(sound familiar?)
Yes it sounds like the same fake argument the anti-vaxxers make
"oh big pharma is trying to suppress us"
No, you are just experiencing pushback because its a dumb idea.
YEC is easily disprovable with no faith required.
An author "addressing" radio-isotope dating is insufficient, and is largely a god of the gaps argument.
Are you really satisfied with an almighty that has to hide in between the demonstrable explanations?
Why would you choose that when God just as easily could have created the very elements required for radiological dating?
It doesn’t matter if is ‘immaterial’.
That's exactly what immaterial means. For someone making such a big stink about ignorance you should know this.
My point is that you are ignorant of hermeneutics
nope, I am trivially incorrect about hermeneutics.
Literally by your own admission my error is meaningless. The only thing if affects is my specific knowledge of hermeneutics, which isn't important in the slightest.
And you willingly admitted that I drew the correct conclusions even with these "errors". So what do they matter?
but nothing you say can ever change the fact that you said things that were simply wrong.
I'm not simply wrong tho. I'm trivially wrong. You have to seize on a detail that is totally irrelevant to the discussion and try to make it the entire discussion or you have nothing. And you know it which is why you are so desperate to make the argument about some pedantic minuscule part of hermanuetics.
Hows this for a startling example of ignorance.
I know a person who has dedicated a substantial amount of time to the study of the methodology and interpretation of biblical texts but somehow missed the part about "love thy neighbor" and "judge not lest ye be judged"
Because it has nothing to do with the errors I mentioned previously, all of which are directly tied to my original comment pointing out that you didn’t even know what language the bible was originally written in.
Which is immaterial, as the point I was making is "it wasn't english"
You even agreed explicitly.
Moreso, you directly confirmed that the conclusions I was drawing from my wide strokes was totally correct.
It doesn't matter if the original language was Klingon for all the difference it makes to my argument.
Why have you spent so much time studying the bible and religion if you care about facts rather than faith?
It seems like a huge waste of time to spend so much effort learning something like that just to ignore the central teachings of christ.
It doesn’t matter whether something is related to some other point or not. It doesn’t change its correctness.
You agreed I was right.
You agreed the conclusions I drew were correct
Why do you think this is immaterial?
The sky is blue. That is my point. Now I can say whatever other bullshit because my point is correct, yes?
We both know this is a straw man.
I'm not making an unrelated point.
You even explicitly agreed that the bible was not literally the word of god and is a human creation by the church, and following from such that it cannot be used to disprove an Old Earth.
but I don’t care about how you feel. I care about facts.
Really odd that you would invest this much effort into theology if you care about facts.
I am, as a peer, reviewing you, and you’ve done an abysmal job.
That's a really strange conclusion to draw from explicitly agreeing that my point was correct.
I don’t particularly care who’s being judgemental about what.
Then why are you invested in the bible at all?
just as a curiosity?
I don’t want misinformation to spread.
Its a good thing you vindicated my point and proved me right then.
I’m actually not surprised you don’t understand something as simple as peer review.
So have you just decided to be wrong now?
I literally appealed to peer review as one of the main strengths of science.
When was the last time the bible received an update due to peer review? 500 years ago? 1000? more?
Reiterating a shitty argument doesn’t make it any better.
You explicitly agreed on that point.
Church made the bible, not god. Its a fallible human attempt to capture divine truth.
Your capacity of self-awareness appears to be quite limited.
For someone who is so invested in Christianity you are sure doing a great job of missing the point.
Care to tell me where it says "Judge thy neighbor harshly for minor nitpicks even when the point they are making is right"?
It doesn't say that anywhere in the bible? weird.
Why are you acting like that then?
You explicitly agreed that those "minor fallacies and misconceptions" are immaterial to the point I was making and that I was still right.
So great job, You have managed to directly contradict Christ's teaching on judgement.
You stating that the existence of four separate gospels indicates that they are not the Word of God.
Yeah, they are the word of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Who If you hadn't noticed, are humans.
Literally the reason for having 4 different tellings of the same story is because human retelling of divine truths is imperfect.
Of course it is nonsense to use the bible to refute OEC.
Then you agree with me, pretty explicitly.
purpose of my remarks was to point out how stupid you are when it comes to biblical history and theology
Well proving me correct seems a rather poor way to go about that.
and that you should recuse yourself from such discussions until you educate yourself.
Why?
Literally by your own admission, my point and the conclusions I drew from what I know is correct.
I went thru a few of those, and I'm not sure it is.
FACT: Former CDC Director & current Merck VP Dr. Julie Gerberding has admitted that vaccines may cause autism in certain children.
This is not supported by the youtube video.
What she says is, it may cause symptoms to appear in children who already have mitochondrial disorders.
This is not "causing autism".
FACT: The WHO admits that vaccines have caused polio outbreaks in India.
This is because the WHO is, somewhat questionably, intentionally giving out transmissible versions of the polio vaccine in places like sudan and india where they can't effectively get to everyone.
Its not causing full blown polio, but in the most technical sense it is a polio outbreak. and it is morally questionable.
The U.S. Government's top expert witness, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, has admitted that vaccines may cause autism in certain children.
Why doesn't this source include a Dr. Andrew Zimmerman actually saying this?
Why is it three other people Ive never heard of telling us that's what he said?
FACT: Hannah Poling's parents were awarded $1.5 million by the federal government, after they admitted that a vaccine may have caused her autism.
if "caused her autisim" means "triggered symptoms of a mitochondrial defect she already had". Sure. This is exactly the same thing the former CDC director is talking about ,likely even the same case.
Vaccines are not.
If you happen to have a preexisting mitochondrial disorder, confirmed by the sources.
Most people don't, and anyone can request a screening for mitochondrial disease before consenting to vaccines.
Vaccines have effectively removed the threat of so many serious diseases that we are incapable of understanding what a world without them would be like.
Take note: Vaccines as a concept and a methodology being a good thing says nothing about the veracity of individual vaccines. Ones that have been rushed through testing for political reasons are far more likely to have serious negative side effects than those which clear the standard tests.
The age of the (observable) universe is ipso facto observable, however that doesn’t preclude the possibility that the universe was created old in the first place.
It does if there is no evidence the universe was created old.
To argue otherwise is a Russel's teapot argument, and as such can be discarded out of hand.
After all, it would be impossible for humans to live in a universe that appears young.
Why?
If you are accepting that the laws of physics would prevent human life in such a universe, why then would the laws of physics be ignored when convenient for your explanation?
This is a god of the gaps argument.
If you are content to have such a small and meager god, feel free to believe in young earth creationism.
The [theological] consensus is that it is not an important question.
And yet the scientific consensus is that the earth is old.
You can verify their findings yourself, no faith required. That's the beauty of science.
The existence and preservability of oral tradition is well-known
Yes, its very well known as the least reliable method of passing knowledge from one generation to the next.
Oral histories can change dramatically even within a single generation.
but it’s in fact the Church that created the bible, and as all things the Church creates, being made of humans, has the mark of human flaws.
So then you agree with me that its nonsense to use the flawed human creation that is the bible as a refutation of an old earth.
You don't seem to be understanding what faith is
You don't seem to either.
You've built a whole world view based on these theories.
By proving them. No faith required.
I didn't just read them in a book and accept them as wrote.
Theories again, which change constantly
The fact that you keep appealing to this as a negative is irrefutable proof you don't understand what science is.
Most of the words you're using never even existed prior to this century.
Bullshit? also, that doesn't have anything to do with the veracity of my statement
This is a hopeless argument
Yes, I agree you are hopelessly confused and incorrect.
Science, unlike blind faith, admits when its wrong and changes.
That's the entire point of the scientific method.
I already gave multiple reasons and proposed that mechanism
Your proposed mechanism is the very mechanism that allows carbon dating to function. Not exactly a rebuttal.
The carbon-14 contained in their bodies would be removed from the natural carbon cycle, altering that balance.
This is the exact mechanism by which carbon dating functions.
After dying, the organism is removed from the carbon cycle so they are not taking new carbon into their body. The only carbon 14 they have is that which they had while they were part of the cycle.
Your argument here makes no sense, and demonstrates serious ignorance of how radiological dating is performed.
I'm not sure why being aware of scientific theories requires my acceptance of them
You said you understood them not just that you were aware of them.
But you seem to be demonstrating a distinct lack of how the process actually works instead focusing on weird "gotchas" that aren't actually gotchas, its just you running into problems with your misunderstanding.
We still have the original untranslated copies in their native languages
Written by humans from oral histories over 50~100 years after Christ.
and it's even more arrogant to assume our Creator doesn't have the ability to directly interact with his creation
Yeah I agree, its pretty fucking arrogant to think that god didn't or couldn't create the big bang and atoms and evolution and even radiological dating.
but prophecy fulfilled proves it truly is the Word of God.
Except it doesn't? This is entirely a faith based position. Unlike science.
The Great Flood waters receding and the layers of rock settling over time is an alternative explanation for the presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils at the top of Mount Everest, and is a better explanation of the presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils on the top of Mt. Kosciuszko, as there was no collision of the continents there.
Except the evidence for a great flood that would have reached as high as Everest simply isn't there.
multiple great flood events can be found in human history and none of them could explain the seashells and limestone on those particular mountains.
Most copies of biblical texts did not exist as written word, but were memorized orally.
Because oral history is known for its unfailing accuracy.
Oh wait, exactly the opposite.
The ability to memorize entire works orally is not something that exists today,
This is just bullshit.
There is no evidence that humans today are any better or worse at memorizing than humans 2000 years ago.
but I don’t understand how it being a collection of works rather than a single book precludes it from being divinely inspired.
It doesn't stop it from being divinely inspired.
It does however directly prevent it from being the infallible word of God. The belief entailed in transliteration.
It is very much a flawed human work, and as such contains human flaws and errors.
To use it to contradict observable material facts is arrogance and denial of reality.
How about actually reading and replying to my post?
Talking to an imaginary enemy like this makes you look very young and very mad.
You're being disingenuous.
You don't know what disingenuous means.
This is the more than the third time you have falsely judged me a liar, you must be a really devout christian.
If I take 2 jelly beans, and I add 2 more jelly beans, I have 4 jelly beans right?
If and only if we accept axioms that define concepts like "one" and "add" and "equals".
These are not provable things.
Math does not follow the scientific method. It follows self-consistent logical rules that require you accept starting axioms which are unfalsifiable.
2 + 2 = 4, this can be proven
It can't actually.
Math isn't science. It's something else entirely.
You can prove 2+2=4 if and only if we agree certain first principles are true, these principles are called axioms and they cannot be proven or disproved.
Uraniuam 238 turns into lead through a chain of several decay products", I've never claimed this can't be tested and proven. Do you understand that?
Do you understand admitting that this can be tested an proven is admitted radiological dating works?
You've tested and proven it, great, now how does this tell you how old the earth is?
Because the ratio of uranium to lead will indicate exactly the age of that rock.
This is provable by the invariant nature of radioactive decay, and the chain of decay products from uranim to lead.
In 50 years that will be off by a couple billion years guaranteed.
What are you even trying to say?
Did you just give up on trying to make a coherent point?
Of course science is going to change it's answer as more complete information becomes available. That's a fundamental part of the scientific method.
I linked a Wikipedia article on it, but if you want to get into the meat of it, Uranium 238 turns into lead thru a chain of several decay products.
This again, is something that can be empirically tested and proven. No faith required.
The rate at which radioactive decay occurs is known to be invariant.
You can also test this directly with many fast radioisotopes. No faith required.
You’re assuming scientists have a special trait that makes them more humble than anyone else.
Not even a little.
I'm assuming scientists follow the scientific method, which you fundamentally can't be a scientist if you don't.
So it doesn’t surprise me that someone who has no understanding of the sourcing of the bible would also lack the understanding of the historical reasons for why four gospels were written in the first place.
So you gonna opine on what exactly those reasons are, or you content to just judge me as wrong?
What is this ‘wide spread “original”’ you speak of?
So you admit the bible isn't even a single work, but an amalgam of different human authors, and somehow this makes it less fallible and human?
Ok buddy.
You have a very deep ignorance of the history of the bible and it’s translations.
there literally isn't enough information in this thread for you to make that determination, you are just being a judgemental asshole.
Even more, being written in greek before being translated into latin strengthens my point.
Even the most widely spread "original" that came with the catholic church, and which all protestant English Bibles are based on, was a human translation with all the human errors associated with that.
If the Great Flood altered the Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratio in the atmosphere, Pre-Flood dates would have to be discarded.
This is an enormous glaring if.
You are making a god of the gaps argument, I don't buy it.
Do you have any reason to suggest the great flood would affect nuclear decay rates? Or even a proposed mechanism how a flood could affect carbon-14/12 in the atmosphere?
I'm well aware of plate tectonics as well as endogenous retroviruses and every other argument for evolution and the age of the Earth.
Then where does your lack of satisfaction with seashells on everest come from?
Yashua (AKA Jesus Christ) was the Son of God and died for all of our sins.
This doesn't require the earth be 6000 years old.
I think it's rather arrogant to believe that god's plan could have been understood perfectly 2000 years ago by mortals, and somehow survived uncorrupted through multiple translations.
Moreso, the 7 days of creation seem to line up rather well with phases of the big bang.
Like I said, you aren't tho.
What you are doing is pedantry because, let me reiterate, "where I was wrong" isn't material by your own admission.
It really should be, its what separates a wise man from a pedant.
You have openly admitted that the detail I'm "wrong" on is trivial. It doesn't matter at all.
Why would I care about it? Why would anyone care about it?
The point is the bible is a flawed human work created by humans. Knowing the specific order of translations and adaptations is about as important as knowing how many languages Dianetics has been released in.