Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed May 25, 2016 11:42 pm

<< Week of May 25, 2016 >>
Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday
25 Day Month

26 Day Month

27 Day Month

28 Day Month

29 Day Month

30 Day Month

31 Day Month





Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 594 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 40  Next
Young Earth Creation theory put to rest! 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Devoted Member


Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 95
Location: New Hampshire
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 12 times in 12 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Robert said: "It is extremely scary."

indeed. and no amount of documented and irrefutable evidence is going to change their mind.


_________________
"Reason is the enemy of faith." -- Martin Luther

Reason can be found at the home of the Atheist Camel: http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/


The following user would like to thank Bart for this post:
johnson1010
Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:14 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Vacuums Around Book Piles

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3935
Location: NC
Thanks: 1505
Thanked: 1592 times in 1210 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Robert Tulip wrote:
This YEC doctrine is entirely wrong, idolatrous, blasphemous, unbiblical and evil.


Don't forget ignorant. That's what bothers me the most, that a relatively large segment of the population can be so ignorant, either due to lack of education or to willful stupidity.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:50 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4836
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
tat tvam asi wrote:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html#ceg1tZ8H3VSr
Quote:
Day 4

Many people believe that the text about day 4 says that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day. This is not what the text actually says, so let's read it again.

•Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; (Genesis 1:14)
•and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:15)
•And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. (Genesis 1:16)
•And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, (Genesis 1:17)
•and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:18)
How can a day be longer than 24-hours?
Even though the Genesis text clearly indicates that the days are longer than 24-hours, some Christians insist that any interpretation of Genesis 1 that deviates from 24-hour days is not literal. The problem is that the Hebrew word yom17 has three literal definitions - 12 hour daylight period, 24 period of time, or a long, but indefinite period of time. A careful reading of the Genesis creation account reveals that the 24-hour interpretation is ruled out by the actual Genesis text. The first definitive example of a day that is longer than 24-hours can be found in the beginning of the Genesis 2 creation account, which says that the entire six days of creation are one day.18

In verse 14 we have that unusual construction again of "let there be." It is not a statement of creation, but a statement of appearance. At this point, the clouds present at the initial creation of the earth were completely removed so that the bodies themselves appeared for the first time on the surface of the earth. The passage tells us that the lights were allowed "to be" so that they could be signs of the seasons, days, and years. It was necessary for the creatures of day 5 that the heavenly bodies be visible. We know that many of the migratory birds (created on day 5) require visible stars to navigate, hence the need to actually see these bodies. Verse 18 gives us another hint. The lights were placed in the sky to "separate the light from the darkness." Does this sound familiar? It is the exact Hebrew phrase used for God's work on the first day when, "God separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4) By using this phrase, the text is recounting the formation of the Sun, moon and stars from the first day. If we accept that God created the Sun, moon and stars on the fourth day, then He didn't really create the heavens in verse one. So, the 24-hour day interpretation suffers a contradiction between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:16.

So because the Bible contradicts itself, he feels the need to go back and try to make it not contradict itself. The heavens of day 1 are the environment of space. Each environment is laid out and then the inhabitants for each environments are created. He has no idea that day 1 corresponds to day 4 as the heavens and then that which inhabits the heavens. Just as day 2 establishes firmament from sea and day 5 brings that which inhabits the sea and firmament. and Just as day 3 establishes dry land and day 6 brings that which inhabits the dry the land. This is mythological pairing of environment and inhabitants and to neglect to see and understand this is to neglect to understand the writing style of Genesis 1. The above apologist has fallen into that trap and suffers for it.

He wants to assert that "let there be" isn't a statement of creation, rather the sun, moon, and stars already existed and simply became visible on day 4. So what of the living creatures? Elohim (Gods) said "let the waters teem with living creatures", and "let the earth bring forth living creatures" as well. So then we must conclude that he didn't create them on the 5th and 6th days if "Let there be" doesn't indicate the sun, moon, and stars, being created on the fourth day because it's not an act of creation. He's digging a deeper hole for himself. So yes, the sun was created on the fourth day as the bible states and so no amount of "years" could have gone by before time keeping was established on the fourth day when the sun was created. Because he fails to see the day 1 / day 4 mythological pairing of space (heavens) with the celestial orbs that inhabit space (heavens), and how this theme runs through each of the other days exactly the same way, he gets further and further away from the meaning of Genesis 1.

Finally he comes around to conclude:
Quote:
We are left with only one internally consistent interpretation for the days of Genesis one. The literal, clearly indicated, meaning of yom for Genesis one must be an unspecified, long period of time. Since the Genesis text says that the third day must be at least several years long, none of the other days would be expected to be limited to 24-hours. All or nearly all of the other creation days would seem to require long periods of time, although the text does not clearly indicate the specific amount of time required.

So he comes to an OEC theory in the end. This guy's all over the place! The root of the problem - which solves the whole thing - is that Genesis 1 is a mythological creation story that does not give any concrete information on either the age of the earth nor how life emerged on the earth. It's a mythological creation story, not live CCN coverage of the dawn of creation. Trying to present it as such only results in problems stacked upon more problems that require stacking ever more problems until the amount of pure bunk involved is so blindingly obvious that it reduces the proponent of such ideas to a deceptive force loose in society! Whether they realize it or not.

The blind leading the blind further along into the darkness (ignorance)...


Now obscured isn't the same thing as invisible is it?

Also, the heading for this discussion is Young Earth Theory put to rest. It seems that you are practicising your old habit of wandering from the topic. If you want to criticise Theistic Evolution, or the Gap Theory, start another discussion on OEC, but don't expect me to defend those positions or grant credence to a proponent of same.

Focus my friend, focus.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Last edited by stahrwe on Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:12 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4836
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Bart wrote:
Just an observation born from my curiosity--
There are 16 or 17 intelligent posts in this thread, all intended to debunk the foolishness of YEC myth. My mind boggles at the amount of detail and research.

I wonder, would anyone put the same amount of effort into debunking:
Flat Earthers?
The efficacy of witchcraft, sorcery, fortune telling, or levitation?
Alien Abduction stories?
The creation stories of American Indians, Hindus, or any of hundreds/thousands of other such tales?
Extra terrestial's having built Stone Henge or the pyramids?
Any of the mythical monsters such as Nessy, Champy, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Yeti?
Demonic posession?
Astral Projection?
Transubstantiation?

If the answer is "no" then I can only wonder why this one particular myth, which owes to pre-scientific ancients' superstitions, is worthy of such attention. Science has demonstrated through multiple scientific diciplines' corroborative and cumulative evidence that big bang (or similar event) and evolutionary theory is the cause/ reality.
If the deluded said disease was caused by satan, and hurricans were god's wrath would you put the same effort into that as well?

Just a thought.

(PS: just by calling YEC a "theory" you have already given it more credence than it is due. "Transubstantiation Theory" ? "Woman into pillar of Salt Theory"? ... )


Well, well, Bart, you're still around.
To answer your questions, well, at least one, actually there have been some experiments done with respect to transsubstantiation, and it's a doctrine, not a theory, and one I don't subscribe to by the way.

I hope the camel is well and I hope to introduce you to the turtle.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:21 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Finds books under furniture

Silver Contributor

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1680
Thanks: 178
Thanked: 147 times in 132 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Bart wrote:
Bleach said:
Quote:
"What evidence is there that aliens built Stonehenge? None. "


Which is exactly the same evidence there exists for YEC.

If one attributes pre-scientific scripture as "evidence" , then the B Gita is evidence of the Hindu version of creation. Then the papyrus describing the Lower Egyptian creation story is "evidence"; and the Higher Egyptian Creation story...also evidence. Ad nauseum...

And yes, there is documentation, volumes of it, that present the "theory" of Aleins as the builders of stone henge and the pyramids. Does the fact that they are post scientific age discredit them? Only prescientific age documents are worthy "evidence"? Isn't that bass-ackwards?

Or does the number of people who foolishly believe in something make that thing a valid "theory" or worthy "belief". Millions believe in alien civilization contributions to earth's civilizations (Scientology); millions more that jesus was in the new world (LDS)... the list is endless, and without evidence or scientific merit , regardless of L Ron Hubbard's or Jos. Smith's books.



I completely agree with you on all points. I don't believe or even give creedence to any of these theories, including any of the mainstream religious beliefs. It is just my understanding that, as Interbane said, the more powerful and dominating a belief (or meme) is, the more work is put into debunking it. If there was a thread here arguing that aliens built Stonehenge or that Scientology is 100% accurate (or even some lesser degree), there would be as many posts written there in an attempt to debunk those theories as there are in this thread.

I hope that doesn't sound like a challenge for any Scientologists lurking in the shadows of BookTalk. :lol:



Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:59 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book King


Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1337
Location: Florida
Thanks: 554
Thanked: 524 times in 396 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Guys, I'd like to say that I often hit the alien seeding theories with the same scrutiny. It solves nothing in the end and provides absolutely no alternative to evolution. How did the aliens come to exist that came here and seeded the planet? Did other aliens have to seed them into existence? So then what of the seeders of the seeders...? They either spontaneously emerged into existence fully developed after the universe began, or they would have had to evolve in the universe and then go on to tamper with the evolving process on different planets. So it merely pushes evolution back and does nothing to offer an alternative to evolution. Perhaps some one can offer an insight that I haven't yet considered. But I'm confident that I could see through it all to the underlying bunk in any event, just like every single one of the many YEC and OEC 'ideas' I've encountered. I'll gladly stand corrected for having previously referred to YEC and OEC as "theories", Bart, because I had indeed given them way too much credit by saying that. They are myths and myths are not scientifically valid theories.

People need to be careful these days because things like the holographic universe, for instance, while having some scientific validity mixed in, largely rest on people trying to take eastern philosophy mixed with Platonic thought and make it sound scientific, just like the intelligent design proponents have done with the bible. "It's all illusion" taken to the extreme! The worst is the story of the native shaman who could see the row boats of the Europeans coming to the Island but couldn't see the large ships just offshore because they were too strange and foreign to his environment - the natives didn't have boats that big. Then slowly he learned to see them and then the other natives could see them too. They use this story on the "What The Bleep Do We Know" film and I've heard it mentioned on a holographic universe video on u-tube in order to promote the holographic universe as hard fact. Some people think this is an alternative to evolution. They think that since we create reality with our minds, according to this idealism, that evolution never happened. I was posting about evolution and some guy threw a link to a video on the HU suggesting that evolution isn't the only option on the table. So I asked him how the shaman could see small boats on the water, that is, some material objects floating on the water, but not see a ship simply because it's a bigger boat than what he's seen previously - a bigger material object? They're both boats and both floating on the water, it's just that one boat is larger than the other. I don't believe that the story is true to begin with, let alone some ground breaking evidence for this HU idealist based philosophy.

This argument is a bit mischievous and possibly too vulgar for some (viewer discretion is advised), but I used it against this proponent of the holographic universe a while back just to strongly reveal how freaking ridiculous the claim is. What if we took some tribal native woman from a village where the males all had tiny little phallus's and then put her far away in a new village in a different part of the world where the men all had phallus's considerably larger than anything she had every witnessed previously? Would she not be able to see them? Would she think that she was standing amidst a bunch of women with no breasts? That's ridiculous. About as ridiculous as presenting the shaman story as a hard fact of history that really happened and shows the validity of the holographic universe ideas being promoted on u-tube and abroad that are being considered an alternative to evolution. Matter is apriori to mind. The earth existed long before human beings with their minds. We eat, sleep, seek pleasure, avoid pain, and lust for sexual reproduction. Darwinian evolution explains this while idealist philosophy does not.

And what about UFO sightings aroud the world? How could any one see an unidentified flying object - something so foreign to there everyday experience? How is it possible to see something that you can not identify if you can not see anything that you haven't seen before and that is too foreign to your regular experience? Obviously people often see things that they can't identify, ranging from top secret military aircraft to whatever. How did they see it? Did they have to learn to see it? Of course not. They just looked up one day and there was a foreign military aircraft flying by or whatever - they saw it immediately. These holographic universe vids suddenly fall apart under investigation. And in falling apart they offer no valid alternative to evolution.

People need to get it into the their thick skulls that conflicting with actual science and discovery is completely unwarranted! There's no reason for it. The myths of old and these modern myths offer no alternative to our origins as a species and that remains the bottom line according to everything I've considered up to this point. They're trying to pretend that we have it all figured out and we don't. They want to say 'God created it and he did it just like this', or 'Aliens created it and there's evidence in the bible with the mention of Nephilim or Elohim', or 'we create reality with our own minds'. It seems the only real hope we have of ever figuring out origins is by allowing our scientists to do their thing, generation by generation, and therefore removing more of the mystery bit by bit with time. Holding back the advancement of science, such as stem cell research and what-have-you, on account of the bible or any other myth in the world, is a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned.


_________________
YEC theory put to rest!!!


Last edited by tat tvam asi on Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:47 pm, edited 4 times in total.



Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:03 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book King


Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1337
Location: Florida
Thanks: 554
Thanked: 524 times in 396 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Starwe wrote:
Also, the heading for this discussion is Young Earth Theory put to rest. It seems that you are practicising your old habit of wandering from the topic.

I was just giving an example of some one floundering around with Genesis 1 trying to find some way of making it work, which requires changing the bible around and basically not taking it "literally". I brought up both YEC and OEC as equally invalid. Both deal with trying to interpret Genesis 1 and both fail miserably. I don't expect you to defend OEC Stahrwe, just taking the Genesis 1 "literally" which is the core of YEC, the sand foundation of the house of cards fundamental Christianity has built for itself.

I was born into it. I believed in it just like you once upon a time. I eventually discovered the sand foundations for my self at the base of it all and got the hell out of the building! A word to the wise...


_________________
YEC theory put to rest!!!


The following user would like to thank tat tvam asi for this post:
johnson1010
Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:17 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Devoted Member


Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 95
Location: New Hampshire
Thanks: 7
Thanked: 12 times in 12 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Bleach said:
Quote:
If there was a thread here arguing that aliens built Stonehenge or that Scientology is 100% accurate (or even some lesser degree), there would be as many posts written there in an attempt to debunk those theories as there are in this thread.


Well, thats exactly my point. Why?

You will never convince a conspiracy theorist, or fundamentalist, or alien devotee that they are patently moronic.
To try and convince John Travolta or Tom Cruise that Scientology is horseshit is futile; it's mental masturbation: it feels good for the moment but produces nothing long lasting.

The only time such refutation is of any value is when it is used to help those who have not yet been fully indoctrinated into idiocy. They at least are receptive. There's no one like that here, from what I can tell.


_________________
"Reason is the enemy of faith." -- Martin Luther

Reason can be found at the home of the Atheist Camel: http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/


The following user would like to thank Bart for this post:
johnson1010
Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:49 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Sophomore


Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Location: Wheaton, Illinois, USA
Thanks: 26
Thanked: 34 times in 31 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Bart wrote:
You will never convince a conspiracy theorist, or fundamentalist, or alien devotee that they are patently moronic.
To try and convince John Travolta or Tom Cruise that Scientology is horseshit is futile; it's mental masturbation: it feels good for the moment but produces nothing long lasting.

The only time such refutation is of any value is when it is used to help those who have not yet been fully indoctrinated into idiocy. They at least are receptive. There's no one like that here, from what I can tell.


Amen to Bart's point. <-- Irony intended.

When I first saw the topic subject line I thought there had been something new in the way of evidence for an old earth. Not that any more evidence is needed just that it would be interesting to learn more.

Not so. Same old young earth argument, same old sillyness. If you reject carbon dating on faith-based principles, no one is going to convnce you otherwise. The earth isn't young, flat or being orbited by the sun. Fortunatly the vast majority of humans know/accept those things.


_________________
--Gary

"Freedom is feeling easy in your harness" --Robert Frost


Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:11 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4836
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
The chronology proposed by Ussher, Lightfoot, Newton (I believe he is a famous scientist and mathematician), etc. primarily used the geneaologies in the Bible. In some instances, ages at death are provided, in others they are not so assumptions have to be made. I have seen estimates up to 6,500 years, but again, with the uncertainty of the estimates 8,000 years seems a comfortable estimate as the oldest possible.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:16 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4875
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1557
Thanked: 1573 times in 1189 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
stahrwe wrote:
The chronology proposed by Ussher, Lightfoot, Newton (I believe he is a famous scientist and mathematician), etc. primarily used the geneaologies in the Bible. In some instances, ages at death are provided, in others they are not so assumptions have to be made. I have seen estimates up to 6,500 years, but again, with the uncertainty of the estimates 8,000 years seems a comfortable estimate as the oldest possible.


Stahrwe, the premises for "8,000 years as the oldest possible" are false. If Isaac Newton was a young earth creationist he was very wrong about the age of the earth. Science has proved that the earth is more than four billion years old. Your error is comparable in magnitude to saying the USA is about five yards across.

I've been thinking about creationism against the cosmology of fall and redemption. If we assume that there was some sort of fall from grace in about 4000 BC, then it makes sense to look at the dominant thought form which arose at that time and ask how it is corrupt, how it fails to engage with the truth. Immediately, we see that the false Judaeo-Christian monotheist doctrine, whereby divinity is separated from nature, has been the dominant error over the last six thousand years. The redemption of the earth requires that this fallen doctrine be left in the past, and that a new rational scientific method investigate how humanity can move away from what Augustine called a state of corruption towards what he called a state of grace. Examining the mythological basis of the Bible, how gospel myth reworked the ideas of ancient human traditions to rebind them in a new believable narrative of faith, is a starting point for understanding Christianity.

A scientific approach to religion can use texts like Sigmund Freud's 'Future of an Illusion' - (wiki, text) to show that Young Earth Creationism is a psychological illusion, and adherence to false creationist ideas can be analysed as a psychological pathology.



Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:39 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Vacuums Around Book Piles

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3935
Location: NC
Thanks: 1505
Thanked: 1592 times in 1210 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
James Ussher (4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656)
John Lightfoot (March 29, 1602 – December 6, 1675)
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

In the 1600s they didn't have a clue as to how old the earth was. People thought dinosaur bones belonged to dragons or giants. Bloodletting was a common practice in medicine. And people were executed for being witches.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:08 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4836
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
geo wrote:
James Ussher (4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656)
John Lightfoot (March 29, 1602 – December 6, 1675)
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

In the 1600s they didn't have a clue as to how old the earth was. People thought dinosaur bones belonged to dragons or giants. Bloodletting was a common practice in medicine. And people were executed for being witches.


We certainly have come a long way since then haven't we. Do you know who the last person conviceted of witchcraft was and the year?


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:37 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6799
Location: California
Thanks: 1008
Thanked: 1930 times in 1560 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Quote:
A scientific approach to religion can use texts like Sigmund Freud's 'Future of an Illusion' - (wiki, text) to show that Young Earth Creationism is a psychological illusion, and adherence to false creationist ideas can be analysed as a psychological pathology.


Spaghetti brained nutjobs. I've vowed long ago to scout whatever school my son goes to and make sure there aren't any lurking in the shadows. My greatest failing as a parent would be to let my child be swept up in some fundamentalist islamic or christian belief. It makes me sad to think there are actually people amongst us who prey on the minds of children and want to indoctrinate them. Well, it makes me sick to my stomach is more like it. The only difference between a fundie nutjob and a child molester is the fundie preys on the mind, while the molester preys on the body.



The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
tat tvam asi
Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4836
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Interbane wrote:
The only difference between a fundie nutjob and a child molester is the fundie preys on the mind, while the molester preys on the body.


Which is worse?


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:21 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 594 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 40  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:




Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank