Re: Hey Creationists! Have your cake and eat it too
To a evolutionist,....
I'm an "evolutionist" in the sense that I have accepted the Theory of Evolution. I am not stupid enough to think that poor little me, with no education in Biology, knows enough to tell that all those hundreds of thousands of biologists are all wrong. The same with calling me an "atomist" because I accepted the Atom Theory. I am not stupid enough to think that poor little me, with very, very little education in Physics, knows enough to tell that all those hundreds of thousands of Physicists are all wrong.
... saying that the earth is only 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous to those with this seemingly scientific mindset.
No, saying the earth is 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous because ALL the scientific evidence we have indicate that the earth is way older than that.
They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory"...
Untrue. I would accept a "new earth theory (whatever that is)", if all the evidence we have indicate a "new earth (whatever that is)".
... or ex nihilo creationism, which defies laws of thermodynamics.
I didn't have the laws of thermodynamics in mind when I accepted that the earth is much, much more than 5000-6000 years old. I used all the available physical evidence to get to an educated conclusion about the age of the earth.
Let me give you a little advice: making false statements about what other people (who you don't even know) will or won't do doesn't make you a bridgebuilder. I can think of more unpleasant , but very accurate terms in describing people who attempt that.
I do not disagree with all the principles of biology and physics either. At the same time, I do not accept everything Darwin said as the 'gospel'. Nor do I reject all of his tenets.
This is where you make a huge mistake. Darwin is not taken as “gospel” by scientists. In fact, his ideas have been and still are thoroughly tested by thousands of scientists all over the world. Some of his ideas have actually been found wrong. Furthermore, his theory has been altered as new evidence came along. This certainly doesn’t sound as if it is taken as “gospel”.
My understanding of the 'new earth theory' is that it is a concept that some fundamental Christians adhere to. Which means the earth was 'created' during the chronology of the Genesis account, therefore, it cannot be older than 5000-6000 years old. My op was addressed to those who accept this as the only possibility and reject any scientific evidence that shows otherwise.
That is called Young Earth Creationism.
I had the fundamentalists' idea of ex nihilo creation in mind when I made that statement. I do not believe that something can be created out of nothing, but I should have articulated my thoughts better.
You see, bridgebuilder, science does not work on beliefs. It works on evidence. If it can be demonstrated by physical evidence that something can or could be created out of nothing, it would be accepted. Regardless of what beliefs are.
It was not my intention to make false statements about anyone, known or unknown to me. I am making a personal bridge for me to cross, and whether others follow, well, that is their prerogative. However, that was good, sound advice. Making false statements, the usage of ad hominids, straw-man arguments, red herrings, or etc., etc., will not advance the truth no matter which side of the fence we are on.
Thanks for this and please stay on this forum.
Some people want to learn new things. From my experience here, it seems as if the majority of people are here to learn. I’ve learned a lot since coming to this forum. My knowledge on biology and physics, for example, started from basically non-existent to knowing a little bit. The teachers were experts on that subject and shared their knowledge for free on this forum. Taking courses on those subjects would have cost me a lot of money.
The way to learn and also to teach your knowledge to other people is to avoid false statements, ad hominims, straw-man arguments, red herrings, etc. People who deliberately do those things loose respect very quickly.
I understand that the natural world is easier to study because the scientific method can be readily applied to discover new data.
How can you say this? I think it is the exact opposite, because in science you have to demonstrate your discoveries. These demonstrations and discoveries are thoroughly investigated. It's the best way we've discovered so far to get to an objective consensus about a subject. And it works: evidenced by things like the two of us are communicating via the internet.
That's much more difficult than making claims as done by people who "study" the supernatural, where claims can't even be investigated at all.
People making supernatural claims can say anything. That's why there's so many religions and so my varieties of each religion. In Christianity, for example, there's more than 38 000 different varieties of them; anybody can make any claim. And none of these claims can be objectively investigated.
Nothing is easier than making a claim. Getting your claims objectively investigated, accepted and demonstrated to work is much, much more difficult.
How in the hell can a theory defy evidence? Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
If a guy called Kosie Petoorsie, who doesn't even exist, is accused (and then found guilty) of the murder of Pres. Barak Obama on the 1st of April 2012, it is crap. It's not in the eye of the beholder. It's just crap.
Kosie Petoorsie doesn't exist and Pres. Obama wasn't killed on the first of April, 2012. To accuse a non-existing person of a murder that didn't happen certainly is not "in the eye of the beholder". It's just crap.