Because its against God but they do not want to think about that
How does knowledge of a several thousand year earth help us?
Sort:
Jun 13, 2019
0
#23
trump2020maga1 wrote:
Because its against God but they do not want to think about that
You don't eat meat because it's against God?
Elroch wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:
Because its against God but they do not want to think about that
You don't eat meat because it's against God?
Incorrect.
Jun 13, 2019
0
#25
ok, just a misunderstanding. I thought you were against humans killing other animals.
Jun 13, 2019
0
#26
trump2020maga1 wrote:
If people think there is no God and they got here from random change then they might do anything. Anything that makes them happy, anything that makes sense(destroy inferior races so we can evolv faster), and what ever benefits them the most.
Evolution is very bad for society
And the force of gravity can be very bad too, so perhaps we should reconsider if there is such a thing?
States of affairs in our Universe are indifferent to the wellbeing of any sentient creature. The only thing necessary is for natural processes to facilitate the beginning of life & it's slow development & change, so that we see the diversity of living forms that we do.
Claiming that purposeless creation cannot be the explanation because you dislike some if its consequences, makes no more sense than saying gravity cannot be because you dislike some if its consequences!
Jun 13, 2019
0
#27
LhcAndrewB wrote:
Survival of the Fittest...
If killing someone to make it easier to survive, why would it be wrong to?
Are there not examples of the ancient Israelites doing exactly that & apparently with the blessing of their 'God'?
Why do you think it's wrong to kill a person, in order to take something you want for example?
Jun 13, 2019
0
#28
trump2020maga1 wrote:
Because its against God but they do not want to think about that
What does that even mean? This has been gone over many times - the Old Testament has examples of 'God' sanctioned murder except Evangelicals refuse to call it that because of course anything 'God' sanctions must be moral. It's complete chop-logic!
Jun 13, 2019
0
#29
People who have no belief in any god(s) are quite capable of forming ethical systems of judgment & behaviour. You may question how that arises but there's no principle or law that says it has to come from some divine source.
stephen_33 wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:
If people think there is no God and they got here from random change then they might do anything. Anything that makes them happy, anything that makes sense(destroy inferior races so we can evolv faster), and what ever benefits them the most.
Evolution is very bad for society
And the force of gravity can be very bad too, so perhaps we should reconsider if there is such a thing?
States of affairs in our Universe are indifferent to the wellbeing of any sentient creature. The only thing necessary is for natural processes to facilitate the beginning of life & it's slow development & change, so that we see the diversity of living forms that we do.
Claiming that purposeless creation cannot be the explanation because you dislike some if its consequences, makes no more sense than saying gravity cannot be because you dislike some if its consequences!
True, but look at the title of the forum. Just because something is bad does not mean it is incorrect. Even tho it is in this case
Jun 13, 2019
0
#31
Belief in a young Earth is definitely wrong, but I am not sure what "bad" means in this context. The title of this forum is ironic.
Jun 14, 2019
0
#32
trump2020maga1 wrote:
... look at the title of the forum. Just because something is bad does not mean it is incorrect. Even tho it is in this case
I haven't a clue what that means. The topic title reads:-
"How does knowledge of a several thousand year earth help us?"
In what way that can be described as 'bad'? I very strongly believe it's incorrect (by a few thousand million years) but that doesn't mean it's bad in any way. The evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth is some 4.6 billion years old is extremely difficult to refute!
Jun 14, 2019
0
#33
I suppose the OP did mean "merely several thousand years" (the YEC viewpoint) rather than "at least several thousand years"? We could all agree on the latter, useless as that would be!
Jun 14, 2019
0
#34
What the OP (started by PyriteDragon) states & what it's supposed to mean are two different things I think?
How does knowledge of a several thousand year earth help us?
(#1) "For people who believe that the earth is several thousand years old, I would like to hear your thoughts. Do you think that knowledge of a several thousand year old earth has led us to innovations or other advancements in society? If so, how?"
The language used is quite ambiguous. Surely 'knowledge' refers to what is understood about factual matters? In what way can the fanciful notion that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old ever be accepted as a matter of fact?
Jun 14, 2019
0
#35
It was clearly written in a way that would make sense to someone it was aimed at, because they believe it is "knowledge". It is not aimed at you and me.
Elroch wrote:
It was clearly written in a way that would make sense to someone it was aimed at, because they believe it is "knowledge". It is not aimed at you and me.
You are correct.
Jun 14, 2019
0
#37
Yes, I appreciate that but I was questioning whether that's a correct use of the term knowledge.
Is it reasonable to say that in the Middle Ages most people shared the 'knowledge' that the Sun orbits the Earth?
Maybe it's just the way I use the word because having looked at a few definitions, knowledge is described as awareness of facts but also of descriptions.
Knowledge about the age of the earth, approximately 4.5 billion years old, has opened up a lot of avenues in the scientific world. Much of physics depends on the assumptions about the age of the earth, and have caused people to come up with novel theories. Knowledge about a 4.5 billion year old earth has helped geologists understand the world. In biology, often information about life cannot be separated from a 4.5 billion year old earth estimate. Core parts of biology would not make sense if the earth was only several thousand years old. A 4.5 billion year old earth estimate and molecular biology are so intertwined that separating them would cause most of it to not make sense. From molecular biology, medical researchers have come up with medical advances that have transformed modern medicine.
I asked my question in my original post, because I wanted to see if any creationist could come up with anything that rivals with the innovations that non-creationists have made. As I expected, no one really came up with a groundbreaking answer. All I can think when it comes creationism helping people is the comfort that we all came from somewhere, but science can do that same thing.
Jun 15, 2019
0
#39
It is worth repeating what professional Biologists sometimes say: Without Evolution nothing in Biology would make any sense.
Survival of the Fittest...
If killing someone to make it easier to survive, why would it be wrong to?