Can Young Earth Creationism be classed as a conspiracy theory

>>692966470
Probably. It has a lot of conspiratorial ideation in it: "scientists are lying, carbon dating doesn't work", etc. type crap.

It's not true, like all conspiracy theories, so yes.

>>692967597
Well, the term 'conspiracy theory' has taken on the meaning 'a conspiracy so fucking ridiculous and impossible that it can't be true', so in that sense yes. But there are reasonable conspiracies like Watergate that were true.

>>692968173
That wasn't a conspiracy theory, that was a documented crime that led to discovery

>>692968224
Correct. I'm just noting the difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy before any discussion picks up.

>>692967597
but muh chemtrails and moon hoax

Yeah they're all bullshit.

>>692968536
Kek, you think people actually read a thread before commenting?

>>692969284
No, but this thread is pretty fucking short.

>>692969103
True

>>692966470
Like other conspiracy theories, also, there is absolutely no evidence for it.

File: childlike18.jpg (50KB, 778x688px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 778x688px

>>692970843
Yes there is. It's called the bible, maybe you've heard of it?

to claim that the world is billions of years old is retarded. There is absolutely 0 proof of it. Carbon dating is proved time and time again to give wrong results.

If you seriously think the earth is billions of years old then you are insane.

>>692969103
>moon hoax
guess how many references to the moon there are from 1000yrs and earlier BC

Zero.

File: biblecontradictions-reasonproject (1).jpg (4MB, 2900x3849px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2900x3849px

>>692971950

>>692967522
Because human beings could not possibly conspire about scientific findings, right? Scientists have careers to protect. If their field of expertise becomes outdated or invalidated by new findings you better believe they will protect their livelihood tooth and nail. Carbon dating us NOT reliable. Check the data.

>>692971951
is this bait?

>>692972118
I don't think you understand the moon hoax.

>>692971951
To claim that the world is thousands of years old is retarded

look I can do it too

>>692966470
>Few people believe in it now
I'd agree with you, but I don't think this part is true, sadly. According to http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx , about 47% of americans at least believe it.
Which is embarrassing.

>>692972158
You realise there are more ways of dating than just carbon right?

>>692972140
Nice reddit pic, but contradictions don't mean that the book is invalid.

>>692972341
>le reddit
>le fedora meme
>le tips hat
There, I saved you the trouble.

>>692972341
It means it is suspect at best.

>>692972158
hhahahhaha
ahHHhahahahHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
oh god save america, you are fucked

>>692972305
Such as Rohypnol

>>692972158
>If their field of expertise becomes outdated or invalidated by new findings
But that is literally the entire essence of science, you numbskull. Science is always changing and updating, that's the entire point, it is not static.

>>692972472
scientists when corrected by further study are always in denial that they were wrong.

>>692967597
Yes. Because there was once the claim by conspiracy theorists that the U.S. gov was experimenting on the civilian population with lsd/powerful doses of hallucinogenics. The conspiracy was proven true after the government admitted to the experiments. But conspiracy theories never happen right...

>>692972158
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology
C-14 dating is just ONE branch of ONE specific technique of geochronology.

>>692972158
>Because human beings could not possibly conspire about scientific findings

>Carbon dating us NOT reliable. Check the data.

lol at this irony

>>692972624
That you can't even separate "conspiracy" from "conspiracy theory" tells me all I need to know

File: fedora.jpg (416KB, 2423x1433px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 2423x1433px

>>692972439
As is carbon dating.

>>692972421
I'm gonna post it anyway, because this thread is just that cringeworthy.

>>692972648
are you saying carbon dating is reliable?

>>692972738
Why is it suspect?

>>692972766
I'm saying you claiming "Science data is wrong!" then immediately telling to check some science data is funny.

>>692972738
>I'm gonna post it anyway
Fair enough. Just thought I'd try to save you the burden.

>>692972602
That's the way research works in a vacuum. Enter the Hand of Man. Remember that crazy fellow, Copernicus? They fought him tooth and nail before the shift in the paradigm was able to happen. Same thing with Science today. Go learn some history and stop trying to teach a UC Berkeley graduate how science works. Ah hahahaha hahahaha ha!

>>692972158
>>692971951
So you don't trust carbon dating.

So how exactly have you determined the age of the Earth?

File: 1459347625570.gif (105KB, 392x320px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 392x320px

>>692967597
>It's not true, like all conspiracy theories
Right. I can't believe people think that 9-11 was anything but coincidental Pilot errors.

>>692973091
but it was religious figure that opposed Copernicus.

>>692972624
>>692972732
Conspiracy theory is just that a theory until proven true. Then it simply becomes conspiracy. What's the mix up?

>>692972140
A lot of these aren't contradictions. They're referring to new testament claims contradicting old testament.

Well no shit. Remember the old testament said only the Jewish Tribe, the Chosen Ones, born from Adam and Eve could get into Heaven. Then Jesus the world's greatest troll came along and started telling people that EVERYONE, all you non-adamites, you creatures born with the animals, you human cattle, could get into the Jewish Heaven.

>>692972140
I looked up like ten, they're not actually contradictions if you know your theology. As for factual inaccuracies, the books themselves admit that they are comprised of testimony from various sources and may not be perfectly factually accurate. Read the intro to Luke.

>>692973124
That's the thing, it's up for debate because of unreliable results from our primitive methods.

>>692972610
show me your study then, dumbass

two can play the fallacy game

>>692973284
well ofc they had to change that. still puzzles why they chose jewish religion to base a new one on. the old testiment does show that jews are greedy gold loving vermin though. So it has some truth.

>>692973091
Religion is by its nature static, which is why every aspect is now outdated and instead of updating, they just dismiss modern ideas and cling to the past out of "tradition".

Young earth is one of them.

>>692972610
That is not true at all.

>>692973462
So you are advocating what?

>>692966470

>conspiracy theory

who would the conspirators be?

There is absolutely no evidence in existence supporting or suggesting a young earth. It's entirely fantasy.

>>692973194
It was a human being protecting his work. No matter if it was the church. Church was in charge of Science then. Not so now. Human dynamics stay the same. No matter who's in charge now.

>>692973635
>Church was in charge of Science then
Gee, I wonder why it was being held back in those days compared to now.

>>692973593
I'm just stating the facts and limitations of our dating methods. That's all.

>>692973631
The "eeeeevil demon scientists pretending the earth is old with their dark spells of evolution" or whatever.

>>692973284
Actually, there is no Jewish Heaven. Being a good Jew gets you gold in this life, then you go to a quiet place undergound. Christ was the first one to promise more than the Uber elite (e.g. Elijah) the chance to join God.

>>692973510
The Jew was one of the most successful religious groups back in the old days. It makes sense the peasants would cling to the religion that says love everyone and treat everyone fairly while backed up by a God who, from the looks of it, were helping his people.

>>692971951
Where is this proof?

>>692973539
Religion that is static becomes the strawman the liberal media uses to denounce religion. It isn't a necessary state.

A young earth is too young for all of the natural features of earth to form and for life to evolve.

Old earth is supported by the existence of everything around us

>>692973971
Nah

>>692973705
Nothing, really. Still found cures and medicines. It was the birth of the scientific method and the modern notion of Science which you now understand that sees early science as infantile. We are still basically retards. But many feel we can accomplish anything through science. Which is certainly an infantile approach considering our science is reductive by nature.

>>692974007
Don't be stupid, assuming evolution to prove old earth is cyclical logic. I don't believe in young earth but your argument is retarded.

>>692974056
Faggot.

>>692974194
Evolution is true, that's a fact. You can work from that.

>>692973784
It's not the same as the Christian Heaven.

This world is compared to an ante-chamber that leads to Olam Ha–Ba, (the World-to-Come)” (Pirkei Avot 4:21). That is, while a righteous person might suffer in this lifetime, he or she will certainly be rewarded in the next world, and that reward will be much greater. In fact, in some cases, the rabbis claim that the righteous are made to suffer in this world so that their reward will be that much greater in the next (Leviticus Rabbah 27:1)

Olam Ha-Ba to refer to a heaven-like afterlife as well as to the messianic era or the age of resurrection, and it is often difficult to know which one is being referred to. When the Talmud does speak of Olam Ha-Ba in connection to the afterlife, it often uses it interchangeably with the term Gan Eden (“the Garden of Eden”), referring to a heavenly realm where souls reside after physical death. Only truly righteous souls ascend directly to Gan Eden, say the sages. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom.

>>692974279
>evolution
>fish crawls up on land
>fish becomes amphibien
>fish grows legs and shit
>fish becomes mammal
>fish no like land anymore
>fish goes back to ocean
>fish can't breathe water
>fish no care just go to surface
>fish lose legs and shit
>fish become largest mammal to exist
>fish whale now

>>692974781
Nigger that is not how it happened.

>>692974781
You being stupid does not disprove evolution.

>>692974985
This
+rep x100000000

>>692974781
What the fuck are you talking about? That is not evolution.

>>692974418
Jew's worship Saturn any claim to the contrary is just ignorant. Go and ask some rabbis. They nlknow what I'm talking about. Israel is Phoenician for Saturn. That Star of David is really the Star of Saturn. Look it up. True story.

>>692974781
Problem.

You are acting like it's all the same fish.

>>692974985
What would disprove evolution?

>>692975387
A species that spontaneously appears with zero ancestors

>>692975197
That is as ridiculous as evolution truly is. Nothing evolves at the macro-level. Only have observed evolution at the microscopic level. Adaptation is not evolution. They are not the same thing.

>>692975485
So humans. Problem solved.

>>692975485
so all of life?

>>692967376
Flat Earth Society thread, enjoy.

>>692975485
you need to define that better

or else

>>692975674
>>692975808

are not wrong

>>692975674
baaaaaaaaaaait

>>692975674
Humans have one of the most complete and well documented fossil records of ancestors and common relations.

>>692976116
We aren't.

>>692976336
Just the facts. No spin here.

>>692975597
So the mechanisms of evolution are real and we only directly observe evolution happening in lifeforms that have fast enough reproductive lifespans to witness change in our lifetimes?

Sounds like the scientists must be onto something, there's probably some truth to evolutionary theories even though science isn't all knowing.

>>692976401
aren't what?

>>692975808
lol wut

>>692976398
That is not fact. That's why we are still looking for the missing link in our line of supposed ancestors. Just look at the Lucy hoaxes perpetrated by accepted scientists to try and prove your point. There's only speculation at this point . No actual fossil record linking us with anything.

>>692976723
lol that you actually said "missing link"

Immediately I know you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

>>692976665
I'm not denying evolution exists. It does, at the Micro-level. I just don't agree with the part-to-whole reasoning present in modern macro evolutionary theory. Ni direct link. Sure, they may or may not be onto something. Don't ever forget the might no part. You people always do. Discarding important facts which don't suit the position you hold and advocate.

>>692977077
>>I'm not denying evolution exists. It does, at the Micro-leve
Macro evolution is just micro over a longer time.

>>692976873
Refute my points or just shut the fuck up, fucking useless-eater.

File: human-evolution-timeline-500-347-25.jpg (26KB, 500x347px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x347px

>>692976723
Sure there isn't..

>>692976723
Yeah the human species was made by aliens. It's not like there are any genetic lineages of creatures similar to humans, primates or simians are just a hoax.

>>692977188
You don't have a point. What you have is vague chatter you picked up from internet forums with no real understanding, and parroted.

>>692976401
You are

>>692977161
Now you are just making stuff up as you go along.

>>692977374
What?

This is like saying walking a mile exists, but walking ten miles doesn't.

>>692966470
Shouldn't all religions then?
> unless that's your point

>>692977077
Macro-evolution is the only valid explanation for the biodiversity of life

>>692977262
Yes, this is from scientists who believe wholeheartedly in evolution. I can pull up images of my own but then you will call it pseudo science or some crap. My point stands. No missing link, no ancestry.

>>692977077
So millions of changes won't alter something over time in a big way?
>Discarding important facts which don't suit the position you hold and advocate.
What facts are you referring to now?

>>692977604
>>Yes, this is from scientists who believe wholeheartedly in evolution.
No, you stupid person, it's a list of known and documented species.

>>692976723
Define missing link. What would constitute it?

>>692977077
I like to tell the story of the bullfrog killing off most snakes in Australia big enough to classify the frog as prey died off from the poison.
Also, apparently there are fishes in shallow Australian beaches that are starting to utilize their fins to drag them around instead of swimming.

>>692977077
>I believe in someone making a door, but I just can't imagine someone making a house including a door.

>>692977453
Terrible analogy is terrible. No it isn't. Micro evolution is possible not because the theory but because of the general composition of the organism in question. Humans are not the type of organism capable of evolutionary transformation like the previously mentioned organism which in fact is capable of evolution.

>>692977914
>Humans are not the type of organism capable of evolutionary transformation
says who?

>>692977492
But it has never been observed.

>>692966470
nah, it's still just plain stupid

>>692978032
I don't think you really understand evolution very well.

>>692978032
You don't observe directly a mountain eroding either, but it happens.
Very slowly.

>>692977914
Humans already evolved from earlier species, we've seen the record for a long time now.

>>692977914
>Humans are not the type of organism capable of evolutionary transformation like the previously mentioned organism which in fact is capable of evolution.

You'll probably say there is no evidence this can happen or ever has, but where is your evidence for this statement being true?

>>692977662
I was waiting for your dumbass! Ah haha! Where you there over millions of years to observe that yourself? Then shut the fuck up. No one has. So it isn't scientific now is it, fuckface? Not directly observed, not empirical therefore not scientific. Checkmate

>>692978569
>Where you there
nice grammar

>>692978569
Nice attitude faggot. So you have no facts which I have ignored and just use the argument that we didn't observe millions of years, so therefore none of us know and should just listen to your dumb ass.

>>692978569
If it was up to you there would be no such thing as forensics, we would rely solely on eyewitness accounts for crime solving.

what a shit thread
let it die

>>692979233
thanks for the bump

>>692977604
>>692977262

what makes them change from on species to the next?
what is the distinction, other than a different name?

>>692979007
I'm a die hard scientist.it kills me when retards like you try and school me on actual fucking science. You fuckers are like church goers. Can't think for your fucking selves. Every theory has flaws. You blind fucks are diluted. And probably teenagers.

>>692978510
Are we fucking microorganisms? There's my proof, asshole.

File: evolution tree.jpg (796KB, 2420x933px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 2420x933px

>>692979401
Very little. That's why there's so many.

>>692979572
How is that proof?

File: Livebait.jpg (49KB, 453x604px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 453x604px

>>692979463
>>692979572

>>692979463
As a die hard scientist what would cause you to abandon evolution?

>>692979069
Forensics is a reliable method. Another infantile mind lacking in comprehension.

>>692979401
Small changes in their genetic structure.

>>692979573
so are they not all just humans?

>>692979756
The scientific method is reliable. But you would dismiss it solely because you're unable to reconcile facts with your religious beliefs.

>>692979776
so do we have genetic samples of these early human species?
if so how different are they from us?

>>692979827
No, they are not. Humans are homo sapiens. They're all related and ancestral species.

>>692979713
The fact that it is more of a religious line of thought than actual science. It runs into so many problems. If it wasn't for its popularity it would have been out of contention long ago. I'm a scientist not a preacher.

>>692979950
Yes we do, from their fossils. Mostly it's small differences in the body structure over time, gradually going less primate like and more human like.

>>692979955
yes, but >>692979573

if there is very little that separates us, why do we not class them as being of us?

>>692979890
I have no religious beliefs guiding this conversation. Only scientific facts.

>>692980115
>if there is very little that separates us, why do we not class them as being of us?
That is like saying "these two shades of blue are similar, why can't we say they're the same shade?"
The answer is because they're not the same shade.

You don't seem to understand taxonomy.

>>692980237
What scientific facts indicate a young earth and intelligent design?

>>692979463

>I'm a die hard scientist

Funny, I've met and worked with plenty of scientists. Through your words and reasoning, you do not strike me as a scientist. Perhaps an undergrad who has done a couple of school projects and maybe even graduated with a bachelor's degree and now does grunt work for some pharmaceutical company, but not a scientist.

If evolution isn't real and we were intelligently designed, why does the human body have a number of flaws in it and useless parts that are leftover from ancestor species?

>>692980114
but what percentage is the difference?

humans ourselves very greatly in shape, no.

>>692980403
So the hospitals could sell your foreskin to make stem-cells. All part of God's design.

>>692980538
Very small. That's why there are so many species in that list, because that's how evolution works. Small changes over time accumulate into big changes over a long time.

>>692980241
I think im saying why cant we class them as blue
when does blue become aquamarine become green

File: bookofmagic.png (175KB, 335x411px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 335x411px

Carbon dating may not be perfectly sound, but we're getting away from the counter-argument.

Trusting a "historical document" with enough magic in it to be stocked in the Sci-fi Fantasy bargain bin at Goodwill.

At least carbon dating has an observable method that is open to speculation rather than an unshaken dogmatic truth.

>>692980288
>>692980288
I don't advocate for either. But ID has a lot going for it. There is so much structure and order in the world that intelligent design has actual legs to stand on. That no one wants to give it a serious look is a completely different issue. Even the great Isaac Newton concluded that their was enough regularity in the universe to believe there was a god/creator which kept the system running smoothly by tinkering with it from time to time. Google it.

>>692966470
since you are a retard, yes it could.

>>692980721
Because "blue" is a ridiculously imprecise and vague term.

>>692980742
What structure and order is this?

>>692980649
so such small changes are sufficient for us to class them as different species?

how small must this change be?

>>692977803
Adaptation at its finest. Definitely not a change , physical change, like evolution. So not an example of evolution but of adaptation.

>>692980915
I suggest you ask a professor of taxonomy this.

>>692980954
Except assuming those frogs stay indefinitely, the fish that do that will change as the generations go on. Evolution

>>692980799
yes are these>>692979573
or these >>692977262
more precise than

BLUE:Wavelength: 450–495 nm; Frequency 606–668 THz; Photon energy: 2.50–2.75 eV

>>692981241
Blue light is mathematical, evolution is not. False equivalancy.

>>692980915
As small as the 1 percent difference in DNA between Bonobos monkeys and humans.

>>692980915
One small change alone does not classify them as a different species. Maybe a different mutation or a different type of the species, but not a separate species.

However, once many of these changes have occurred, it's probably correct to call humans and other apes different from their common ancestor.

>>692966470
>Few people believe in it now

42% of Americans do

>>692980302
You met and worked with highly trained laborers. They learned the method but not how to reason. That's why you double major in philosophy. So you have a brain to go with that expertise. So I take that as a compliment.

>>692981429
Americans make up less than 5% of the population.

>>692969284
Apparently you did, retard

>>692980992
yes thanks I will if i meet one.

is this important in evolution or is it not?

to me it seems important but I dont know much about this, so i'm not big believer of evolution. maybe it is true, but i dont understand it so I am a little skeptic.

how bout you? are you believing this? do you understand this very good?

>>692980915
Put it this way. There's only one chromosome that's different between us and chimps.

>>692981104
Your speculation is amusing. Speculation.

>>692981565
If it is beneficiary to the fish that do, then they are the ones that will survive and pass on their genetic material more often than the fish that do not.

>>692981358
They had to disregard large differences in the DNA that would take too long to think about and evaluate to come to that conclusion.

>>692972118
This is bait right?

>>692981338
>>692980799
so is blue precise or imprecise?

>>692981565
so is the simplicity of your mind.

>>692981636
Keep repeating yourself. It won't change anything.

>>692981769
Another fine compliment. Thank you, Sir.

>>692981783
Do you have any actual response to what I said?

>>692981739
When trying to discern shades of blue to human eyes, it is imprecise.

>>692981551
>>692981402
>>692981358

yes i understand humans and chimps different, how is early human and modern human different? like in here
>>692977262

>>692981676
They considered Bonobos a different species long before DNA testing, which showed we have an extreme amount of genetic similarity.

>>692981941
You are pointing out a case of adaptation trying to sneak it into some sort of evolutionary change. Repeating yourself won't change that. Is that clear enough for you?

>>692980622
Sounds like conspiracy

>>692981988
so given our inability to accurately categorise colours as different or the same, why do you such confidence that we can do this for far more complex qualities, with much less completeness of information.

the point about blue was to highlight this point, that our classifications of objects as objects can be subjective and this problematic when we try and support an argument based on gradation,

you cannot say that a man is both an ape and man and is neither an ape nor a man.

without a better understanding of classification, the evolutionary project, as a reliable description for the emergence of man, is incomplete.

>>692982405
You can't seem to comprehend evolution.

>>692982812
>you cannot say that a man is both an ape and man and is neither an ape nor a man.
Uh, yes you can. Man is still a primate, that's a genus, not a species.

>>692982957
I beg to differ, Sir.

>>692983210
"no u"

>>692982995
So is a man a lemur, which is also a primate?
no of course not.

I think you miss my point.

they are similar and different, but what makes them so, is key.

>>692983537
>So is a man a lemur, which is also a primate?
I just told you a primate is not a species.

>>692980721

when they can't have offspring that can have offspring. That's why a mule isn't a species, it's a bastard. Mules are sterile.

there is a possibility that a human or let's say a chimp and a bonobo could have a child, but it would probably not be able to procreate. Hence, some species are closer to eachother than others.

>>692983874
or Ligers and Tigons
Always sterile