Is Veeky Forums actually full of traditionalist, C.S...

>traditionalist
yes
>C.S. Lewis quoting
yes
>Christians
yes
>who believe the Earth is 5500 years old
sonthisisbait.jpg

>Waaahhh why is Veeky Forums not a hugbox for liberals, progressive and communists waahhhhh

Cry us a river OP

>Is Veeky Forums actually full of traditionalists?
Yes, what's the problem?

yes
Im more of Spengler / Evola quoting traditionalist though

>doesn't believe the earth is 5500 years old
You're not a traditionalist.

>The Bible is also agnostic about it, since the meaning of "day" can be interpreted as a undefined amount of time.

Not when coupled with day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, day 5, day 6 and day 7, no. Not when coupled with "morning and evening" with each day, no.

Think about it.

Adam was created on Day Six. He survived Day Seven. Everything was still good.

How many eons are you going to pack in that time? Was Adam 2 million years old before he sinned? What's your evidence for that?

No, when you study the enemy and his use of nuclear decay to age things, you see very quickly that it's all a lie to discredit the bible as the inerrant and authoritative Word of God.

Don't be a cafeteria believer and pick and choose the things you feel are right.

Enjoy the entire buffet. It's all good.

This makes no sense.

>reddit spacing
Oh god, why??

I keep getting that comment. Kinda strange. Maybe it's always you.

Never been to reddit. This is aesthetically pleasing to me.
>reddit spacing
Oh god, why??
>reddit spacing
Oh god, why??
>reddit spacing
Oh god, why??
>reddit spacing
Oh god, why??

This is autistic spacing.

>claim to be traditionalist
>hold the modern belief of an old earth
_this_ doesn't make sense

The inference would be that all "traditionalists" believe the world is 5500 years old. Where he got the number 5500 is anyone's guess.

Traditionalist comes in all kind of form, we also have a Buddhist Zen monk, Shariaist Muslim, and Hindu nationalist lurking here

Its actual redditor trying to make detecting reddit become undesirable

>is Veeky Forums [one of the autistic ideologies competing for control of it]

just LARPing, m8

OP here, I know the range is between 6000 and 10000 years for most creationists. I wanted to pick a number that was ridiculous but still within the range that people actually believe in.

Your number would not have been ridiculous at the time Columbus sailed to the West Indies.

Can I ask you a question?

What is the oldest thing you've ever seen?

>Not when coupled with day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, day 5, day 6 and day 7, no.
the word used for day means an undefined period of time, and ancient hebrews measured their days differently.
>Enjoy the entire buffet. It's all good.
I'm enjoying the buffet, but youre the one who chose to bring his tendies because it isnt in the buffet.

Why would I put my faith in human constructs rather than the constructs of God?

Do you mean things I've seen with my own eyes or do pictures count?

Again, not when used in context with "morning and evening on Day 1", "morning and evening on Day 2", etc.

Yes, yom can mean different things in a different context.

But in this context, "morning and evening on Day 1", it means a day. A 24 hour day.

You didn't even participate in the thought exercise.

The bible says Adam was made on Day Six, Day Seven God rested, and creation was good. So the fall of man happened some time after day seven.

If the "day" is an "eon", then Adam was at LEAST one eon old before the fall. A proposition you will find nowhere.

And which contradicts the Word of God, by the mouth of Christ Jesus himself, who said that God made Adam and Eve "IN THE BEGINNING", not SIX EONS INTO CREATION".

If Adam and Eve were not made IN THE BEGINNING, then Jesus is a liar.

If you think being made 6 eons into a 7 eon project is IN THE BEGINNING, you're a garden variety fool.

Anything, and the reason behind why you think it is older than 6000 years old.

I have to warn you though that this whole "this star is 10 billion light years away and I saw light emitted from it that must have taken 10 billion light years to reach me" is absurd. Even in Big Bang theory, it's absurd.

What is the oldest thing you have seen, picture or otherwise, where you have a concrete reason to know how old it is.

Don't people just use
>lol god made the earth 4.5 billion years old when he made it 5000 years ago

Christcucks are ruining this board

Right click, hide

Oldest thing I've seen personally is Stonehenge, which was created at least before 2000 BC. But I know some bows from Denmark have been dated back to 9000 BC.

>A 24 hour day.
not to ancient hebrews

No, because the idea that the earth, and the universe, are mind numbingly old is a lie to numb your mind to the impossibility of darwinian evolution.

Lie 1. The singularity is really small. That's not hard to believe, right? A very small something that came from nothing? That could happen, right?

Lie 2. Billions and billions of years ago, this process that takes billions and billions of years to happen began. That process produced all you see.

Lie 3. Mankind now knows where the universe came from, and how it came to be as it is.

Attempted result: The bible is fake and there's no need for God to exist.

Yes, to ancient Hebrews. They just start their days at dusk instead of at midnight. Darkness to light.

24 hour days. Just like us.

I've seen Stonehenge too. It's very old. Thousands and thousands of years old.

So where do we have to look to see something that's "billions" of years old, on earth?

Right.

How do you think this lie developed? Is it the devils work, sneaky faith test, a misinterpretation of the evidence of some human conspiracy?

Why can't I pick all three?

Museums? Most fossils are more than a million years old.

I guess you could. I'd like more details though.

Not trying to troll you btw, obviously disagree but your worldview is so different it's really interesting.

Day only means something other than day in Hebrew when part of an idiomatic construction, this isn't' the case in Genesis 1.

Are they?

Or are they creatures suddenly buried and killed by mud, kept intact by sediment from a global flood? Are they not mostly creatures that lived at the bottom of the sea?

Then what are they doing atop mountains?

I'm an un-ironical polytheistic traditionalist monarchist. I want modern technological society to crash and burn so that horse cavalry becomes a relevant battle strategy again so that i can one day participate in a cavalry charge before i die

>What is carbon dating
And don't give me the excuse that God magically increased the decay rate of C14 atoms.

That was Satan.

The darwinian attack on the bible was swift, sudden and devastating. Strong Christians like C.S. Lewis found their own faith in the accuracy and authority of the bible shaken, if not broken. They believed this theologian, Charles Darwin, and his preposterous theory that given enough time, chance and mutations will produce human beings from "missing links". Note the missing links are still missing. Note also that every proposed missing link is a proven hoax.

So you have this attack on the bible from this disgruntled theologian, Darwin, who stole his work from a much better scientist than he, and who somehow is considered an expert on biology even though he called "the simple cell" a "bag of salt".

And Darwin also predicted that if nobody found these transitional fossils between forms, that his entire theory was bunk. None have been found. Alternate theories to get around this have been hatched by men like Stephen Gould who say evolution was not done gradually, but suddenly leaving no fossil evidence. How convenient.

Aside from the obvious racist bent of evolution, it is scientifically disingenuous to the point of distraction. It takes known processes and known micro-evolutionary changes like adaptation, mutations, natural selection, breeding, etc., and tries to tag onto all of the observed science the notion that in the past, unseen, all of these small changes we see used to produce massive changes.

Again, without evidence. All evidence for "evolution" is for micro-evolution, changes within kinds, like his infamous long beaked finches, which were never anything but birds. Ever. But since their beaks could be seen to be provident under one condition where they would breed, and improvident under others when they failed to breed and die, it was postulated that the change in beaks is a small indication of a complete change in kind. This has been taken to the absurd conclusion that dinosaurs were birds.

You're just a LARPer my man.

Satan is God's henchman because God is power.

Carbon dating is only detectable to say 100,000 years. Let's put aside all of the false assumptions carbon dating, and radiometric dating, make, for a moment.

Taking the half-life of C14 to be what, 5,730 years, and detectable to only about 100,000 years, we would not expect every single carbon dating test to show C14.

And yet, they all do.

C14 in every single organic sample ever. C14 in coal. C14 in mineralized fossils where a bit of organic material resides.

C14 in diamonds.

So we have a choice. Do we keep thinking diamonds are the result of millions of years worth of pressure coming forth from the crust of the earth, or did they get created about 6000 years ago?

One explains C14 in diamonds; the other does not.

Veeky Forums is the most traditionally right wing board on Veeky Forums, unlike /pol/ that is full of nu-right shitters like nazis and fascists.

>le LARP
Is this the new "Fedora" meme?
>State my coherent viewpoint
>"Lmao you're just wearing a fedora :P And roleplaying :D"

I'm an actual monarchist, but I can't take seriously anyone who believes in polytheism. It's just pure faggotry on wheels.

As a test of faith, even an atheist intuits that if the bible is false in one area it cannot be the authority in another.

If the bible is proven false about creation, why trust it about salvation? Why trust it about sin being bad? Why trust warnings against sorcery, drug abuse, homosexuality?

No, even the atheist reasons that the bible either stands as the Word of God, full of truth, or it completely falls apart if any of it is false.

As a Christian, I see the same evidence that you do, but through my filters and not yours.

You see stratified sedimentary rock and think it's layers of the earth's crust accumulated over millions or billions of years.

I see a gigantic mudslide from the mud and sediment of the flood drying over years or decades, about 4600 years ago.

Again, my worldview can explain how the explosion at Mt. St. Helen's created layered sedimentary rock in a matter of months; yours cannot.

My worldview can explain polystrate fossils, while yours cannot.

i guess the sun

>y-you're allowed to have small evolutionary changes, but that can't add up into larger overall changes over millennia because reasons

Explain why. I think monotheism is cucked and stupid. Why not have many gods, why limit yourself to just 1? Because the book that you're not allowed to criticize told you so? Lmao, c'mon.

Father which is in heaven: for he maketh. his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. ... sends rain on the just and the unjust.

I dont think the earth is only 6k, but humanitys time on it as humans homo-homo sapiens has been less than the 100k years, probably less that 50k

He human conspiracy comes from the fact that in this spiritual war that's raging throughout the earth, men pick sides. Some men have picked the side that is rebelling against God. They hate God, even as they say he does not exist.

So they work as hard as they can to "discredit" God, the bible, Christians, Christian scientists, anything that does not go along with their godless, random, meaningless universe theory.

Because that's what it is. If there's no God, nothing means anything. Nothing matters. So do whatever you want, guilt free. When atheism does not lead to hedonism, is it true atheism?

>tries to make a rational argument about religion
>WOW ISN'T THIS COOLER?
This is how I know you're not a real believer but a LARPer, this exact shit right here.

How would you tell how old the sun is? Here, let's do the opposite.

Take how much mass the sun loses every year, back that up 14 billion years, and see what the solar system and the earth in particular would be like under that sun.

If you don't want to do the math, uninhabitable is the short version; burned to nothing is the long.

>Sorcery
You ruined it lad, I almost believed you were sincere.

Because of the limits of DNA.

What the fuck is the difference between a real believer and a LARPer? What is this shit meme you are spouting? Consider me triggered, but this is the dumbest shit i've seen in some time. LARP is a terrible buzzword that doesn't apply to our debate.

With only about 3500 years of written history.

Care to explain your arbitrary guess?

Means you don't actually believe in that shit and you're just pretending to for effect or because you find it cool, or because you hate "le kike on a stick xD" and you're in a desperate search for an identity. But you still don't actually believe in it.

Drugs and sorcery both come from the same greek root: pharmakeia.

The people who tell you their DMT trip let them see things were not kidding, and were not hallucinating.

>14 billion years
>He thinks the sun is as old as the universe.

Not what I was asking I'm afraid.

Are geologists, physicists, archaeologists etc, all in cahoots? Or do you think they have a shared delusion, misinterpreting the evidence?

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

—Matthew 6:19–21,24 (KJV)

I think the sun is about 6000 years old. 6021 if you pushed hard enough.

And going dark.

f'dora.

What the fuck does it mean "Actually believe"? I don't believe in anything, in the sense that an Abrahamite cuck would. I believe in stuff that i find reasonably supported by evidence. I'm saying that i prefer a polytheist (i.e. many gods) view over a monotheist one (may only worship one holy figure). Now stop shitposting.

Also the reason for this preference is that i don't think you should consider any metaphysical being to be your lord, and someone you're forced to worship. I think you should be free to worship whatever God / Gods that you like, take a bunch of different gods from different pantheons, go worship Spiderman if you want, although that would be gay. Basically i find Abrahamic religions to be oppressive and shackling to the mind. Inb4 a christcuck tells me i'm going to hell.

>pic related

The heart of men is wicked indeed; who can know it?

Do you think a man's vocation changes his heart? Makes him holy? Makes him godly?

Yes, their worldview that they share and "peer review" is heavily enforced on them, at risk of their reputation and employment. They destroy people who disagree with their godless worldview.

The evidence is the evidence. Everyone sees the evidence through their own worldview.

The geological column, for instance. It appears nowhere in nature. It is routinely flipped upside down in nature. It is routinely in a sharp V shape in nature. And yet they persist to tell you that it is the crust of the earth. Without any holes in it. Without any burrows. Without any gaps. Seamlessly melded to each other, for some reason, without gaps.

Like layers of drying mud.

If you're an actual polytheist why aren't you worshiping your gods with sacrifices? Impiety was a capital crime in Ancient Greece.

Scratch that. I was being slow.

Thanks for the insight. It's rare talking to an actual fundie (though I realise you probably view that as a pejorative, but I can't think of a better one).

One more unrelated question, how do you view the relatively slow spread of Christianity across the globe. There were centuries where whole continents were basically denied knowledge of it (damning them?), how does that square with an all loving god?

I'm not compelled to sacrifice, and i'm not compelled to follow the laws of Ancient Greece either. I don't view the Gods as my lords whom i must appease, but rather as heroes and role models to venerate and admire. I don't think i would pour a libation or make a sacrifice, that feels a bit out of touch. But i'd totally get statues to keep around the house. I think idols are amazing and a good thing, coincidentally something that christcucks hate.

Made in God's image or a monkey's image?

newgeology.us/presentation32.html
trueorigin.org/spetner1.php
trueorigin.org/creatheory.php
trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php
evidentcreation.com/EC-Cartoon.html
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm

>Evolutionism: The Greatest Deception of All Time
youtube.com/watch?v=jMr278CMAIA

>Refuting Evolution and Bill Nye
youtube.com/watch?v=FvzMIJla28g

>Kent Hovind debunks Evolution
youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0

>Evolution is a myth
youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE

>Dr. Jonathan Sarfati destroys Evolution
youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-3fP4H8Ss

>The Greatest Lie Ever Told
youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI

>The Terror of Evolutionism
youtube.com/watch?v=0WE57wllfIc

>The Pagan Roots of Evolutionism
youtube.com/watch?v=rovovsBCQWQ

>Tracing Genesis Through Ancient Culture
youtube.com/watch?v=gFgohPpu0rE

>Overwhelming Evidence for a Global Flood
youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

>Overwhelming Evidence that Dinosaurs lived with Man
genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/
youtube.com/watch?v=niDCq3TbvOo
youtube.com/watch?v=W6M1b36KbHs

>Zeitgeist Debunked
youtube.com/watch?v=JFI6m6Icav4

Evolution is a myth. Wild speculations, imagination and fantasies.
Not grounded in reality.

Creation is a scientific fact.

Deist here. I still look to Christianity for a moral model, but otherwise have deistic inclinations. that being said, I don't feel traditionalism is too important. Traditions and heritage have their value, but I feel traditionalists put way too much emphasis on stasis or a reconstruction of an overly romanticized past. Although this is just how I understand traditionalism, and I haven't spoken to any traditionalists myself.

Yeah, also, God in the creation story is written in the 'dual' sense in ancient Hebrew meaning God's a pair. Good luck with that.

HERE'S THE STATE OF EVOLUTION TODAY: "Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux… all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven" -Professor Denis Noble, Evolutionist, Physiologist and Biologist, May 2013

1. Abiogenesis. They have given up on it and now say it's not part of evolution theory.
2. They are now admitting that they have no explanation for diversity. So now it's not evolution either.
3. They have given up on the fossil record since it looks like creation. So now they say they don't need the fossils.
4. Gould and associates say there is no gradualism (no transitionals). Stasis is the underlying factor in the fossils so it's not evolution either.
5. Random mutations and natural selection produce nothing so that's out too and they are rejecting it as evolution.
6. All they have left is the common ancestor monkey. The inability for "kinds" to interbreed destroys that one so it's not long for this world.
7. PE is now a failure so it's out as evolution as well. 8. The “tree of life” has also been rejected.

Darwinism is dead. The only reason why people still believe in evolution is because:
A) Afraid to lose their jobs (Intelligent Design scientists are suppressed, silenced or fired)
B) They don't *want* to believe in God. Their will/desire/feelings are more important than facts

>I feel traditionalists put way too much emphasis on stasis or a reconstruction of an overly romanticized past

I think your (mis)conception of traditionalism is a very common one... In short, i'm a traditionalist and i view tradition not as that which was done before, but that which will survive and thrive in the future. It's kind of similar to the doctrine of "Survival of the fittest", but considered in terms of human behaviours, rituals and cultures, instead of lifeforms.

The earth cannot possibly be millions or billions of years old.

1. Population: The rate of population growth has been steady for the time that we have records. The present seven billion is the right number of people to have multiplied from the eight survivors of the universal flood about 4400 years ago. If man had been around for millions of years, the same growth rate would have produced 150,000 people per square inch of land surface.

2. The planets are losing heat. If they had been formed millions of years ago, they would have no internal heat left given the present rate of heat loss. If a hot cup of coffee were left standing for 400 years, it would have no internal heat left.

3. The planet Saturn is losing its rings. They are slowly moving away. If the planet were millions of years old, the material in the rings would have dissipated long ago.

4. The moon: Space dust accumulates on the surface of the moon at the rate of about one inch for every ten thousand years. Astronauts found an average of one-half inch, just about what you would expect in six thousand years. Also, the moon is very slowly moving away from the earth. If it were millions of years old, it would have had to start very close to the earth, causing ocean tides so severe it would have drowned every thing on land twice a day.

5. Comets: As comets travel through space they continually shed some of their material. Any comet more than 10,000 years old would have long since disintegrated into nothing.

6. Earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. At the rate of deterioration, no such field would exist if the earth were as old as evolutionists believe.

7. Earth's rotation is slowing at the rate of one thousandth of a second per day. At this rate a billion years ago it would have been spinning so fast that centrifugal force would have caused it to fly apart.

8. Petroleum in the ground is under tremendous pressure. The rocks that contain it are porous. If the oil had been there for millions of years the pressure would have dissipated long ago.

9. The oldest living plants, the bristlecone pine tree and the coral reefs only go back about 4500 years. If earth had existed for millions of years, why aren't there older plants still alive?

10. Ocean salt: Now at 3.8 percent, the salinity of the oceans would have been much greater. The present rate of increase points back to a beginning about six thousand years ago.

11. Evolutionists point to stalactites in caves as proof of an old earth, but there are stalactites in the basement of the Lincoln Memorial several feet long that have grown in less than 100 years.

Im an Authoritarian Islamist theocratic monarchist, probably close to ISIS, AMA

I think Japan do very good balance between progress and tradtion

Table of Nations

A. Four Sons of Ham:
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites,
Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)

B. Five Sons of Shem:
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)

C. Japheth's Descendants (14 Nations came out of Japheth):
The immediate descendants of Japheth were seven in number, and are represented by the nations designated Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tiras; or, roughly, the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure. The sons of Gomer (Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) were all settled in the West Asian tract; while the sons of Javan (Elisah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim or Rodanim) occupied the Mediterranean coast and the adjacent islands.

Seven Sons of Japheth
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)

The Bible has extremely detailed geneologies that show humanity's origins.

Ah, yeah. I thought I was probably getting it wrong, hence the last bit I threw in. Less clinging to the past, and more ensuring a strong, worthy legacy, if I'm following correctly? If I'm not, I'm a bit dense, sorry.

>a bunch of videos that deliberately misinterpret evolutionary concepts in order to refute them

>Less clinging to the past, and more ensuring a strong, worthy legacy
Definitely. When we look at the past, we see different traditional forms. Such as different types of clothing, foods, housebuilding techniques, strategies of war, etc. A traditionalist is not really concerned with these different forms, but rather the constant truth that underlies them. An assault rifle is really no different than a sword, their main purpose is the same, to wage a war. I don't want the army to start using swords again, that's not what traditionalism means.
It's also about changing your point of reference, from a personal one to a supra-personal one. I risk sounding a bit too "deep" here, but for example you could start viewing "You" as, not just the person that you are, but the bloodline that you've inherited (and will eventually pass on, in your children). This is a traditional point of view that changes a lot, for example it suddenly makes sense to build houses that are very durable and future-proof because it's not just for you the person to live in, but for coming generations as well.

In the USA, Since 1963:
>Divorce Rates
>Breakup of family units
>Acceptance of homosexuality
>Teen-age Pregnancies
>Murder of inconvenient babies
>Crime Rates
Have all escalated and increased dramatically.

What happened that year? The Bible prayer got outlawed from schools.

One has only to look at the current state of western civilization to see where atheistic nihilism has brought us.

The idea of objective truth and morality is scoffed at. People are a law unto themselves. Good is evil and evil is good. Everything is twisted and distorted by post-modernists, liberals, progressives, marxists and social justice revolutionary types.

God, Family, Nation, Masculinity, all of these things are targeted for destruction by the psychotic left.

Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101

How often have you heard evolutionists say: "There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.

Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?

By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."

Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed.

The argumentum ad populum is an illogical way for evolutionists to sway people to their position. Watch out for it whenever it's used by others ... and avoid using it yourself as you seek to defend biblical truth.

Evolutionists have to rely on logical fallacies, because there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species. Only by using logic errors can evolutionists generate a belief in something that has not occurred and is not occurring.

Begging the Question: This is circular logic. An assumption is used to validate a premise. Evolution is assumed to be factual; therefore, evolutionists dismiss outright fraud as being acceptable because it illustrates a true point. One popular form of this is, "Although it is mathematically impossible for life to have occurred by chance, we're here, so that proves it happened."

Hasty Generalization: A small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, evolutionists like to claim that evidence of people dwelling in caves in former times means humans came from a more primitive species. This is overgeneralizing at its extreme. In fact, humans are still dwelling in caves, and not because they are a primitive species.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: This tries to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science. This is contrary to fact. Many scientific advances were made and are being made by people who believe in God. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel, for example, all believed in God.

Misuse of Authority: A group of “experts” is used to prove a conclusion, even if that group does not actually agree with it. An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."

Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation. Thus we have the "millions" of years timetable for evolutionists.

You will find that every argument in favor of evolution hinges on a logical fallacy. All the evidence clearly points to design, not accident, as the source of life.

To see the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact in full force merely read the literature of any evolutionist and note that the literature will have references such as:
>may or may have
>must or must have
>possibly
>could or could have
>should or should have
>might or might be, etc.
Then note that their conclusion demands to be recognized as scientific fact.

Apparently evolutionists did not get instruction concerning scientific axioms and principles that demand that any conclusion that rests on these kinds of phrases can never be considered a valid theory or fact.

One hasty generalization is when micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is used to support macro-evolution (the change of one species into a different one.) The first is merely normal. The second never occurs. Yet evolutionists say that because some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, this difference within the species proves that species change into creatures that are not of their own kind. That's a hasty generalization for you.

Evolutionists are constantly begging the question. They base their extrapolations on assumptions. A good example of this is the rock record. Evolutionists say that slow, steady rate erosion created rock layers that were obviously caused in a cataclysm. Evolutionists ignore the real world of sudden disasters that dramatically and suddenly change the landscape, since that ruins their theory of slow, predictable change over millions of years.

The theory of evolution is often referred to as a tested and proven scientific fact, when evidence overwhelmingly is against it. In fact, the theory of evolution is based on conjecture, and from there assumptions are made that contradict observable fact. Evolutionary arguments cannot withstand objective, in-depth criticism because they are nothing but hot air.

By true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory. A scientific theory is confirmed by observations and is falsifiable. There will be proof whether it is right or wrong.

Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now. It can never be proved—either true or false. It has always been on speculation alone.

Because there is no actual evidence to support evolution, proponents resort to logical fallacies. Evolution puts forth a tautology, which is the circular argument that the fittest survive, and therefore those who survive are the fittest. See how one statement is used as proof of a repetition of the same argument. The fittest—those who leave the most offspring, evolutionists say— leave the most offspring. A hamster spinning in its cage could hardly go in more circles!

There is a line of reasoning known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). Evolutionists like to do this all the time. They try to show that belief in a Creator is false because it is absurd. "We cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch him," they say. "So we're supposed to believe this tripe?"

Meanwhile, we cannot see species turning into another species, but they expect us to believe that they do.

Actually it is atheists that do not understand evolution.

trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php

The more you learn what evolution really entails, the more ridiculous it becomes.

That makes more sense. More thinking in terms of lineage, than simply nostalgia goggling. My apologies for misrepresenting you, then. Thank you for clearing things up.

>1. Population
Dude, what arbitrary growth rate did you assume and why didn't you factor life expectancy and increased mortality rate in pre-agricultural society? Plus flood =/= young earth

>2.
Yeah, and they don't recieve any heat from their respective stars and earth temperature hasn't fluctuated in history lmao

>3.
Yeah, because no rocks and other space trash comes into it's gravitational well

>4.
When the moon formed, there weren't any life on earth, so you can flood everything as much as you like (especially simple marine life, I'm sure it would bother it)

>5.
Comets come and go, also earliest observation of a comet is from around 1000BC

>6.
You assume a linear rate?

>7.
your source on the numbers?

>8.
I have literally no idea what the fuck are you talking about. How do pressure dissipate?

>9.
Because they died. It happens sometimes, you know?

>10.
Ocean levels change. Some water freeze, some water evaporates, some of it melts thus changing the concentration of Sodium Ions in it. It's not like salt is magically formed in the oceans from nothing.

>11.
Stalactites formed from differing material form at differing rate. If the Earth was 6000 years old and you extrapolated the rate from Lincoln Memorial, how long would the ones in caves be?

>1
blatantly wrong
human and animal populations have fluctuated on global and local levels for thousands of years. Malthus's theories support that, agriculture has only been able to sustain current numbers because it has progressed dramatically in the last 200 years
>2
there are plenty of theories regarding why the the earth's internal heat engine is as active as it is, just because science can't explain it adequately or in consens doesn't mean change the half-life of radioactive isotopes or the temperature of the Curie point and it certainly doesn't support the idea that the earth is 4400 years ago. Even without accounting for radioactive decay, the earth is still much older than 5000 years old just by your own "planets are losing heat" statement
>3
blatantly wrong, Saturn's rings are moving in a predictable pattern consistent with its age, not that the rings are as old as the planet in the first place (the moon isn't as old as the earth for example)
>4
"Space dust" as you erroneously call the moons surface dust, can only be formed as far as solar radiation can adequately break down rocks...which doesn't happen as much when you consider that half an inch of dust is easily enough to insulate the rocks....not that "half an inch" is even remotely correct, its a few inches in fact.
>5
comets haven't been traveling through the solar system their entire life, most of them are just orbiting in the Kaiper belt, they can last more or less indefinitely at that distance from the sun until they are knocked out of orbit