Apparently, Young Earth is a thing...

[Eric Mc]

jshell said:

98elise said:

jshell said:

The demise of traditional religion has left the emotionally weak homeless. Now they are searching for belief and hope. That's why this crap is growing.

What?

Religion is the problem.

The bible puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years (once you do the maths), and 40% of Americans believe the as the was created by God less than 10,000 years ago.

The Catholic church only accepted the earth orbits the sun in 1992!

As religion wanes, the people who would normally turn to religion have find a home for their needs so they often turn to pseudoscience or conspiracy theories.

Not quite true about the Catholic Church admitting Galileo was right. They'd kind of admitted it well over a century before. Indeed, the Vatican has quite a well equipped astronomical observatory which has produced lots of good science over the decades. What they did in 1992 was finally get around to taking Galileo's writings off their proscribed list - basically an admin tidyup job..

Look up the work of Father Georges Lamaitre.

https://www.google.com/search?q=father+lemaitre+bi...

Also, this chap is one of the world's leading experts on asteroids -

Guy Consolmagno

[Gadgetmac]

Eric Mc said:

jshell said:

98elise said:

jshell said:

The demise of traditional religion has left the emotionally weak homeless. Now they are searching for belief and hope. That's why this crap is growing.

What?

Religion is the problem.

The bible puts the age of the earth at about 6000 years (once you do the maths), and 40% of Americans believe the as the was created by God less than 10,000 years ago.

The Catholic church only accepted the earth orbits the sun in 1992!

As religion wanes, the people who would normally turn to religion have find a home for their needs so they often turn to pseudoscience or conspiracy theories.

Not quite true about the Catholic Church admitting Galileo was right. They'd kind of admitted it well over a century before. Indeed, the Vatican has quite a well equipped astronomical observatory which has produced lots of good science over the decades. What they did in 1992 was finally get around to taking Galileo's writings off their proscribed list - basically an admin tidyup job..

Look up the work of Father Georges Lamaitre.

https://www.google.com/search?q=father+lemaitre+bi...

Also, this chap is one of the world's leading experts on asteroids -

Guy Consolmagno

Always astonishes me when I see a member of the clergy who is also an astronomer and studies the universe. It shouldn't but it does.

[Halb]

otolith said:

We might have trampled on one of his beliefs - flat earther, creationist, or germ theory denialist? Anti-vaxxer, moon truther, homeopath? Give us a clue!

I'm not picking a fight or saying any of those above things are true, but would you out anthropomorphic climate change denier in that list?
I watched a yt vid today with lumped all the above together, now in these pages, I see no support for any of the above, but a fair bit of support for climate change not having to do with humans and co2

[Halb]

Roofless Toothless said:

I think it s the traditionally religious that are the first to believe in this nonsense.

I watched the joe rogan podcast with Matt Taibbi, the correlation with the religious and the adherence to conspiracy theories is a strong one.

[Hoofy]

When you're done with this Young Earth stuff, knock yourself out with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMeXSlGJZYc

[mygoldfishbowl]

Meh, no different to the global warming alarmists/extremists. What is it now, another 10 years?

[Previous]

RDMcG said:

Let's be rational:

(1) the earth is flat- just look around.

(2) The moon is a disc- look up!

(3) Nobody could land on it. No landing

(4) The mafia killed Kennedy

(5) Have you met a dinosaur? of course not!..but there are presreved example of the Dodo and the passenger pigeon. They just didnt know how to preserve dinosaur fossils and they perished in the flood.

Actually you need to visit the museum of civilization in Kentucky. VERY persuasive...a few pics I took:










There is an explanation , people!!! HTH

That last poster pretty much uses the theory of evolution to explain itself. The Irony.

[Esceptico]

The irony is that there are religious people who accept evolution and the age of the universe/planet yet still believe in god. At least the creationists are being consistent (if stupid).

[hidetheelephants]

RDM said:

clio007 said:

I find it quite funny how posters seem to think they have the most intellect and that any other opinion or way of thinking must, by default, be nonsense and stupid.

These posters would be the same morons who would have laughed at those who thought the world was round once upon a time.

You just dont know what we will uncover in 5, 10, 20 years from now so dont be so cocksure yourself

When was this time you talk of when people laughed at
People thinking the world was round?

Pythagoras hypothesised that the world was spherical, although it was probably Eratosthenes that first proved it scientifically circa 200 BC; christian fundamentalists didn't like this science stuff and burned down his workplace sometime later.

[take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey]

hidetheelephants said:

RDM said:

clio007 said:

I find it quite funny how posters seem to think they have the most intellect and that any other opinion or way of thinking must, by default, be nonsense and stupid.

These posters would be the same morons who would have laughed at those who thought the world was round once upon a time.

You just dont know what we will uncover in 5, 10, 20 years from now so dont be so cocksure yourself

When was this time you talk of when people laughed at
People thinking the world was round?

Pythagoras hypothesised that the world was spherical, although it was probably Eratosthenes that first proved it scientifically circa 200 BC; christian fundamentalists didn't like this science stuff and burned down his workplace sometime later.

They rained down phlogiston.

[otolith]

Halb said:

otolith said:

We might have trampled on one of his beliefs - flat earther, creationist, or germ theory denialist? Anti-vaxxer, moon truther, homeopath? Give us a clue!

I'm not picking a fight or saying any of those above things are true, but would you out anthropomorphic climate change denier in that list?
I watched a yt vid today with lumped all the above together, now in these pages, I see no support for any of the above, but a fair bit of support for climate change not having to do with humans and co2

I think a lot of people would unequivocally put climate change denier in that list, yes.

I would put some climate change denialism on that list, however there is a bit more nuance to it than that. I think some denial may be rooted in the same crazy as the other stuff - the sort of willful contrarianism, the mistrust of science, the lack of understanding of how the evidence stacks up - but I think it's mostly rooted in not wanting to believe it because it is - as has famously been said - "inconvenient".

Then you've got the people who accept the basic physics, accept that greenhouse gases are a thing and that humans adding them to the atmosphere has an effect, but who dispute the validity of the climate models which predict positive feedback effects leading to runaway change. They're not disagreeing with the fundamental physics, they're disputing the sums.

Then you've got the people who think it's all about creating socio-economic change, globally redistributing wealth, overthrowing capitalism, etc, who are somewhat emboldened by those for whom it actually is all about creating socio-economic change, globally redistributing wealth, overthrowing capitalism, etc.

[clockworks]

Greeny said:

a/ you were not a Witness long enough to learn to spell their name
and b/ to learn their beliefs.
the 3 things you claim about dinosaurs, fossils and carbon dating, are incorect.
I think there may have been other reasons why your teachers were laughing at you!

Edited by Greeny on Thursday 5th December 19:25

Not sure how old you are, but that is what I was taught over 50 years ago. Most of it came from my maternal grandmother, and was not contradicted by my parents. Mum's father was an elder, so I assume that what I was taught was what was believed by the cult at the time.

JW teaching may be a little different now, as they have a habit of revising the official line in the face of overwhelming evidence. I have heard that there was a big shake-up when the "end of days" didn't happen in 1975, but I was out well before then.

The next time they knock on my door, I'll ask them. It'll make a change from me blaming their indoctrination for my father's premature death (refusing blood transfusions) and the subsequent family fall-out.

[jshell]

otolith said:

I would put some climate change denialism on that list, however there is a bit more nuance to it than that. I think some denial may be rooted in the same crazy as the other stuff - the sort of willful contrarianism, the mistrust of science, the lack of understanding of how the evidence stacks up - but I think it's mostly rooted in not wanting to believe it because it is - as has famously been said - "inconvenient".

Then you've got the people who accept the basic physics, accept that greenhouse gases are a thing and that humans adding them to the atmosphere has an effect, but who dispute the validity of the climate models which predict positive feedback effects leading to runaway change. They're not disagreeing with the fundamental physics, they're disputing the sums.

Then you've got the people who think it's all about creating socio-economic change, globally redistributing wealth, overthrowing capitalism, etc, who are somewhat emboldened by those for whom it actually is all about creating socio-economic change, globally redistributing wealth, overthrowing capitalism, etc.

Very few of the 1st point.

The 2nd point is stacking up nicely.

The 3rd point is becoming more and more obvious by the hour.

[Thankyou4calling]

I’m not at all convinced about the existence of dinosaurs as they are portrayed.

[Halb]

otolith said:

I think a lot of people would unequivocally put climate change denier in that list, yes.

I would put some climate change denialism on that list, however there is a bit more nuance to it than that. I think some denial may be rooted in the same crazy as the other stuff - the sort of willful contrarianism, the mistrust of science, the lack of understanding of how the evidence stacks up - but I think it's mostly rooted in not wanting to believe it because it is - as has famously been said - "inconvenient".

Then you've got the people who accept the basic physics, accept that greenhouse gases are a thing and that humans adding them to the atmosphere has an effect, but who dispute the validity of the climate models which predict positive feedback effects leading to runaway change. They're not disagreeing with the fundamental physics, they're disputing the sums.

Then you've got the people who think it's all about creating socio-economic change, globally redistributing wealth, overthrowing capitalism, etc, who are somewhat emboldened by those for whom it actually is all about creating socio-economic change, globally redistributing wealth, overthrowing capitalism, etc.

Nuanced yes, I out the anthropomorphic/human bit in to keep awayb from that first option. There's a video I put in the science forum who misses out that nuance.

[chrispmartha]

Thankyou4calling said:

I’m not at all convinced about the existence of dinosaurs as they are portrayed.

Interesting, how do you think they should be portrayed?

[Scabutz]

otolith said:

You think they're nuts, them and the flat Earthers? How about these fruit loops?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_denialis...

There was one of those prats in here recently. In a vaccine thread, never got to the bottom of whether he was a troll or true believer. Bonkers.

[Vizsla]

clockworks said:

The next time they knock on my door, I'll ask them.

While you're at it, ask them about the 'no sorrow, no disease, no bloodshed, no death' stuff.

I once got into discussion with a couple of JW's on this topic (should have known better):

Me: So, with no bloodshed or death before the unfortunate incident with the apple, what did the tigers eat?

JW's: Grass!

Me:

You couldn't make it up. Oh, wait a minute ...............


And a seasonal joke:

Have you seen the new JW Advent calendar?

Yeah, you knock on one of the little doors, and a bloke leans out and tells you to fk off!

[Thankyou4calling]

chrispmartha said:

Interesting, how do you think they should be portrayed?

It all seems a bit Disneyfied.

When I found out the skeleton at the Natural History Museum wasn’t a skeleton at all it didn’t help.

It just strikes me that if you leave a bone in a grave it’ll rot away pretty soon yet these “Dinosaur bones” have remained for millions of years.

I just think we are extrapolating things a bit too much.

[chrispmartha]

Thankyou4calling said:

chrispmartha said:

Interesting, how do you think they should be portrayed?

It all seems a bit Disneyfied.

When I found out the skeleton at the Natural History Museum wasn’t a skeleton at all it didn’t help.

It just strikes me that if you leave a bone in a grave it’ll rot away pretty soon yet these “Dinosaur bones” have remained for millions of years.

I just think we are extrapolating things a bit too much.

Oh, I thought that you were just commenting on the poetic license they use to recreate the looks, but it seems you don't think the fossils and bones exist at all?

As with all of these conspiracy theories there never seems to be a reason why they would create the conspiracy, why lie about Dinosaur Fossils?