If you use a philosophical uniformitarian interpretation of the amount of process that has occurred on earth or in the cosmos, you will get a figure of hundreds of millions of years or even billions of years. We do not dispute the amount of process. We deny philosophical uniformitarianism, which is an atheistic presupposition. The age of the earth, according to a reasonable interpretation of the Old Testament, is lik…
We deny philosophical uniformitarianism Then you're just making it up as you go along.
All origins systems are underpinned by unprovable presuppositions, including atheistic origins accounts, the biblical origin account, and so on. Origins accounts have to be logically compatible with science and have explanatory power. Philosophical uniformitarianism is an atheistic presupposition. It is more in the realm of philosophy than science, yet it has a significant bearing on how atheists interpret scientific evidence, especially in the origins domain.
> Creationism is a rapidly growing religious and intellectual phenomenon on a global scale. > … young earth … It is mind blowing how people believe this nonsense. Where’s their critical thinking?
I mean, answering your question seems to be exactly the point of the book. If one were take you as genuinely curious about how people might convince themselves of a belief that seems entirely alien and implausible to you, the next step would probably be to earnestly read the book with the credit of good faith in its authors. I think we can take for granted that doing so would not persuade you of very much, but it mig…
> read the book with the credit of good faith in its authors
Presuming good faith on the part of creationists is a sucker's bet.
If you use a philosophical uniformitarian interpretation of the amount of process that has occurred on earth or in the cosmos, you will get a figure of hundreds of millions of years or even billions of years. We do not dispute the amount of process. We deny philosophical uniformitarianism, which is an atheistic presupposition. The age of the earth, according to a reasonable interpretation of the Old Testament, is lik…
> The age of the earth, according to a reasonable interpretation of the Old Testament, is likely to be 6000 (Masoretic text) to 8500 years (if you rely on the Septuagint versions). So, when you say Christian creationism is “evidence based”, you mean a “reasonable interpretation” of a text with a whole litany of direct internal inconsistencies, and which itself has no evidence (leaving aside personal faith) of being a…
Christians and some prominent secular scientists agree that the origin of life on earth is a miracle. One group posits a Divine miracle. The other a secular miracle. Abiogenesis is foundational to the secular origins account. Before abiogenesis occurs, the mechanisms of biological evolution cannot be invoked. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner called abiogenesis both impossible and implied it was a miracle. Francis Crick implied it was a miracle. Fred Hoyle, atheist, calculated a probability for abiogenesis of 10 raised to the power of negative 40,000. Eugene Koonin in about 2012, invoked the multiverse as an infinity to try to make abiogenesis seemingly plausible. He calculated the probability of the RNA world hypothesis at less than 10 raised to the power of negative 1000. It has been labelled the hardest problem in biology. The most celebrated atheist of the twentieth century, Anthony Flew, left atheism when he realised the impossibility of abiogenesis and became a theist of some sort. If you need a miracle to explain abiogenesis, as these secular authorities have said, then the secular origins account is not as rigorously "scientific" as some might suppose.
I mean, answering your question seems to be exactly the point of the book. If one were take you as genuinely curious about how people might convince themselves of a belief that seems entirely alien and implausible to you, the next step would probably be to earnestly read the book with the credit of good faith in its authors. I think we can take for granted that doing so would not persuade you of very much, but it mig…
> read the book with the credit of good faith in its authors Presuming good faith on the part of creationists is a sucker's bet.
I hope you are aware that the sustainable scientific enterprise we all appreciate today was birthed by Christian Europe, and relied on the faith that the universe was understandable because it was created by a rational being.
> read the book with the credit of good faith in its authors Presuming good faith on the part of creationists is a sucker's bet.
I hope you are aware that the sustainable scientific enterprise we all appreciate today was birthed by Christian Europe, and relied on the faith that the universe was understandable because it was created by a rational being.
Not to the point, which, again, is that relying on the good faith of creationists is a sucker's bet.
> read the book with the credit of good faith in its authors Presuming good faith on the part of creationists is a sucker's bet.
I hope you are aware that the sustainable scientific enterprise we all appreciate today was birthed by Christian Europe, and relied on the faith that the universe was understandable because it was created by a rational being.
The Catholic Church follows the scientific consensus that the Earth is billions of years old.