Originally posted by RJHindsSo you base your belief of young-Earth NOT on science or evidence or logic but rather on your religious belief that disbelieving young-Earth will make you burn in hell in some kind of supernatural afterlife.
What good will it do me to think that the world is 14 or 15 billion years old and die in my sins and spend eternity in hellfire, when I could believe what the Holy Bible says and be cleased of my sins and be resurrected at judgment day to everlasting life?
The Instructor
But why should the objective truth about how old the earth is be effected by your religious belief? Do you believe you can make the Earth objectively and actually young just by believing it so?
And why the pretense that you believe that the evidence shows young-Earth when this is not the reason why you believe young-Earth? -answer, it is just a cover for the true motive for your belief because your true motive is religious and you wouldn't want to admit that because, it being religious makes it obviously irrational.
P.S. if you reply is a long one, please move it to the Evolution vs Creationism thread.
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by humyI don't see how having a religious belief will make me irrational if the religious belief is true. It is true that I believe in a young Earth because of my religious belief, but I also have other reasons to believe that way, which are not religious.
So you base your belief of young-Earth NOT on science or evidence or logic but rather on your religious belief that disbelieving young-Earth will make you burn in hell in some kind of supernatural afterlife.
But why should the objective truth about how old the earth is be effected by your religious belief? Do you believe you can make the Earth objectively and ...[text shortened]... nal.
P.S. if you reply is a long one, please move it to the Evolution vs Creationism thread.
The Instructor
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI suppose you have a point - idiocy is not a religious belief.
I don't see how having a religious belief will make me irrational if the religious belief is true. It is true that I believe in a young Earth because of my religious belief, but I also have other reasons to believe that way, which are not religious.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHinds
I don't see how having a religious belief will make me irrational if the religious belief is true. It is true that I believe in a young Earth because of my religious belief, but I also have other reasons to believe that way, which are not religious.
The Instructor
I don't see how having a religious belief will make me irrational if the religious belief is true.
You show your complete ignorance of basic logic yet again: A belief (religious or not ) can be irrational even if it is true providing it is based on an invalid inference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference
“...Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true ...”
If I believe that the Earth is round because the way lions hunt in packs, then I am using an invalid inference to draw a conclusion that the Earth is round from the irrelevant premise of the way lions hunt in packs and this would make by belief that the Earth is round irrational even though the conclusion just happens to be correct i.e. the Earth being round.
In the same way, in this modern day of science and reason, all religious beliefs are irrational because they do not have sound or valid inference and this would be regardless of whether some of them would just happen to be true. But we must assume that the probability of even some of those religious beliefs being true, at least those that assume the existence of a god, to be a vanishingly small probability given the proper application of Occam's razor.
It is true that I believe in a young Earth because of my religious belief, but I also have other reasons to believe that way, which are not religious.
No, you just have religious motive and no other reasons -unless you count illogic as those “other reasons”.
09 Aug 13
Originally posted by humyThere are many things that seem to dispute the old age view of the earth beside radiometric rock dating methods. There are challenges to how long it takes things to fossilize, the length of time it takes for coal and oil deposits to form, the length of time for the laying down of the sedimentary deposits or strata layers, such as upright fossilzed trees going through multilayers of these strata layers and the recent Mount Saint Helens volcanic eruption.I don't see how having a religious belief will make me irrational if the religious belief is true.
You show your complete ignorance of basic logic yet again: A belief (religious or not ) can be irrational even if it is true providing it is based on an invalid inference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference
“...Inference is the act ...[text shortened]... have religious motive and no other reasons -unless you count illogic as those “other reasons”.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsall those things have confirmed old Earth.
There are many things that seem to dispute the old age view of the earth beside radiometric rock dating methods. There are challenges to how long it takes things to fossilize, the length of time it takes for coal and oil deposits to form, the length of time for the laying down of the sedimentary deposits or strata layers, such as upright fossilzed trees goi ...[text shortened]... rs of these strata layers and the recent Mount Saint Helens volcanic eruption.
The Instructor
13 Aug 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtA master of arts and doctorate in philosophy trumps real science degrees? As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!"
Objectively not, Sarfati has a Ph.D. and a B.Sc. in chemistry and his work was more connected with physical chemistry than biology, Dawkins has a M.A. in zoology and a D.Phil. both from Balliol. Dawkins is an FRS, which in terms of quality of answers to the question "what is science?" gives him the better credentials. As far as comments on evolution ar ...[text shortened]... field, whereas Dawkins is not. Sarfati is probably a better person to listen to about chess.
The Instructor