All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > If you think a young earth is likely, you are dumb
12/28/2012 9:58 AM
Good. Stay in the hills.
12/28/2012 10:18 AM
The problem is that I'm not in the hills. I'm like the Swiss in WWII - I stay neutral and keep my own land.

At least I can say I'm not closed minded to any opinion other than the one I already hold, which is more than many of you can say.

12/28/2012 10:31 AM
12/28/2012 11:16 AM
Posted by bistiza on 12/28/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
The problem is that I'm not in the hills. I'm like the Swiss in WWII - I stay neutral and keep my own land.

At least I can say I'm not closed minded to any opinion other than the one I already hold, which is more than many of you can say.

Yes, I admit it. I am close minded to the incredibly stupid idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
12/28/2012 1:43 PM
It's not just the mainstream. It's everyone other than a handful of fringe quacks.

Your position that you are neutral on the issue and, in your mind, it's equally as likely that the earth is 10,000 years old as it is 4.5 billion years old, is stupid and worthy of ridicule.
12/28/2012 2:22 PM
You see, that's what you just don't get at all.

Instead of accepting there are people with other theories, ideas, and opinions, you have to attack them and give them ridiculous labels FOR NO OTHER REASON than they disagree with the majority opinion.

That shows a complete ignorance of how things often work in the real world, which is that the majority opinion is sometimes later revealed to be completely wrong. This has happened more times than I'm sure you realize, but I've already told you of several ideas which were at one point in time and in one or more large areas considered to be correct and later proven completely false:

The world was thought to be flat. The world was thought to be the center of the universe. It was thought flies spontaneously generated from spoiled meat and other foods. It was thought witches were responsible for many things including using magical powers to terrorize other people.

All of these were mainstream ideas supported by a majority of people at one time and in one or more large areas. There are plenty more throughout history as well.

I can imagine had you been alive and there at the time, you'd have been leading the charge to threaten and even kill anyone who disagreed with these ideas, even though they were all eventually shown to be completely false.

Your idea that you think someone's opinions are "stupid and worthy of ridicule" shows you are nothing more than a simple bully. You want to put others down because they don't agree with you, and you somehow believe that having the majority on your side justifies your deplorable behavior. 

This is exactly why it's not worth wasting my time to attempt a debate with you. You don't have a real position of your own. You don't even think for yourself. All you do is agree with the majority and use it as a means to justify your desire to attack everyone who doesn't agree with you, even if they are neutral on the issue in question.

What you are doing is ignorance of the greatest magnitude. If you ever grow up and decide to have a real debate where no personal attacks are involved, let me know. Otherwise, this will never be.

12/28/2012 3:38 PM
Posted by bistiza on 12/28/2012 2:22:00 PM (view original):
You see, that's what you just don't get at all.

Instead of accepting there are people with other theories, ideas, and opinions, you have to attack them and give them ridiculous labels FOR NO OTHER REASON than they disagree with the majority opinion.

That shows a complete ignorance of how things often work in the real world, which is that the majority opinion is sometimes later revealed to be completely wrong. This has happened more times than I'm sure you realize, but I've already told you of several ideas which were at one point in time and in one or more large areas considered to be correct and later proven completely false:

The world was thought to be flat. The world was thought to be the center of the universe. It was thought flies spontaneously generated from spoiled meat and other foods. It was thought witches were responsible for many things including using magical powers to terrorize other people.

All of these were mainstream ideas supported by a majority of people at one time and in one or more large areas. There are plenty more throughout history as well.

I can imagine had you been alive and there at the time, you'd have been leading the charge to threaten and even kill anyone who disagreed with these ideas, even though they were all eventually shown to be completely false.

Your idea that you think someone's opinions are "stupid and worthy of ridicule" shows you are nothing more than a simple bully. You want to put others down because they don't agree with you, and you somehow believe that having the majority on your side justifies your deplorable behavior. 

This is exactly why it's not worth wasting my time to attempt a debate with you. You don't have a real position of your own. You don't even think for yourself. All you do is agree with the majority and use it as a means to justify your desire to attack everyone who doesn't agree with you, even if they are neutral on the issue in question.

What you are doing is ignorance of the greatest magnitude. If you ever grow up and decide to have a real debate where no personal attacks are involved, let me know. Otherwise, this will never be.

"The world was thought to be flat. The world was thought to be the center of the universe. It was thought flies spontaneously generated from spoiled meat and other foods. It was thought witches were responsible for many things including using magical powers to terrorize other people."


Yes. And over time, science debunked these notions. To attempt to portray yourself as open-minded because you can see both sides of the flat earth vs round earth "issue" is ridiculous. Your young earth "theory" falls into this category.


You see, bis, that's what you just don't get at all.
12/28/2012 4:12 PM
Yes. And over time, science debunked these notions. To attempt to portray yourself as open-minded because you can see both sides of the flat earth vs round earth "issue" is ridiculous. Your young earth "theory" falls into this category.

The difference is that there is scientific evidence to support a young earth model (I listed some before in the other thread, but I'm not going to rehash it now), just as there is to support an older earth model. THAT is why I remain neutral on the subject.

The problem is that too many people can't look at the evidence from anything remotely resembling an unbiased point of view, and you're obviously among them.

You take the word of mainstream science as unquestioned gospel, which is surprising in this day and age when you can easily look up evidence for any and all scientific theories if you so desire.

Yet instead of reading the information with an open mind, you accept what has been spoon-fed to you and spew it back out without ever looking at any of it with a critical eye or thinking for yourself.

I guess I can understand why you do that.  The pressure to conform and join the group think  is enormous. After all, if you dare to think for yourself and somehow come to a conclusion other than that of the majority - even if you don't take a side - someone like bad_luck may attack you mercilessly and most people would rather avoid dealing with those kinds of issues.
12/28/2012 4:46 PM
The difference is that there is scientific evidence to support a young earth model

No, there isn't. You listed something about how all the carbon-14 should be gone. Completely ignoring the fact that it is produced in the atmosphere. Then you refused to explain how the 1st & 2nd law of thermodynamics are evidence of a young earth.
12/28/2012 6:22 PM

Truth be told I have heard the 1ns and 2nd TD laws one for a long time.

And I cannot ever remember it being addressed on TV.

Why is that?

I once saw a TV show that tried to explain early German success in WWII on alien intervention.

Why is talking about an oddball theory that may support Christian beliefs not allowed?

12/28/2012 6:52 PM
I don't think the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics argue one way or another for a young earth. I think bis was talking out of his asshoIe.
12/28/2012 8:51 PM
There is FAR more credible scientific evidence that supports a 4.5 billion year old earth than there is that supports a 10,000 year old earth.

I believe the argument that has the preponderance of scientific evidence.  And is far more rational.

My God, I can't believe I am even addressing this.
12/28/2012 9:54 PM
Posted by bistiza on 12/28/2012 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Yes. And over time, science debunked these notions. To attempt to portray yourself as open-minded because you can see both sides of the flat earth vs round earth "issue" is ridiculous. Your young earth "theory" falls into this category.

The difference is that there is scientific evidence to support a young earth model (I listed some before in the other thread, but I'm not going to rehash it now), just as there is to support an older earth model. THAT is why I remain neutral on the subject.

The problem is that too many people can't look at the evidence from anything remotely resembling an unbiased point of view, and you're obviously among them.

You take the word of mainstream science as unquestioned gospel, which is surprising in this day and age when you can easily look up evidence for any and all scientific theories if you so desire.

Yet instead of reading the information with an open mind, you accept what has been spoon-fed to you and spew it back out without ever looking at any of it with a critical eye or thinking for yourself.

I guess I can understand why you do that.  The pressure to conform and join the group think  is enormous. After all, if you dare to think for yourself and somehow come to a conclusion other than that of the majority - even if you don't take a side - someone like bad_luck may attack you mercilessly and most people would rather avoid dealing with those kinds of issues.
"The difference is that there is scientific evidence to support a young earth model (I listed some before in the other thread, but I'm not going to rehash it now), just as there is to support an older earth model. THAT is why I remain neutral on the subject."


Horseshit. I'm not sure where you posted your "evidence," though I'd just about bet you have some of Duane Gish's nonsense in there. In any case, the thermodynamics objections have long been part of the creationist literature (btw, can we stop pretending this "young earth" crap is anything but a prelude to creationism?) and has long since been discredited. Ironic that you don't want to rehash what you posted in another thread, but scientists are supposed to keep answering an objection that was debunked before you were born, ad infinitum, just so you can pretend you're discussing a "competing" theory.

And I haven't even mentioned the countless areas of well established science that need to be thrown out to accommodate your crackpotology, I'm sorry, "theory." Biology, geology, radiocarbon dating, for starters. But the best part is that we are apparently contemporaries of the dinosaurs. To paraphrase Lewis Black, I can't be kind about this, because bis is watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary.



As for the masturbatory drivel that is paragraphs 2-5 of your post, it scarcely merits a response. I will say I'm reminded of the words of John Dewey. He argued that genuine open-mindedness is like being hospitable to guests; it is not tantamount to putting a sign out saying, "Come on in, no one's home."

Sorry to disappoint you, bis, but someone is home.
12/29/2012 3:24 AM
Again why are people who claim the moon landings didnt happen are treated with more respect by the MSM than people who believe in a young earth?
of 5
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > If you think a young earth is likely, you are dumb

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.