What is the point of the Bible?

As I said, no you haven't.

 

Just not in any way you can empircally demonstrate, Mr. Mere Assertion.

 

The ground rules as to how this world works have been laid. You can go with the flow or possibly have a bad time.
Chris Cornell had more insight than you. As do I.

 

The scientific information wasn't found by the ICR scientists. This is information that secular science found. Then, they misinterpreted the information and got the dating completely wrong. There are many of these kinds of things that secular science interpreters have gotten wrong. But, go ahead and be a science denier. The science doesn't support old earth. It's how you interpret the scientific data that makes the difference. And, the godless just keep denying the facts.

 

I've so done so. You can keep denying the science, but the science doesn't support old earth. It supports young earth. And, it does so now empirically.

 

If the earth is so old, why is it not miles deep in bones?

PS:Fossilized foot in boot.


http://www.bibleprobe.com/creationism.htm

 

Mark 15:7, "And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection."
Does that help?

 

Decomposition, erosion, scavengers, etc; a small percentage become fossils.

 

religions were an early form of government early on

 

Bones don't decompose that fast. Flesh does, not bones.
Fossils certainly do not decompose.
If the earth was as old as they say, there would be mountains of bones piled high across the landscape. From creatures and men. There would be tunnels for the living to walk through the mountains of bones.

 

It's composed of many Books.
It depends what book you are talking about.

If you're referring to all of them, then the answer you get is probably going to be very non-specific and not very tangible in a way you will be able to understand.

Some of it is a record of history, others offer lessons to be learned.

 

I do not believe you. Pretense is a rather poor substitute for honesty.

 

Decomposition happens to all organic matter. Bones can break down in a few years or it could take thousands.It depends on the conditions. Bones decay, just at a slower rate than other types of organic material.Fossils are rare and most are found in sedimentary rock.

​

 

I've shared my references to my beliefs. You have not. The honest truth is the earth is young, not old.

 

The Institute for Creation Research professes to present the same science as that taught in secular universities while at the same time requiring faculty to sign a statement of faith to ICR's fundamentalist religious mission, most notably in affirming conformity in all its work to biblical doctrine. Any research conducted within the ICR's policy framework is prescribed at the outset by biblical literalism, and thus antithetical to the methods and framework used by scientists.

 

And, secular science is likewise in the opposite. What do you expect? Secular atheists are going to always start with the old universe-earth point and trying to prove it. Yet, the actually scientific informational facts gathered doesn't support old anything. What is happening and ICR states it that the evidence secular science has found is better supported with a young earth approach. Why not then debate the interpretations and conclusions instead of trying to insult those whit PhD's higher than you or I will ever have on both sides. Why do you fear the Bible and the potential truth? I don't fear the secular old universe or earth because I've lived through learning about all that for decades.

 

In this thread you have referenced the ICR...once. Once. That's all. The IRC is a creationist whore website, replete with lies, misrepresentations and disingenuousness. You buy into their nonsense. I do not.

I posted in this thread to challenge your incessant use of the mere assertion fallacy. My beliefs are not relevant to that. As I said, I do not believe you. Leave it at that, Sparky.

Folks, here's yet another mere assertion from poster Coungerbear.

 

Anti-science creationist drivel.

 

I'll repeat myself: "Why not then debate the interpretations and conclusions instead of trying to insult those whit PhD's higher than you or I will ever have on both sides. Why do you fear the Bible and the potential truth? I don't fear the secular old universe or earth because I've lived through learning about all that for decades."

Your response is just another Anti-Christ statement of non-intellectual drivel in which we are supposed to be debating and relating to one another. Why is it that atheists always just personally attack believers with no information to support their beliefs? I'm presenting information and facts that you can read about and make your own conclusions. But, you refuse to do so? What is it about atheists that drive these fears? Explain please...

 

Creationists peddle pseudoscience.

 

You are so right! I had an operation on my feet and when the surgeon made his cuts two pounds of dirt poured out of the cuts. He put the dirt in a pan and gave it to me in the recovery room. I have the dirt in a clear glass jar on the mantle. That just shows that like Adam, I was just freshly made from dirt. That would be impossible if the Earth was billions of years old instead of just several thousand years. After all, grass and fruit trees were created before the Sun and the moon.

 

That is something you got from someone else. You have never read one article from creationist scientists. Secular scientists always believe they are superior to anyone else. It's really pathetic. I do know that every article on the subject from secular old universe scientists are filled with fuzzy words of possibilities but nothing concrete. So, why am I supposed to automatically believe you? You won't even read a thing posted from ICR.org

 

We don't need to. We have science journals and peer review to sort that out.

Contrary to popular opinion among the fantasy prone, science isn't a do-it-yourself subject. Reading crap on the internet doesn't make you an expert.

 

It is a science journal. You can even have it sent hard copy to you for free. Again, you are one-hand-clapping. You are being closeminded. That's not a true scientist. True scientists don't dismiss anything. They research it.

 

Both the IJCR and the ICR graduate school are affronts to science and deserve legitimate and open peer scrutiny. We decry the founding principles of “Biblical Creationism” as stated by the ICR as follows: “The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.” [emphasis added] This echoes the well-known logical fallacy—“the argument from authority.” While the Bible may contain philosophical wisdom, it does not provide an objectively recognized process for evaluating empirical knowledge. Nor is it the only source of philosophical wisdom. And most importantly, scientific inquiry does not and cannot begin with untestable and blindly accepted affirmations, but rather requires that all assumptions, assertions, and affirmations be testable.

Therefore, in consideration of this and other evidence of general public confusion as to what constitutes science (the creation museum in Kentucky, “Intelligent Design,” and so on), we suggest the following as a guide for politicians and the education community:

• 1
  Standards for accreditation of institutions of higher learning must meet criteria for quality established by the respective, recognized, and diverse professional community.
  
  
• 2
  Science studies should not be driven by religious philosophies, but rather by the standards of scientific enquiry based on the scientific method.
  
  
• 3
  Education at all levels should include instruction in critical thought, logic, and open debate of concepts and theories.
  
  
• 4
  Political or philosophical agendas should not determine what may or may not be published, such as in the case of federally funded research or in the case of the International Journal for Creation Studies, which states that only research that supports its agenda will be published. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/0012-9623(2007)88[381:ARTTIO]2.0.CO;2