How do you respond to someone who thinks the world is 6000 years old?

I would say that there is quite a bit of geological evidence that seems to poin to the earth being much older, but I was not here 6000 years ago so i cannot say for sure.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="4_Horsemen"]

I find it funny how everyone believes what is taught in the schools about evolution. They've lied about history before so why not this. Who here has done tests themselves and come to this conclusion. "I have! I read it somewhere, my teacher told me." "When have they lied?" I've had two teachers tell me the Vatican never committed mass murder. The crusades, 'nuff said.

pimpog

Two teachers at a school told you something that is obviously false; therefore, you doubt whether evolutionary theory is valid?

Am not seeing a connection there.

Basically he is saying the teachers heard/read about these facts and taught what they heard to him. He is saying short of understanding the material and doing the test for himself that he has no way to verify the so called facts he is being taught. Many so called fact have been proven false or the info has been distorted by the teachers bias. Many people are quick to say others are wrong when all they have is some info from a book written by a person they don't know and have never meet before.

I find most just reapeat stuff or post links they have no clue if the info is legit or not. I understand what he is trying to say and agree.

Is not the rational thing to do in any situation to find out for oneself? Doubting something simply because someone said so seems just as bad and as lazy as accepting something simply because someone said so. Bona fide skepticism is to not accept claims until one has seen the evidence, but then to accept that which the evidence indicates - not just to doubt everything and leave it at that. There's nothing virtuous or commendable in being baselessly contrarian simply for the sake of doing so.

Discuss

KH-mixerX

Shrug your shoulders, then sigh, and tell them to open their mind to knowledge.

Science adjusts its views based on what is observed,

While faith is the denial of observation to preserve belief.

In short people who wish to hold on to their faith will willingly ignore things they know are probably right and shut out anything that could open their eyes to truth in the world and universe.

[QUOTE="pimpog"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Two teachers at a school told you something that is obviously false; therefore, you doubt whether evolutionary theory is valid?

Am not seeing a connection there.

GabuEx

Basically he is saying the teachers heard/read about these facts and taught what they heard to him. He is saying short of understanding the material and doing the test for himself that he has no way to verify the so called facts he is being taught. Many so called fact have been proven false or the info has been distorted by the teachers bias. Many people are quick to say others are wrong when all they have is some info from a book written by a person they don't know and have never meet before.

I find most just reapeat stuff or post links they have no clue if the info is legit or not. I understand what he is trying to say and agree.

Is not the rational thing to do in any situation to find out for oneself? Doubting something simply because someone said so seems just as bad and as lazy as accepting something simply because someone said so. Bona fide skepticism is to not accept claims until one has seen the evidence, but then to accept that which the evidence indicates - not just to doubt everything and leave it at that. There's nothing virtuous or commendable in being baselessly contrarian simply for the sake of doing so.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Discuss

majoras_wrath

I'm 33 seconds in and I've already facepalmed once. I might keep a running total while listening to the rest just for kicks. :P

EDIT: Facepalm #2 at 1:45. The idea that rocks are dated according to fossils and fossils are dated according to rocks is a popular "gotcha" line among creationists, but it is of course false. Rocks are dated using radiometric dating.

EDIT #2: OK, I'm now 3 minutes in and he's still talking about this store owner. I don't feel like listening to the rest, as the substance-to-length ratio is very low.

[QUOTE="Installing"]

[QUOTE="krazy-blazer"]I'd respect his opinion, that's pretty much it.BiancaDK

I'd acknowledge his opinion, but I wouldn't respect it.

I'd ignore his opinion, and I would subsequently disrespect him.

This is great.

It randomly came up in discussion, about science, sciencetist who say pray works, vs sciencetist who say medicine etc works not pray.

anyways, i was baffled when someone near to me, let's say my dad, say's the world is 6000, and basically calls the millions and billions of years of fossils etc is just a hocus pocus, that dinosaurs died in the flood.

i'm still confused, that the bible would fail to mention something like the things we seen jurassic park or any museum.

also that the grand canyon, and the earth mt everest etc etc, everything is shaped after the great flood

i don't know how to discuss this anymore, but i have a strong feeling to just leave it there, and this alters my view on him lol

now i kinda wonder why they reach for advil etc instead of just praying away the pain...

[QUOTE="pimpog"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Two teachers at a school told you something that is obviously false; therefore, you doubt whether evolutionary theory is valid?

Am not seeing a connection there.

GabuEx

Basically he is saying the teachers heard/read about these facts and taught what they heard to him. He is saying short of understanding the material and doing the test for himself that he has no way to verify the so called facts he is being taught. Many so called fact have been proven false or the info has been distorted by the teachers bias. Many people are quick to say others are wrong when all they have is some info from a book written by a person they don't know and have never meet before.

I find most just reapeat stuff or post links they have no clue if the info is legit or not. I understand what he is trying to say and agree.

Is not the rational thing to do in any situation to find out for oneself? Doubting something simply because someone said so seems just as bad and as lazy as accepting something simply because someone said so. Bona fide skepticism is to not accept claims until one has seen the evidence, but then to accept that which the evidence indicates - not just to doubt everything and leave it at that. There's nothing virtuous or commendable in being baselessly contrarian simply for the sake of doing so.

"The only appropriate attitude for man to have about 'the big questions' is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting #$%& dead wrong." -Bill Maher

Possibly one of the best quotes regarding religion I've ever heard, and applies pretty well to the topic.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="pimpog"]

Basically he is saying the teachers heard/read about these facts and taught what they heard to him. He is saying short of understanding the material and doing the test for himself that he has no way to verify the so called facts he is being taught. Many so called fact have been proven false or the info has been distorted by the teachers bias. Many people are quick to say others are wrong when all they have is some info from a book written by a person they don't know and have never meet before.

I find most just reapeat stuff or post links they have no clue if the info is legit or not. I understand what he is trying to say and agree.

ghoklebutter

Is not the rational thing to do in any situation to find out for oneself? Doubting something simply because someone said so seems just as bad and as lazy as accepting something simply because someone said so. Bona fide skepticism is to not accept claims until one has seen the evidence, but then to accept that which the evidence indicates - not just to doubt everything and leave it at that. There's nothing virtuous or commendable in being baselessly contrarian simply for the sake of doing so.

Didn't see this comment until now, but sure, go ahead.

I'd respect his opinion, that's pretty much it.krazy-blazer

on top of it, it's just hard to "respect" an opinion you find ridiculous but at the very least you could respect your father for having his beliefs but not respecting the beliefs itself. Hell my father thinks fox news is the most accurate unbiased news station and uses the argument that polls indicate the large majority of people watch fox news so it "must be right" He also argues that bush was a damn good president and that obama is one of the worst in history. It doesn't matter how much I argue with the guy though about it, nothing gets through to him so it's a waist of damn time.

Easier to just respect him for what he believes (not the beliefs themself) and accept his opinions then argue with him.