Why Young Earth Creationists are WRONG, Part I

@StuJee1 , Hello Stu!! The Bible is very realistic. How is a moon floating in the sky realistic? Or the sun heating the "whole" world. Or the sun rising and setting everyday..... Tides coming in, tides going out. Animals, our brain, sex,Chuck Norris? Anything here seem realistic to you? Like duh, all that stuff is easy to understand and very realistic. What?!?! Turn water into wine? By the guy who made the world? come on get "realistic".
Were's your faith Stu? Be realistic.

All the things you mentioned (other than the last one about the wine) can be explained. Water does not just turn into wine.

The point is you have started with the assumption that there is a supernatural being out there performing all these supernatural events. Where does this assumption come from? Probably from a personal experience that you had, when you became a born again Christian. But why should anyone believe you?

@StuJee1 , your so right! Water just does not turn into wine!!>>?? That's crazy!!!
Must be a miricle right?? Well how about this crazy earth floating in space galaxy? This is more plausable to you? Is that much more easily grasped. Point being, Gods miricles are all around us. water into wine seems pretty simple to me. At least from a God that created the heavens and the earth. You seem to think it just came to be. This is a huge leep of faith. were just sacks of mush.

I don't think everything just came to be - although I don't see why it couldn't. I don't know - there is no faith involved here just doubt.

Why do you think God exists? You have no evidence outside the bible and the bible is not a good historical source - there are no first hand accounts in it and it is full of contradictory statements.

To say that god's miricles are all around us is mearly to say 'i don't understand how the world works'. We know the origin and physics of planetary bodies.

How does it feel to be just as irrational as some of the early earth guys? Just because a few creationists are hard nosed, your conclusion is that "creationists aren't interested in scientific data".

How do you know when someone is desperate or feels threatened in a discussion? When they go hyperbolic. Your insecurity is showing.

My main argument with creationists is that "they separate us from other creation . I think we are wrong to destroy the rainforests, damage the climate, and destroy other species when as Darwin basically proved, homo-sapiens "are brothers with the worms". If the extraterrestrial force that originated life here ever returns it will find that humans have evolved into the least worthy form of life on the planet, because we know we wilfully harm and destroy other species and their habitats.

how about the fact that the moon is what's left of the roughly mars-sized planet that impacted with the earth billions of years ago?

"there is no reason a person can not follow both"
Yes, if you decide that the truth is unimportant, and that bronze age goat herders had a real insight into the nature of the cosmos, then, yes you can follow both. It's called intellectual dishonesty.

1. This Moon theory is a common misconception, because it assumes that the Moon has been moving away at a constant rate, which it has not due to tidal effects. Evident by the Earth's slowing rotation.
2. Tectonic shifts causes new mountain ranges to appear. This is why we have earthquakes.
3. That number of humans does not take into account death, famine, plague, natural disaster, mortality rates, wars etc. leaving population growth nearly flat up until a few centuries ago.

Does that mean that the oldest tree (being 4767 years old) lived for 6233 years?

Or are the ancient wood peices ones found elsewhere?