flight (as you suggested), and b) that the speed of light was far, far greater 6,000 years ago than it is now so that distant objects ARE as far away as they seem, but only by the speed of light we know today.

One book I read offered as "proof" the fact that some guy in the 1600s calculated the speed of light to be somewhere in the 300,000 miles per second range instead of today's accepted 186,000 miles per second.

Yep, that's right - they will disregard all current global warming, evolutionary, and other scientific data, BUT they will absolutely accept at face value the perfect accuracy of some guy in the middle ages, for whom 20 miles per HOUR would be an unimaginable and probably never seen speed, measuring the speed of light with a couple mirrors, some water, a handmade clock ticking away, and I can't remember what else.

I just don't get it.

[karlrschneider]

22. I'm pretty sure C wasn't accurately calculated before the 19th century

by Michelson & Morley if my recollecter's still calibrated. :-)

I seem to remember Galileo tried with lanterns on hilltops and some kind of 'stopwatch' - which didn't seem to yield much in the way of precision.

[Rabrrrrrr]

27. I don't think they were accurate, either - which, clearly, they weren't.

Unless we accept the "the speed of light has been slowing down" hypothesis.

Why they will believe the faulty science of a middle ages tinkerer (who had the best intentions, but just had shitty equipment to try to find the speed of light by) but they won't believe the current scientists of today, who have been verified by peer review and numerous experiments and constant checking of data...

[WindRavenX]

2. or why are there some TREES with more than 7,000 rings?

Ah, playing with them is fun :)

[thereismore]

12. I don't thik there are trees with that many rings. I think they

put together tree rings from various epochs to reconstruct a virtual tree with that many rings. Is there any reference to this stuff? A scientific paper?

[WindRavenX]

18. there most certainly are trees that exist

Let me find some...

on edit: bristlecone and some aspens have been found to be 5K plus and some recent fossiled trees thought to be 80,000 years old, so it seems that one is more of a reconstruction.

I mean, there are toooons of fossilized bits of trees around. It's quite cool!

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. The oldest tree so far discovered was Prometheus, a 5000+ year old tree

The current oldest living one is Methusaleh, at about 4,800 years.

[WindRavenX]

25. THAT'S the one I was thinking about

Thanx.

[karlrschneider]

31. Is it a bristlecone?

...

[Rabrrrrrr]

40. I think that's what they're called - some kind of "cone", anyway.

Prometheus was in Nevada. Methusalah's whereabouts are kept secret, but I think it's in California. I can't remember, though. It might also be in Nevada (I know I've heard the state - I think I've even heard the actual park it's in, though no one will point out which tree it is).

[karlrschneider]

49. Oh, wait...I think that tree is a redwood. I suppose I could Google it

but I've heard for years the bristlecone pines are the oldest. Maybe that has changed...

[Rabrrrrrr]

56. Both bristlecones.

I just googled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29

[karlrschneider]

64. Okay thanks. I believe I was thinking of the -largest- tree.

oh well...
;-)

[leftofthedial]

3. the Lord Gawdjeezis (tm), the one true Gawd

works in mysterious ways

He places inexplicable Mysteries inexplicably to test our faith

[atommom]

4. The scientists just misunderstand what they see. We can't understand God's creation.

:sarcasm:

They don't need any of that fancy science to refute them scientists.

[StClone]

68. You are on the right track

The genius of Fundies is that if you can believe in God it's not difficult to not believe your eyes and think the Earth is a few thousand years old and that light had a transitory evolution and slowed down as time advanced. Faith in the unseen, yet disqualify your "erroneous" senses = Religion.

[Lautremont]

5. Telescopes, and indeed scientific instruments of any kind,

are forged in the devil's workshop from the bones of sinners. Crackles of lightning will dance about the heads of men who are taken in by this test of faith!

[Turbineguy]

Wow, I'm glad you told me that!

my Wife wants a telescope to look up into the heavens with. Gadzooks! she might have turned into a pillar of salt and I'd have to keep her out in the garage!

[k_jerome]

6. all right. lets pile on and make fun of xtians....

or are you actually looking for an answer from young earth creationists here?

what is the criteria for religion bating? i don't see a lot of threads making fun of jews or muslims sects or beliefs. is that not PC?

[WindRavenX]

7. this isn't making fun of Christians

It's making fun of deluded, narrow minded people. They aren't the same as making fun of Christians, because many don't subscribe to the earth being 6K years old. Most Catholics, for example.

[k_jerome]

20. which sect of christianity has supernatural beliefs that...

you do not find "stupid"

[WindRavenX]

24. None. I think they're all equally foolish.

If you think the earth is 6K years old, I don't care what religion or belief you have-- you are stupid.

[k_jerome]

29. understood...

the question is, why bait and insult them, and it would seem in disproportionate numbers to other supernatural being worshipers, i.e. jews or muslims. is it because of a more accepted attitude toward bashing this one religion?

[WindRavenX]

34. Young Earth Creationists DO deserve to be mocked

They have a right to their opinion, but they can't claim it as fact--which is what they're doing.
Trust me, on DU, there's tons of animosity towards other religious groups--stick around and it will reveal itself. It's not like DU is an anti-Christian site by nature, because a large majority of posters are Christian and are pretty chill.

[k_jerome]

38. is it your opinion that all christians deserve to be mocked?

or just young earth creationists?

what about the ones that believe in virgin birth and resurrection from death by the "son of god"?

[WindRavenX]

42. Where did I imply that Christians "deserve" to be mocked?

I said that all religions have aspects of faith that are ridiculous.

[k_jerome]

48. i was asking you....

not saying what you said. it is interesting to me that christians can be mocked for cherrypicked ridiculous beliefs, yet it seems to go over the line to mock the very core of major religions, the belief in a supernatural, almighty supreme being. do you feel this crosses the line, and if so, why?

[WindRavenX]

51. I think any belief in the supernatural is deluded thinking

I don't make judgements on whether this deserves to be "mocked".

[k_jerome]

57. do you believe the young earth creationists deserve to be mocked? nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Don't you?

If not, are you a young earth creationist?

[k_jerome]

70. no, i don't...

i see it as a form of prejudice.

[WindRavenX]

71. LOL

:rofl:

Using facts is prejudice. Hillarious.

[k_jerome]

75. mocking people for their beliefs...but you knew what i meant. nt.

[WindRavenX]

80. They're wrong.

If they claimed water was made of jesus molecules instead of water and oxygen, do they deserve respect?

[k_jerome]

86. in other words...

the basis for christianity is wrong in your mind...then i ask...

is it acceptable to mock or ridicule them bacause of it?

[WindRavenX]

91. That's not at ALL what I said

It is factually incorrect to say water is anything but water and oxygen. To say it is made of something else is wrong and does deserve to be mocked.

The basis of Christianity? What does that even mean?

[k_jerome]

96. okay...lets do this one question at a time....

do you feel it is ok to mock and ridicule young earth creationists (be they christians or jews) and why?

[WindRavenX]

100. for the last fucking time, YES

You seem to be unable to wrap your head around that belief in science and belief in religion is NOT mutually exclusive. There are some Christians that believe in a young earth--they're wrong and deserved to be mocked not because they are Christians but because they believe in something empirically incorrect.

This is NOT A CHRISTIAN ISSUE. It's a COMMON SENSE issue.

And with that, I'm done with this thread. You're turning this into making people look like they are bashing Christians, when in reality, no one is. You're being pretty damn disingenuous about this whole conversation. It's not a religious issue, no matter how much you want it to be.

[k_jerome]

102. you have done a commendable job in ...

justification for your mockery. good day.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

192. Do I mock people...

who tell me the earth is flat? That the sun revolves around the earth? That we never landed on the moon? That -- in spite of ovewhelming scientific evidence -- the earth is only 10,000 years old?

DAMN STRAIGHT.

And that goes for person of any faith or no faith. Religious belief is no excuse for willful ignorance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. Prejudice against what? Stupidity?

Have you got your doubts about this whole "Darwin" thing, Jerome?

[k_jerome]

76. religion. nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. We debunked that.

It's not about religion.

Why are you trying to slur Christians as a bunch of anti-scientific ignoramuses?

Seems pretty disrespectful to me.

[k_jerome]

85. i will ask you...

do you think the belief that Christ was the son of God and was of virgin birth and died for your sins is stupid?

or do you find that this supernatural belief is not stupid, and the people that think the earth is young are stupid?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. No.

"or do you find that this supernatural belief is not stupid, and the people that think the earth is young are stupid?"

Yes. But we already said that.

Now, have you got doubts about Evolution?

[k_jerome]

94. dude....read this carefully...

i am an agnostic. i am an engineer and scientist. we are discussing the mockery of religion and when it is acceptable to do so. lets stick to that.

i am trying to get my arms around your assertions. i understand that you believe that those that adhere to the young earth belief deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. my question is...where do you draw the line in your mockery and ridicule? the basis of christianity is virgin birth of the messiah that died and rose again for our sins (very simply put). do you feel this supernatural belief is worthy of mockery or ridicule, and if not, why as compared to the original young earth supernatural belief?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. You dodged my question.

Have you got doubts about evolution?

[k_jerome]

101. i have no doubts about evolution...

i have no doubts that all religions are supernatural mumbo jumbo. the debate here, is i choose to refrain from baiting people of religion and you find it to be acceptable.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. Bullshit.

"i choose to refrain from baiting people of religion and you find it to be acceptable."

Now you're just making things up in direct contradiction with what we've been saying all along.

Where's your line, Jerome? Should people who believe in holocaust denial be ridiculed?

[k_jerome]

106. you continue to bring up holocaust denial....

is this a supernatural belief?

you ridicule based on supernatural belief, yet deny you have disdain for religion. what do you fear? apparently it is easier to pick out one supernatural belief. i understand, i have told you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

108. Let's say it were.

Let's say somebody started a new religion, and included holocaust denial as one of their beliefs.

Would you accept that then?

"you ridicule based on supernatural belief"

No, I ridicule pseudoscience.

"yet deny you have disdain for religion."

Nope, I'm fine with religion.

"what do you fear?"

I fear you're going to keep being obtuse, because you realize you lost the argument some time ago, and you just don't want to admit it.

[k_jerome]

109. dude, why can't you just admit you ridicule them...

for their supernatural beliefs, foremost being the belief in a supreme being?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

111. Because that would be a lie.

Sorry, Jerome, I'm not a big fan of intellectual dishonesty.

[k_jerome]

112. so you mock young earthers because of their supernatural...

beliefs?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. No, their false beliefs.

The same reason I mock the people who believe in chemtrails, holocaust denial, flat earth, eugenics, and so on.

[k_jerome]

117. so you feel their belief in a supernatural being is false? nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

119. Yes.

But not demonstratably so.

[k_jerome]

121. how so? it is this belief that is the basis for...

their literal interpretation of Genesis.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

122. How is young earth creationism demonstratably false?

I thought you said you were a scientist, Jerome.

[k_jerome]

128. it is demonstrably false...

to those that are open to scientific proof using the geologic record, the deposit of sediment in some areas of the upper midwest, astronomy, fossil record, etc.

it is not demonstrably false to christians that hold to the literal translation of genesis because of a belief in a supreme being. something you find it acceptable to mock, while backing away from an outright mockery of christianity itself, or islam or judaism for that matter. it is the backing away, or fear if you will, that i do not understand.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

131. It is demonstrably false period.

So I'm starting to doubt your scientific credentials.

[k_jerome]

135. i am starting to doubt your courage...

you are apparently in fear to go so far as mock christians as a whole, so you have picked a group youi can safely mock on this message board and have run with it. you know that to mock the entire religion may result in some negative repercussions from others. it is ok to admit it.

the basis for new earth believers is a supreme being...as is the basis for christianity as a whole...you mock and ridicule a subset of the larger group in order to safely demonstrate your disdain for the whole.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

146. My courage?

Jerome, you know what strikes me as cowardly? Dodging questions. And making up phony accusations in place of an argument.

"you are apparently in fear to go so far as mock christians as a whole"

Why would I do that? There's lots of Christians I admire. Charles Darwin, for instance.

[Warren DeMontague]

125. I'll tell you what the difference is. You can't *prove* that there is no "God", (particularly when

hardly any two believers agree precisely on what the word "God" means) you can't disprove things like the resurrection or virgin birth, even if it's pretty damn unlikely in many of our minds that they actually took place in physical reality.

But the geologic age of the Earth- and the physical age of the Universe- are something else. There is physical scientific evidence that these people are willfully disregarding, and they are introducing a counter-narrative with the specific purpose of promoting a pseudo-scientific alternative to established scientific FACT. Same thing with the evolution/creationism "debate".

They are WRONG, the evidence and the facts PROVE THEM WRONG, and it is not "bashing", "bigotry", or "discrimination" to state that.

[k_jerome]

133. it is their belief in a supernatural being that is the basis for their...

view on young earth. something you say cannot be disproven. so how do you prove them wrong? to them, not to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

181. If someone claimed that their belief in a 5000 ft tall, invisible, undetectable orangutan

living on top of their house was the basis for their belief that the Earth was banana-shaped, would the fact that you couldn't prove the negative about something, namely, the undetectable orangutan, that was by it's own very self-definition not able to be proven or disproven via physical evidence or lack thereof... (still following me? good)

So... would that mean that you couldn't prove that the Earth isn't banana-shaped? No.

And does the fact that you can't prove there isn't a 5000 foot tall, invisible, odorless, undetectable orangutan living on top of my house right now it lend any fucking credence whatsoever to the cockamamie proposition that the Earth is Banana-shaped?

No.

[Quantess]

179. You are partronizing Christians, IMO,

by equating belief in spiritual and supernatural, to the belief in a 6,000 year old universe. Nobody can prove Jesus is not the savior and son of god. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is round and is much older than 6,000 years old.
Science and spirituality are not always incompatible.

[leeroysphitz]

177. Nobody seems to try PROVING in a SCIENTIFIC way the virgin

birth, resurrection etc... These are matters of faith and as liberals we shouldn't mock a persons faith (especially since liberals are the ones who came up with the idea of religious freedom in the first place!).

However, creationism is a deliberately and cynically contrived mockery of true science designed to give close minded people an excuse to deny children the opportunity to be educated about the physical world around them and is therefore fit to be mocked in return.

That is the difference. Thank you for your kind attention.

[goodboy]

187. BRILLIANT! (nt)

[goodboy]

185. Right. Not about religion. But about a demonstrably false belief

that people actually want taught in our public schools along with evolution.

I said nothing about "Christians"

I said, "Young Earth Creationists" Last I checked, that's not a religion.

[WindRavenX]

62. Yes, not because they are Christian, but because they are factually WRONG

Stop making this an issue about Christians. It's about people, some of which may be Christian, who do not want to deal with reality.

As it was mentioned earlier, pi in the Bible is 3. That is incorrect.

Mocking an opinion held by SOME Christians is NOT an attack on all Christians.

[k_jerome]

74. why do you think they are factually wrong? rational thought and...

scientific fact i assume? then my question to you is: what does rational thought and scientific fact say about virgin birth and resurrection, the basis for billions of christians faith? and where do you draw the line in your ridicule?

[WindRavenX]

78. They are factually wrong because it has been proven using the speed of light

This isn't theory. This is hard-core fact.

The Virgin Birth and Resurrection are physically impossible.

That's why taking the Bible literally is foolish.

[k_jerome]

88. we are in agreement on the basis of religion...

my question is the basis for mockery of religion. when is it acceptable to do so?

[WindRavenX]

93. for the last time: when it goes contrary to scientific facts

Faith is something I don't mock or discuss--unless it's trying to override scientific facts.

[k_jerome]

97. what aspect of religion does not attempt to override scientific facts?...

the very basis for christianity does this.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. Scientific fact doesn't say anything about the virgin birth...

or resurrection, since we can't test it.

"and where do you draw the line in your ridicule?"

We already told you.

[goodboy]

186. If you remember a thing called the council of Nicea, you will see

that those points e.g. virgin birth, christ's divinity, ressurection. WE'RE HOTLY DEBATED amongst the many many sects of Christianity in the early days.

Several gospels were thrown out as heresy.

That tells me that they were making this up as they went along.

[fujiyama]

99. She already said "yes" to that

and she's absolutely right.

Denying evolution is a form of delusion. The truth is, the world isn't 6,000 years old. This is like denying the existence of gravity.

[LanternWaste]

58. Having said that...

I'm a Christian. As a matter of fact, using the classical definition I'm also a 'fundie'.

Having said that, I'll say that anyone who belives that the earth is 6k years old is, well... nuts/uneducated/ignorant.


I honestly don't think the OP was directly implying that Chrisitans are deluded, only that Young Earthers (ohhh.... I like that, "young earthers") are deluded.

[karlrschneider]

36. Jews and Muslims don't generally reject scientific fact. Some individuals might, though

But anyone who depends on imaginary deities to the denial of clear observation is obviously nuts.

[k_jerome]

41. thus my original point...

is it your view that all these religions should be mocked and insulted, regardless of your view on religion, which i mostly share?

why mock the young earth creationists, when there are billions that believe in a superatural supreme being? does this cross the line in your mind?

[karlrschneider]

45. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I consider belief in supernatural anything to be nuts.

By definition, everything that exists in nature is natural. There ain't nuthin' else, just like there ain't nuthin' outside the universe. :eyes:

[k_jerome]

52. maybe i was not clear enough...

at what point is it acceptable, regardless of your own views, to mock the views of others?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Gee, I don't know.

How about when those views are in complete contradiction with the last 160 years of biology?

[k_jerome]

59. again...

do you feel that because you are in disagreement, they should be ridiculed?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. No.

There's lots of people I disagree with that I don't mock.

It's when they disagree with scientific fact that they deserve ridicule.

[k_jerome]

104. i understand your views now. ridicule on hard charger. nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. You understood my beliefs from the beginning.

But you decided to play a silly little game.

[karlrschneider]

54. When they're nuts and try to convince others to be equally nuts.

m'kay?

[k_jerome]

61. then my original point...

do you feel it is ok to mock or ridicule based on religion?

[WindRavenX]

69. at what point do people's "beliefs" override objective reality?

If I believe the earth is 6,000 years old, why should my factually incorrect statement be valued as much as someone who understands the universe to be billions of years old, as proven by empirical measurements?

[karlrschneider]

84. I think it's ok to mock based on belief.

...

[k_jerome]

103. thank you for your honest answer. nt.

[Zhade]

191. It's always acceptable. There is no requirement we respect beliefs.

A person's right to hold beliefs, yes. Their right to be respected as a human being, yes.

Their beliefs? Never. There is no obligation that we respect beliefs, period.

[WindRavenX]

46. Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true

why mock the young earth creationists, when there are billions that believe in a superatural supreme being?

So...because a ton of people believe in someone, that means it must exist...?

Don't turn this thread into a thread about how people are "bashing" Christians. No one is doing that. Many people are expressing frustration towards a small group of people who chose not to believe in objective reality.

[k_jerome]

55. huh?...

the point is, why mock for a trivial "stupid" belief, when it would be so much more effective and far reaching to mock the billions for their "stupid" belief. is it because it is a small number, and thus more "acceptable"?

[WindRavenX]

65. No...

...because it's an empirical fact. The universe is not 6,000 years old. Discrediting an entire faith is impossible because it is not built upon empirical facts.

[karlrschneider]

90. Billions of flies think shit tastes good.

:eyes:

[thereismore]

190. They are right. they are flies. It objectively tastes great to them. It's a false allegory. nt

[goodboy]

189. HOW ARE YOU GROUPING THE THEORY OF YOUNG EARTH

TO THE BELIEF IN A SUPREME BEING?

[spoony]

82. I hate to break this to you

but the Genesis account of creation is common to all three Abrahamic religions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. Sure.

But Young Earth Creationism is mostly isolated to handfuls of American evangelicals.

Most people don't subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Probably because most of them have read the thing.

[Solon]

89. That's not the point...

The point is that the Genesis account isn't interpreted literally by most members of these religions.

[spoony]

95. That is simply untrue

At least among Muslims. Secular Jews don't really come into the picture, but read this:
www2.truman.edu/~edis/writings/articles/hyahya.html

"Of course, Americans are not the only people who have a strong streak of old-time religion in their culture, and who perceive the strain modern science puts on the old verities. In this time of religious revival around the globe, the Islamic world is perhaps the most striking in its attachment to a scripturally literalist faith. However, until recently, "creation-science" was not very visible in Muslim lands. Ironically, this was mainly because Darwinian evolution rarely appeared in education or in intellectual life."

[0rganism]

172. niether do Christians -- this is a pan-sectarian breed of nuttery

Believe it or not, there are Jews and Muslims who hold Young-Earth Creationist views. A while back I read some excerpts from one of the more prominent Muslim anti-Evolutionist screeds, and it was every bit as lame as what we typically see from YEC Christians. Because USians live in majority-Christian culture, we get the Christian version more often, but the others are out there too.

[1620rock]

10. Because rejecting the magnitude and scope of God's...

...universe is not an article of faith, it is sheer stupidity.

[k_jerome]

15. which facet of religion do you find to be acceptable? or not stupid?...

is there a religion that believes in what you find to be reality?

are you saying that xtians that do not accept young earth ideas, but do believe in a supernatural supreme being is not, in your mind, sheer stupidity?

[Bigmack]

35. You didn't ask me...

but my favorite facet of religion is the one where little kids get cancer and die horrible, painful deaths in order to convince us of the power of god. Shit... I'm impressed!

Or where people have horribly deformed or ill babies in order to test them and bring them closer to god... or whatever.

Deeply religious :sarcasm: intended.

[k_jerome]

44. i am not debating the aspects of religion that people find...

objectionable. i believe we are of a shared mind regarding the belief in supernatural supreme beings.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. It's not making fun of Christians - it's making fun of Young Earth Creation asswipes.

Cuz that's what they are.

And spelling it "xtian" is more disrespectful to Christians than making fun of the small group of assholes who believe the earth to be 6000 years old.

[k_jerome]

19. that, my friend, is because i am an agnostic...

and find all organized religion questionable. but, you are right, and i will fully spell it from now on. i do not attempt, however, to belittle or insult different sects within an individual religion because i have cherrypicked something i think is illogical or "stupid".

do you find the idea of a supernatural supreme being to be not "stupid", yet a person that believes said supernatural supreme being may have created the earth and universe 12k years ago is stupid. please explain where you part ways exactly.

[fujiyama]

110. The existence or lack thereof

of a supernatural being can neither be proven nor disproven. That is why, most here are not arguing that believing in God is necessarily stupid in itself.

However, it has been handily proven by geological, anthropological, and archaeological evidence that the earth is NOT 6,000 years old.

[k_jerome]

113. then, why do you think young earthers believe that it is? ...

you honestly think they are stupid?

[piedmont]

129. Huh???

Of course YECs believe that the earth is only around 6,000 years old. That's the definition of the term Young Earth Creationist-- as opposed to Old Earth Creationist, "evolutionist," etc.

[k_jerome]

138. why do you think they believe it is only 6000 years old? nt.

[piedmont]

148. A person who says he/she believes the earth is 6,000 years old is a Young Earth Creationist

by definition. So if you ask me what reason I have to think a YEC believes the earth to be 6,000 years old, it's because they identify themselves as a YEC.

Or are you asking me what reasons they believe that the earth is 6,000 (or thereabouts) years old? Well, they believe the Bible is a literal chronology of the world and universe, from its beginning to just past Jesus' time. So going by the genealogies given in the Bible, they arive at a number somewhere around 6,000 years. Most of them seem to believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher">this guy's numbers.

[k_jerome]

149. they believe it because they believe in a supreme being...

that is the basis for all christians faith. this belief leads them to their literal translation of genesis, a belief they share with many jews as well. this is the belief being mocked...this is their core belief...while they may differ from other christians in the application of this belief, it is what drives their adherence to the young earth of genesis.

is it more acceptable to mock and ridicule them for their belief in a supreme being as opposed to christians as a whole?

[piedmont]

159. Other people believe in a supreme being without believing that the Bible is a literal chronology

I have no problem with Christians who see Jesus' message as reason enough to emulate him and believe in his divinity.
The ones who feel the need to bury their heads (and everyone else's) heads in the sand and deny reality in order to believe in a higher power are the ones I ridicule. Theirs is an infantile, stunted faith, one which must accept every word in the Bible or reject it outright. These are people who are actively seeking to gut science education and research in this country, in order to live more comfortably in undisturbed delusion. Ridiculous ideas need to be ridiculed, lest they be taken seriously.

[k_jerome]

164. that is not my point...

i was not debating that. i was questioning the mockery of a small group of christians for supernatural beliefs and not the whole of christianity or judaism or islam for the same belief...is it the application of their beliefs that make them an easy target of ridicule?

[piedmont]

173. Not an easy target-- a necessary target.

A belief system that abhors investigation of the universe because the facts uncovered don't correspond to the dogma of the faith should be ridiculed and attacked by anyone who favors a free, open, democratic society. Yes, it's the practical aspects of YEC that make it dangerous. It is used by those in power to stunt critical thinking (which this country has been desperately in need of) and accustom its followers to ant-intellectualism.

i was questioning the mockery of a small group of christians for supernatural beliefs and not the whole of christianity or judaism or islam for the same belief
The whole of christianity or judaism or islam doesn't believe in young earth creationism. They believe in a higher power. That doesn't clash with observed reality. YEC does, and for that it should be ridiculed.

[k_jerome]

176. how about resurrection?...

any basis there?

[piedmont]

178. Has anyone deleted science content from textbooks because it conflicts with the resurrection?

The resurrection was a one-time "miracle" event, which one can accept on faith without the need to deny observed geology, astronomy, physics, etc. However, if we find Jesus' tomb, with Jesus' bones inside and the evidence that it was in fact Jesus' bones were as overwhelming as that in favor of the modern understanding of geology, biology, astronomy, physicss, etc., I'd ridicule anyone who still believed in the resurrection. But it ain't gonna happen.
And yes, if some branch of christians starts up with some bogus "resurrection science" that they feel they must believe in order to believe in Jesus, I will ridicule them for that.

[goodboy]

188. bullshit. YEC do not believe the theory because they believe in a

supreme being. They believe it because they refuse to accept scientific fact.

[trekbiker]

161. not necessarily stupid.. definately deluded n/t

[Glorfindel]

14. I'm a Christian, and DO NOT subscribe to the "Young Earth"

Creationist stupidity, which is the group being addressed by the OP. I believe Muslims are REQUIRED to believe in young earth creationism, as are Orthodox Jews (though I could be wrong, and I certainly don't care). But being deliberately ignorant is not the prerogative of any one group. The field seems to be wide open. :+

[k_jerome]

17. which of the ideas of the myriad of sects of christianity do you..

also find stupid? if you don't mind me asking, what sect are you a member of?

[CATagious]

166. why don't you start your own..

... damn thread on the different things that religious people believe in. THIS thread is about idiots who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Not anything else.

[mr blur]

16. OK, good idea. Thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Christians?

1. Christians don't believe in this shit.

2. Young earth creationism deserves to be made fun of.

[k_jerome]

30. there are some christians that do. nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. There are some Christians that are into holocaust denial.

Should I respect that belief too?

[k_jerome]

37. christians that hold to a...

literal account of Genesis are believers in the young earth "theory" as are some jews. we are discussing supernatural beliefs, not the holocaust. i know members within one denomination that differ on their views of young earth creationism.

do you respect christians at all? what is your view on the death of a "son of god" and his subsequent resurrection three days later? viable?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. do you respect christians at all?

Sure.

I also have no respect for morons of any particular religion or denomination. Young earth creationists certainly fit into that category.

"christians that hold to a... literal account of Genesis"

If the literal account of the Bible says that pi = 3, am I not supposed to mock that?

[k_jerome]

107. i have enough respect not to ridicule their superatural beliefs...

in a circle jerk on a message board that they do not read.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

116. You apparently don't respect their beliefs...

to keep from falsely alledging bias while starting an internet circle jerk.

[k_jerome]

118. a circle jerk takes more than one person...

its always more fun to mock and ridicule within the safety of numbers.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

120. Feeling outnumbered, Jerome?

"a circle jerk takes more than one person..."

Usually. Before today I've never seen a one man circle jerk. That must take practice.

[k_jerome]

124. of course i am outnumbered...

by those that mock christians here. i have been here a while. i'm outnumbered in my support for Clinton and my support of Israel as well. some people need the safety of numbers to espouse their views.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

126. So, when you mock Ahmadinejad for his views...

on holocaust denial...

That means you're mocking Islam, right?

[k_jerome]

130. is that his religious belief? nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. If it were would you respect it?

[k_jerome]

136. is that his religious belief? you actually should...

answer some questions once in a while, no?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

137. LOL.

I'm not the one dodging questions. I've already asked this one upthread before.

If holocaust denial was Ahmadinejad's religious belief, would you respect it?

[k_jerome]

139. is it a religious belief of his? nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

140. Would that make a difference to you?

Because it wouldn't to me.

[k_jerome]

142. it makes it relevant here. otherwise, start a thread on his...

views on holocaust denial. tie it to his religion if you like, and i promise to respond. of course you won't because muslim bashing is outside your comfort zone of mockery based on belief in a supreme being.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

143. "i promise to respond"

Why not respond here? It's entirely relevant. It'd only take a single sentence.

[k_jerome]

144. start a thread tying his religion to this statement and i will respond...

since it is irrelevant here, i will not. why not ridicule a new religion in another thread? is it too far reaching or not PC for the forum?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

145. You've spent a dozen posts dodging the question.

When you could have answered in a single post, and no need for a whole new thread.

Now, the way I see it, there'd be two possible answers to the question, "if Ahmadinejad's belief in holocaust denial were religious, would you respect it?"

They are:

A. No. (in which case you'd be contradicting everything you expressed upthread.)

or

B. Yes. (in which case you'd be respecting the belief in holocaust denial.)

There, I've whittled it down for you. All you have to do is respond with a single letter. Unless you think there's an alternative answer, in which case, I'd sure like to hear it.

[k_jerome]

147. no i have not...

i've seen you try to brow beat people with unrelated metaphors and hypotheticals before. i'm not playing. start the thread tying his religion to that statement and i will reply there.

you dodge the question repeatedly...why do you mock a small group of christians for their belief in a supreme being, yet deny your disdain for christians as a whole for their belief in a supreme being.

we can round and round.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

150. There's another one.

:rofl:

"start the thread tying his religion to that statement and i will reply there."

Your whole argument in this subthread is that if a belief, regardless of how demonstrably false, has a religious connotation, than it does not deserve to be ridiculed.

For example, Klan members believe in white supremacy. They tie that belief to passages in the Bible about the descendants of Noah and Ham.

According to your logic, I should respect that belief. I don't, and I don't think you do either. Do you?

"we can round and round."

No, Jerome, it's you painting yourself into a corner.

The easiest way out would be for you to just admit that it's OK to ridicule young earth creationism.

[k_jerome]

151. no, my whole argument is why..

ridicule people based on a nitpick supernatural belief and not just ridicule and mock the entire religion which is based on supernatural beliefs.

you are afraid to acknowledge your disdain for religion in general, and so limit it to a small group you have found it easy to mock and ridicule. an impressive trait.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

152. You haven't got an argument.

It's been utterly destroyed. Burnt to the ground. Pissed on a few times for fun.

"you are afraid to acknowledge your disdain for religion in general, and so limit it to a small group you have found it easy to mock and ridicule."

I think you're projecting. Btw, that's another post that dodges the question. How many are we up to now? I lost count.

:rofl:

[k_jerome]

153. destroyed by what? your prejudice?

i am not surprised, given other posts i have seen.

regardless, you are the one that mocked and ridiculed a group of people for their beliefs, deservedly so to your mind. what i am disappointed in is your fear to go all the way and say you think all religion deserves ridicule and mockery. probably waiting for someone to do it for you. i usually see you posting after a few others check the waters.

but keep pumping yourself up...as long as you have a belief that you are a scary hooligan, that is all that matters.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

154. There's another one!

:rofl:

My prejudice? Against, what? Pseudoscience?

"regardless, you are the one that mocked and ridiculed a group of people for their beliefs, deservedly so to your mind."

Yeah, see, you keep saying this, but nobody's buying it. Who are you trying to kid?

Maybe you're compensating for your horrible Irritable Bowel Syndrome problem. Which you have, you just don't want to admit. Why is it you don't want to admit you have IBS, Jerome? What are you afraid of?

[k_jerome]

155. i got an idea, destroyer...i'll start the thread...then you can follow in.

some people gotta wait for a lead.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

157. destroyer?

Boy, that's off on a tangent.

Btw, that's another post.

[k_jerome]

158. your a destroyer dude. thats a cool name, like Conan. nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

160. That's deep, Jerome.

You're still dodging though.

[k_jerome]

162. no, not taking your brow beating...

it seems to work for others that you try to swerve off topic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

163. It's your topic Jerome.

i.e. any belief's OK if it's a religious belief.

Still dodging, btw.

[k_jerome]

165. no, you can go back and see my original questions...

which had to do with mockery for supernatural beliefs, destroyer. not holocaust denial, or anything else. supernatural beliefs.

and if you look in the thread i started on your off topic, i answered your question. if its not an answer you like, then too bad. see, if you would have started the thread....start the thread man, screw the fear...channel the hooligan.

you destroyer you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

167. So your answer is then, A, huh?

:rofl:

[k_jerome]

168. my answer is what i gave...

and your answer regarding disdain of religion is....?

if someone else typed it would you respond? is that what you're waiting for?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

169. My answer?

Same as yours.

[k_jerome]

170. you hooligan, you

just look through the thread...i am sure someone else typed it. just say "me too" there.

go 'head with your destroyin' self.

[Crunchy Frog]

182. OMG! It's Jerome again?

I was wondering who was causing all the fuss in this thread. I should have been able to guess. :rofl:

Thank *GOD* for the ignore function.:P

[Lautremont]

72. The young earth thing has mountains of observable scientific

evidence contradicting it, and so is an obvious and deserving target of mockery.

General belief in a higher power doesn't, because God, Allah or whoever floats well above the range of scientific detection, or so they tell us. As ridiculous as the stories may be, it takes more than a few choice words to demolish them. As brevity is the soul of wit, the mockery required doesn't fit as well into a few sentences on a message board.

I realize of course that you know all this and are just feigning ignorance for the sake of discussion, so sorry if I sound pedantic.

[Meshuga]

193. No Jews

Not even the ultra orthodox take the creation in genesis as literal.

Unless they are ignorant of torah like, for instance, like Jews who never learned much about Judaism and think it's like christianity.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. Eh. If you want to peddle crap like a 6,000 year old Earth off as "science"

your beliefs don't get immunity from challenges, much less ridicule.

And last time I checked, the National Park Service was under strict orders not to discuss the geologic age of the Grand Canyon, to avoid upsetting these pinheads. While they simultaneously sell a book in the park bookstore that says the grand canyon was created by "Noah's Flood".

Yes, all across the land these anti-science whackjobs are trying to massively fuck up the education of our kids in public schools, yet we're supposed to play "hands off" with their belief system. I call bullshit. You know what? When Muslims believe whacked out things, like all gays or unbelievers need to be put to death, I call them on it. When Fundy Christians believe that God wants them to outlaw the birth control pill, I call them on it.

When people believe ridiculous fairy tales about the Earth Being 6,000 years old, and Dinosaurs being on "Noah's Ark", and try to peddle it as "science", fuck yes I'm going to call them on it. And I'm sorry if that contributes to the burden of the poor, put upon, oppressed Xtian majority in this country. Tough fucking cookie.

But thanks anyway, Mr. Net Nanny.

[hyphenate]

156. If you have been around for awhile

You will notice that most of us have great respect for Christians outside of the looneytoons Fundies who don't, in any way, represent true belief in the deity. The fundamentalists are louder and far more abrasive than any true Christian, and their beliefs contradict everything that the real historical figure of Jesus Christ stood for. We're talking people who would deny everyone else their right to worship as they will, who inject more politics into their canon than anything even resembling reality, and who are more than happy to have elected a president who will help bring their "sacred" rapture and apocalypse raining down on all of our heads. My ex best friend rejected her entire education to pursue some idiotic and scurrilous application of her new fundie beliefs, and pretty much abandoned all reason at the same time.

The radical religious right does not respect anyone, so why should we respect them? I have the upmost regard for people who keep their beliefs and don't offend others--that is what I've tried to do in my own life. But I refuse to stop making fun of a group that doesn't have anyone else's best intents in mind. They are nothing but selfish, incoherent bigots who would stick a shiv in you if you turned your back to them.

[goodboy]

184. Did you even read my original post? (nt)

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. That is a beautiful picture

One of the more awesome sights outside our galaxy. An even more interesting question would be to ask about this photo from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field exposure.



(Click here for a much larger view.)

Each of those fuzzy spots is a galaxy at least as big as M104 and much, MUCH farther away.

[madinmaryland]

13. God painted that star that color!

Don't try and tell us anything else! :sarcasm:

[Wizard777]

23. 6,000 years by which calender?

If I remember correctly that's 6,000 heavenly years and 1 day in heaven is equal to 10,000 earth years. They're not talking 6,000 Gergorian years. Which would actually be 6,001 years. No year 0 sperating 1 BC and 1 AD. But I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. So there is a very good possibility thsis event will occur again.

[cynatnite]

26. Oh, that's pretty...did you draw that yourself?

Well, that's what my fundie mother would say.

[racaulk]

32. God put it there to make you ask questions. Duh! n/t

:sarcasm:

[Bandit]

43. If you really want to blow their minds just ask them to explain pi and it's uses.

To them a theory means it's all imaginary, like gravity or atomic principle....There is no gravity...the earth sucks...

[piedmont]

47. Good question, but if you really want a YEC to play with you should look elsewhere

Not too many of 'em on this board, I think. And they sure as heck wouldn't take the bait anyway.

[atre]

50. Not a YEC, but I don't understand the imputation

A "light year" measures distance, not time.

[Rabrrrrrr]

67. It is a distance, but it also measures time.

Something that's fifteen billion light years away means that light has been traveling from it for fifteen billion years, and thus one is looking fifteen billion years into the past.

[hyphenate]

175. You know

I've tried that argument on some of these idiots (light years=years it takes to receive the light from that distance) and they once again tie it in to the Devil trying, as usual, to "test" them.

The thing that I don't get is why these people feel so superior when the simplicity of Occam's Razor would free them from such ludicrous beliefs. The way they twist things to fit their beliefs instead of allowing for the truth of science makes them ripe for mockery, and justifiably so.

[Rabrrrrrr]

195. Bill Hicks said it well - "Do you really think that God wants to fuck with us?"

He was ranting about the people who say that fossils were put in the earth by God to test our faith, but it equally applies to the people who have to believe that the universe was created 6,000 years ago but only made to look 15 billion years old, and that all the photons were seeing from that long ago were created mid-journey. Well, not mid-journey: damned fucking close to the earth in comparison.

I can only shake my head at them, and wonder what kind of god they worship that would feel the need to fuck with us that much. That sure isn't the god mentioned in the Bible.


"I am the all-loving God of salvation - but, so help me, I can't help but fuck with you people in ridiculous tests, because I what I love is not you: what I love is sending you to hell!"

:eyes:

I don't understand them at all.

[Quantess]

66. Those stars and planets are actually much closer.

The galaxy is closer to 50,000,000 feet from end to end. Not sure where the scientist came up with their measurements, but they're wrong. Satan, the great deceiver, has tricked the godless believers of science.

That's how Young Earth Creationists might answer.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. God I Love Astronomy. What A Beautiful Picture!

[SoCalDem]

123. jesus threw the frisbee a bit too far?

[hfojvt]

127. Would you believe this was answered for me by a guy

who flunked his college physics classes?

The only thing required to make something visible is a beam of light. Thus when you creat the universe, you create this object X and also create, at the same time, a beam of light between that object and the earth, like so
X------------------------------------------------------E

Obviously if God can create X and the Earth, he can put that beam of light in there at the same time. Why would He/she do so?
The answer to that is right in the book of Genesis. 1: 14 to be precise.
"And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and LET THEM SERVE AS SIGNS..."

But whether we know why or not, the fact is that the visibility of this object does not prove the age of the universe. Feel free to try again, if this is an important issue to you. Like, far more important than the thread about poverty which is on page 3 of GD.

[CATagious]

174. I do not doubt that he flunked his physics course. nm

[piedmont]

180. Yes, I would believe it.

:rofl:

[EstimatedProphet]

134. Stars are just pinholes in the fabric of night

[WindRavenX]

141. this thread = hillarious

That is all.

[slackmaster]

171. The speed of light is different in different places at different times

God can do whatever He wants.

;-)

[Nikia]

183. There is no such thing at time. Everything is happening at this moment

Probably most Christian Creationist wouldn't subscribe to that point of view. Christian thought generally subscribes to a time linear view point. Not all points of view believe this though.
I read a book by a physicist about this point of view in the posts title. I did not quite understand his arguement.

[cain_7777]

194. Your intellectualism allows you to be duped by Satan's trickery

All you ever have to know in life is Gawdidit