How do you debate Young Earth Creationists, Veeky Forums?

They've been tricked into thinking that by assholes. No one actually believes this. We all know God exists tho

The same way you engage flat earthers

fpbp

Muslims aren't that hard if you have proper educational tools.

I don't think Creatonists have a recent history of killing people that insult them, or just killing countrymen of those that insult them or those that translated the authors that insulted them.

Why bother?

Mockery is the only fruitful approach.

muslims are creationists

This, it's funny how people think your average creationist is a christian when statistically he's far more likely to be a Muslim or Hindu

Old age of the Earth:

- Multiple forms of radiometric dating, not just carbon.

- Mineral layers

- Tree rings

- Ice rings

- Genetic clues

- Cosmological clues

But if they're "anchored" then they're going to dismiss or interpret everything to reach the same presuppositional conclusion they began with.
In fact, challenging them may cause a boomerang effect and they may escalate their commitment to their beliefs.

Most of them you can't, there's decades of research showing an insensitivity to reason is an integral part of the authoritarian personality.

Turn 360 degrees and walk away

They tend to be biblical literalists, so you really can't. I guess you could try to get them to realise that YEC is a concession to scientism.

Who the fuck is sitting on the fence between young Earth creationism and the current scientific understanding of how the Earth came to be?
Surely most people would lean pretty heavily in one direction or the other.

Just call them fat and write something about sharting

Kek

>"Often a non-christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, ... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

>The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

>Reckless and presumptous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages they think will support their case 'without understanting either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.' (1 Timothy 1:7)"

St. Augustine of Hippo, "De Genesi ad litteram"

never met one. I avoid Protestants in general.

I debate WITH them.

>evolution

There are not millions of that first.

Protestantism everyone.

all I'm saying is, if we all came from monkeys then how come the Earth is flat?

>How do you debate Young Earth Creationists, Veeky Forums?

I start with appeal to reason and logic, and quoting evidence. When they respond with appeal to God and quoting scripture I proceed to smile and go talk to someone else about something else.

No reason to get mad at people who are intentionally staying unwise, up to the point of becoming violent to defend their lack of understanding.

Live and let live.

Not an argument everyone.

Muslims are even more creationist than Americans, they literally believe the world began in the early middle ages since for them Islam is the oldest religion.

Hindus are also the first atheists, poo in loo religion and philosophy is diverse and old.

You can convince him to open his mind to logic

With futility. Can't argue against ignorance.

How do these people don't even research the strong force? Holy fucking shit.

They don't think that.

and yet they aknowledge Jesus as a prophet

you're full of shit user, kys

>aknowledge
They reject every single teaching of His and invented a new version of Him whilst following the teachings of their psychopathic child molesting false-prophet warlord.

You don't, nothing will come of it.

>JESUS binds atoms!
Check and mate!

By agreeing with them, obviously.

If someone unironically reads a Chick Tract, it's too late for them.

>- Multiple forms of radiometric dating, not just carbon.
Dated igneous rocks created at the explosion of Mt. St. Helen's to be 3,000,000 years old. Was the 1980's 3,000,000 years ago? If they can't age known rocks, why trust them to age unknowns? Why not trust helium diffusion instead? Why not study what the RATE group put out?

>- Mineral layers
There was a global flood about 4600 years ago.

>- Tree rings
The oldest tree has about 4600 rings on it.

>- Ice rings
A few layers on top, one per storm, and then a massive block underneath that all happened as an aftereffect of the Flood 4600 years ago.

>- Genetic clues
Mitochondrial Eve gets pushed closer and closer to 6000 years ago, not 40,000 years ago.

>- Cosmological clues
Spiral galaxies say the universe is young. Comets say the universe is young. General lack of debris and dust says the universe is young.

Is that really all you have?

Have you ever talked to a YEC before?

It's exactly the opposite. As usual.

>The oldest tree has about 4600 rings on it
Please tell me you have a source on someone saying this.

Who has a better grasp on the creation of the universe? You, or the Creator?

If all creation is 6000 years old then how can we see stars unless God is intentionally being deceptive?

Saying? It's in the record books. The oldest known tree via rings is a California bristol pine tree with about 4600 rings on it.

Clonal trees are not dated by tree rings, but by carbon dating, which is obviously and notoriously unreliable.

You see what they left thousands of years ago as light trails receding from us.

They're mostly all gone by now.

To test our faith.

You can't test your faith with something you see.

Faith is the ability to believe the unseen.

If you can see it, you don't need faith to believe it.

God said it.
I believe it.

Pretty logical.

Everyone.... everyone look at him and laugh.

He who laughs last, laughs best.

So there's your answer, OP. No facts, no rebuttals, no arguments, no counter-examples, just peer pressure.

>The Oldest tree has about 4600 rings on it
So because it's the oldest tree, that means it's been there since the beginning of the fucking world and not just the current oldest living tree?
Creationist logic.

I believe the Earth is 1.3 Billion years old or whatever, but I also believe that science is full of some real bs.

>stars are millions and billions of years old, yet we can see their light as they appeared at those times, because that light has been traveling for millions of years!

Puh-freaking-leaze. Have you ever actually seen light travel? Show me the frame-by-frame video of a beam of light travelling 200,000 miles in one second across a vacuum that long. It doesn't exist. Why do you think that light-speed is the constant which determines the measurement of time? Huh? That's because light is faster than time. We're just observers. Massive accumulations of slowed vibrations with proximity to each other. WE CAN'T MEASURE TIME! It's only "measurable" if it's being obstructed by something cosmic (i.e. physical), and slowed down.

>B-B-B-BUT MUH ECLIPSE AND STAR REFRACTION EINSTEIN BASED THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY OFF!

You listen to me, and listen well. I as much as any sane human believe that it's too coincidental that we live on the only planet that can support life, much less a sentient being of Einstein's caliber, on a planet just the right distance from a perfectly-sized sun, WITH a perfectly-sized moon, orbiting at just the perfect distance,in the only galaxy with a non-blinding space backdrop, for a once-in-a-lifetime eclipse caught by said Einstein to propel us into the 21st century's technical advancements; so I'm very well aware that Einstein is unlikely to be wrong in anything he surmised from the greatest discovery in human history with so much else working for him. But I don't see Einstein spouting that starlight lifetime bullshit. Sounds like a story that Neil deGrasse Tyson made as a byline when he became famous.

If you honestly expect ME to believe that the behavior of mass remains relative to our at a distance beyond the RED-FREAKING-SHIFT, and the only constant is NOT the timelessness of light; then you'd better be ready to show me it empirically.

Not sure how you could miss the fact that the oldest tree is about as old as the Flood.

But you did it!

We can tell that they are receding from us by their redshift, but that places them at our location 13.8 billion years ago, not 6000.

>Dated igneous rocks created at the explosion of Mt. St. Helen's to be 3,000,000 years old
Credible source or it didn't happen

>The oldest tree has about 4600 rings on it
5065. Search 'oldest tree' a click on the wiki link

>Mitochondrial Eve gets pushed closer and closer to 6000 years ago, not 40,000 years ago.
It's 100,000 years dummy. Again, simple wiki search

>Cosmology
13.8 billion years. That's only 2,300,000 times older than your 6000 years. I guess 'young' is a relative term.

They went from nearby us, to their current positions, in one day.

Day Four.

When God stretched out the heavens with His hands.

Hey, while you're at it, go ahead and prove that in the beginning, light speed was not infinite.

I'll wait.

Records are made to be broken
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_longaeva

& Humanities was a mistake.

Incredible.

Do your own research.

Change your own wiki links.

Eve lived 6000 years ago.

The earth is 6000 years old. Why the frame of reference of the furthest star matters to you is ponderous.

Huh, neat point. that reminds me of an observation I've had along similar philosophical lines concerning the "pehnomennon" of evolution. it is often argued that humans are descended from similar creatures that were not humans but also were not monkeys, and were not gorillas or chimpanzees. These were claimed to be existant around the earth around 1 million years ago, and they were supposed to have slowly developed into humans around that time. So what is the motivation for assuming such a thing? it is all because evolutionists want to fit the evidence to their "scientific" narrative. drawing a parallel to psychology, all the biologists are just attempting to follow along the lines of Darwinism, just like the psychologists are enamoured with Freudism. However it is not the case just because somebody is famous that they're ideas are correct. This is why many people have a problem with evolution: many of the fossils they discover could be explained in a pleathora of ways, and yet the darwinists apply their own biased analysis and claim for it to be the only one that is reasonable.

Why would it? Evidence doesn't support that. Creationists aren't irrational.

There's a reason they are here and not on Veeky Forums.

Yeah. I spent some time arguing against creationists on the interweb years ago and have since stopped. They got into some really esoteric shit trying to rationalize their belief. But when I talk to creationists in person they are using babby's first arguments for creation and it is really easy to disprove what they are saying.

They aren't stupid or delusional. They are just misinformed. If you are polite then they will listen. Eventually what you said will seep in.

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_longaeva
A new record holder was recently recognized, a Pinus longaeva growing in the White Mountains of eastern California. The date on this tree was reported to me by Tom Harlan. The tree was cored by Edmund Schulman in the late 1950s but he never had a chance to date it before he died.

Oh, nothing suspicious about that at all.

kek

>Creationists aren't irrational.

Then why do you constantly accuse us of being so?

Did you even bother googling the RATE group?

The answers on Veeky Forums are the same.

(OP)

Easy. First horse: 100$ profit. Second horse: 100$ profit. Add profits -> 200$

This is the discourse on Veeky Forums right now.

There are zero arguments against YEC in this thread.

See, person who knows the truth, nothing became something, and then something exploded into everything, and that turned into life, which developed consciousness, all at the staggering precision of 1 part in 10^120.

What you believe is bullshit.

>Show me the frame-by-frame video of a beam of light travelling 200,000 miles in one second across a vacuum that long.

Really, if you were going to try and argue as you weren't arguing from ignorance you should actually do some research.

>youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA

Femto-camera, can literally capture photo's at the speed of light (A trillion frames per second). It's not done inside a vacuum though, but space is not a vacuum either, at least not a perfect vacuum, the one required to distort light the way you think it does.

>he is now simply arguing semantics and what 'time' means.
Jesus.

You don't, you just try to educate their children and break the cycle.

This thread isn't specifically a collection of arguments against the ideology, it is subjective anecdotes about people's personal opinions on the act of arguing with a YEC type.

The consensus seems to be that YEC types are ridiculous and it's a waste of time to argue with them.

And if you knew anything about the speed of light, you would know it is different at different times, and not some ungodly constant forever.

I don't know how many of you are in this thread, but you have all had your asses handed to you by 1 YEC.

1.

I'm glad you are such an authority on physics.

youtube.com/watch?v=EtsXgODHMWk

At least he's trying to think for himself, unlike you and your mob of Scientismists.

>and not some ungodly constant forever.
Huh? Where do they say it is? It, like everything else is subject to change as our evidence about it does. If you actually watched that video there are parts where light is acting in ways they didn't think it does - which is followed by applause and standing ovations, as it's 'new' knowledge brought about by this technology.

tl;dr - kill yourself you fucking moron.

>thread not about arguing YEC
>HAHA! I BEAT YOU BY SAYING YOU ARE WRONG A DOZEN TIMES!

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

Holy shit. It's like you have retrograde amnesia.

Science for 80 years has said that light speed is constant, and known.

Science again was wrong.

But here you are, Science who cannot remember the "truth" of Science from a day ago, saying that Science now knows something completely the opposite of what used to be "true".

When will you see that Science is always wrong?

And not having one single counter-argument forwarded.

You can't argue against the truth.

You can only lie, and be a fool.

...

It's easy to "win" arguments when no one else wants to have anything to do with you.

>When will you see that Science is always wrong?
(you)

Here's the thing about Young Earth theory. None of the Church Fathers saw that to be the case, none. Genesis, as well as most of the Bible, was read in a more metaphorical sense rather than in a literal sense. The only time that comes about is during the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and John Calvin, as well as others, begin interpreting the Bible literally.

During this time, James Ussher (Protestant Archbishop of Ireland) takes the Bible and compares it to historical events as well as the dates and lengths of time in the text and comes up with the date of Creation being October 23, 4004 BC. Now considering the Bible probably leaves out information that doesn't relate to what it's trying to get across, like dates and times and all that, it's safe to assume that it cannot be interpreted literally and that the true date of Creation is not found or hinted at in the Bible. Why? Because in the grand story of the relationship between Man and God, why would/should it matter how old the Earth is?

St. Augustine believed in YEC-ism.

>They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not six thousand years have yet passed (ibid., 12:10).

...

Ok maybe none was a bit of an exaggeration, but most, see: Origen, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, and Clement of Alexandria.

>my god is in fallible because he said so
>he oviously couldnt say that if it wasnt true
>because he told me he never lies

no the calculation was done by a catholic

catholics believed in YEC until comparatively recently.

YEC proddies are reviving catholic doctrines