If God is real and created the Earth then young earthers are wrong to deny the evidence of what the creation shows: an ancient Earth. [Spirituality & Religion]

@Pikachu @Bushranger [quote]Why am I not surprised.[/quote]

4Do not answer a foolish skeptic according to his folly, lest you also be like him.

@GodSpeed63

[quote][i]Answer [/i]a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes
Proverbs 26:5
[/quote]

Go on, smart guy. Don't let me be wise in my own eyes. No more excuses. PUT up or SHUT up.
What's the matter? This should be SO easy for you to do😢

@Pikachu only if he could both, find the evidence necessary and think for himself.

@Sharon

They're wrong to interpret Genesis as a literal account of creation.
It's absurd because all the evidence shows clearly that the earth is old and that organisms evolved. 🤷‍♀️

@Pikachu I know. The Genesis account is a nice fairy story for children but should never be taken seriously.

@Sharon

Well even if one believes that god is real and created the universe, it's silly to ignore what the world shows us in favour of a preferred interpretation of the bible.

@Carazaa



Yes i'm well aware that there are people and sometimes even scientist (often in from a different field) who make certain claims.
Basically what these people can do is sound convincing to layman like you and me but when they're challenged by actual geologists their specious arguments are exposed for what they are.

Do you want me to post article after article after study for reasons we know the earth is old?
Do you want me to link you to literal hours of people telling you exactly why claims like the grand canyon was formed rapidly after a flood or that polystrate fossils are a problem or that ancient ocean beds on mountains can't be explained are so, SO wrong?
I can do that if you want.

[quote]Evidence for a Flood[/quote]

Um...did you read that article? It's saying there's evidence of a [i]local[/i] flood, not a global one and it's giving you dates like 20,000 years and five million years.
Surprise, real scientists are describing an old earth to you!

You're not being logical about this.
Try thinking about it logically:

You have a position you hold on faith which you have decided is true. You then proceed to gather the scraps of evidence which you feel support your position and throw out that MASSIVE bulk of the evidence from around the world.

Allow me to perhaps give you a new perspective on what you're doing here.

I read the bible and i interpret it to be saying that the earth is the center of the cosmos ([i]1 Chronicles 16:30: He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.[/i]) with a literal dome above it ([i]Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so[/i]) and is indeed flat ([i]Isaiah 40:22 It is he who sits above the circle [not sphere] of the earth[/i]).

I have made up my mind that god's word says that the earth is indeed flat and so i disregard the MASSIVE bulk of the evidence from around the world and cling to the very few people (often religiously motivated) who contest the shape of the earth.
I say "well the globe is just one interpretation of the evidence". I say "You can't trust the interpretations of these scientists because they don't want to believe in god". I say "Look at all these sciency sounding reasons and anomalies which prove the earth is flat!"
And so on and so forth.

That's what it looks like to me when you post links to your creation apologetic websites and deny evolution and an old earth.

But virtually all scientists agree for very good reasons that the earth is not flat.
Similarly, virtually all scientists agree for very good reasons that the earth is old and evolution occurred.

If god made his creation so that we would RECOGNIZE it then it is what it appears to be: Old and Evolved.
Simple as that.

@Pikachu I am just saying that some scientists interpret their findings their way as "conclusive" and most people who aren't very analytical think it is truth, when it clearly isn't it is just a guess.

@Carazaa

[i]Some [/i]scientists?
Nah, let's not be dishonest here. The massive, overwhelming majority of scientists both secular and religious find the evidence to be conclusive for an old earth, evolution....and a globe earth.

And you want to characterize that as a guess lol.
I wonder why you're not nearly so *ahem* analytical when it comes to accepting as truth some of the claims made by your creationist peeps.

Like when you accept blindly that there are fossil shellfish on mountains because of a global flood. There's no way you actually looked into the arguments on both sides for that.

@SW-User

But it requires them to deny the evidence of the real world, evidence which is agreed upon by the vast majority of scientists from many different fields of study.

@Pikachu Yes it would but I doubt that would matter

@Qwerty14 😎

@Qwerty14 Definitely one of his best but they're all good.

@Pikachu We can simply call the initial quantum singularity "God".

@Sharon

To me a god has to actually be a sentient being with agency.

@Pikachu Fair comment. It was just an off the cuff suggestion.