YEC 2

[Januarymadness]

Right I am going to bite. I shouldnt have looked at the facebook but I did.

Mr Ruggles you have made some horrible accusations. You have claimed everyone who disagreed with you was an atheist who lacked logic and reasoning. You were wrong on ALL counts. Many people told you they were Christian or Theists, they just didn't agree with you. The thread was also full of valid scientific arguments which were well worded and full of logic and reasoning.

You have also accused us all of being bullies. Something I saw no evidence of. Not agreeing with someone is not bullying.

So please do feel free to justify your off board comments here as speaking behind peoples backs is really not on.

Please could someone link to the old thread. Thanks

[BestValue]

"hello again Age. Having read Bests link like a good girl) I agree with you. There is just no peer reviewed reseach wich backs that up. Not to mention that some of the arguments still make the earth millions, not thousands, of years old. i.e the mountain range one."

January, those 101 points are just introducing the articles they link to which all contain peer-reviewed research. You couldn't have read them all. It would take days.

The long ages given are merely an upper limit and do not indicate an actual age. Ultimately, we rely on the Eye-Witness testimony of the One who was there.

Finally, this does not have to be evidence that would convince YOU or anyone else on this board (as that may not even be possible). I was asked why I believe and this is some of the evidence I find persuasive.

[BestValue]

"Best - who is it you want to debate with here?"

Sabrina, I'm not really interested in a debate at all per se. Never was.

"But posters who are atheists, agnostics, even many christians - are simply unable to accept your 3 assumptions. A lot of christians do not believe that the bible can be taken literally. If you only want to engage with people who accept your 3 assumptions, you're limiting your audience very much - pretty much to others who are likeminded to yourself."

We've been over that. I don't agree with an atheist's starting assumptions but I am able to accept them so as to understand her reasoning. I am not asking you to believe what I'm saying - merely to understand it. I fully understand why an atheist doesn't believe in God and why they accept evolution. I don't think it's an irrational position to take.

[BestValue]

"I have a good video for you. If anyone knows how I can make it clickable from the android app I will happilly oblige."

Is that the "Conspiracy Road Trip: Creationism" one? If so, I just watched that whole thing a few months ago. Very interesting, if a little one sided. They seemed to just want to make the creationists look bad. I think to truly understand someone's position you need to read and watch things from their point of view. That's why I've read nearly all the recent books by atheists and evolutionists. I understand why they believe what they do. The evidence just isn't good enough for me because I feel I have a better explanation that makes more sense of the data.

[BestValue]

"A lot of christians do not believe that the bible can be taken literally."

Depends on which parts you're referring to, Sabrina. Not even the most ardent creationist takes the WHOLE Bible literally. Can you be a Christian and not take the days in Genesis literally? Absolutely. But anyone who does not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead is simply not a Christian. It would be as nonsensical as an atheist who believes in God.

[BestValue]

I should also mention that I discovered on the first thread that often while I was responding to the previous day's posts, a flood of new posts would pour in that sometimes got overlooked. So if anyone feels that I failed to answer a question either adequately or at all, feel free to ask it again and I'll try to be more careful this time. It does get difficult, however, when there are so many of you and only one of me.

I also wonder if there is anyone who would be up to the task of writing out in logical, step-by-step fashion (as I have done) why they do not believe in God and why they believe in evolution. I would find it fascinating and it would help me to understand you better.

I've also asked more than once for some falsifiable predictions for both atheism and evolution. I'd really enjoy reading them and I promise I will consider seriously what you take the time to write.

[BestValue]

January, I was just watching a bit of that video again and I'm pretty sure I can answer all the questions the kids couldn't. Two claims I just saw quickly were:

1. Where did the whales fit on Noah's Ark?
   
2. A wooden ship that big couldn't float.
   

The answers are:

1. Whales nor any fish or sea life needed to be taken on the Ark. There was plenty of water for them to survive outside. The Bible specifically says Noah was to take land animals. No bugs either. (Bugs survive floods on floating log mats.)
   

1. Whenever this claim is made, they say that the biggest wooden sailing ship ever made was 300 feet long and that a longer ship (the Ark was at least 450 feet long) would split in two. The problem is that the Ark was not trying to sail anywhere. It was basically a big barge. It's proportions are the perfect proportions for a seaworthy vessel (unlike the cube ship of Gilgamesh) and are still used in ship building to this day.
   

If you think that video raised any unanswerable questions, let me know and I'll try to answer them.

[ICBINEG]

Point 1 in the 101 list:

"DNA should not be found in things claimed to be a million years old."

Okay so someone found a salt crystal with some DNA in it, the whole thing being data to millions of years old.

The argument is that DNA shouldn't survive that long due to it's bonds breaking down.

So the big question for me is why is it okay for the salt crystal to have survived (weakest bonds on the order of 400 kJ/mol) but not the DNA (weakest bonds 360 kJ/mol).

The answer to this is trivial....drop salt in water and the bonds last a fraction of a second. Keep them under anhydrous conditions and what can they do? a bit of local re-arrangement? A little solid solid diffusion? The strength of a bond is not important, the free energy of the system is. If the only other option is to evaporate a metal ion, salt bonds, weak as they are can essential last forever. The same thing is true of DNA. Keep it in water and boom its gone in a blink (on a geological time scale). Stick it in a crystal with no chemicals to interact with and it will do the same as the salt...a little local re-arrangement and some very minor diffusion.

Yes each bond in the molecule will have broken a million times...but with nothing else to do but re-bind with the same atom you are left with a very similar molecule to the one you started with.

So is that one off the list then?

[Januarymadness]

Most of the links were to creationist publications. That is NOT the same as non biased, peer reviewed, journals.

As for the documentary I did not find it one sided at all. The makers went well out of their way to find experts who were actually people of faith themselves (except maybe the guy who showed that the ark would have categorically sunk with the dimensions given...) It showed that faith and science were not mutually exclusive, but also that blind faith is not the route to pursue.

[Januarymadness]

I would also like to point out that in the last thread you said that you do not use Occams Razor (largely as this would preclude your 3 assumptions approach) yet here you are quoting it to back up one of your ideas.

[ICBINEG]

Jan yes we have:

Atheist: We do not need the existence of a benevolent God to explain the world around us therefore we use Occams Razor to suggest that there IS NO BENEVOLENT GOD.

YEC: Well obviously there is at least one benevolent God so we use Occams Razor to suggest that there is ONLY ONE BENEVOLENT GOD.

I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the main problem with atheists v. theists is that the two groups are working with different data sets.

I am an atheist primarily because I do not feel God inside me. I do not feel loved, or cradled by an entity bigger than myself. I feel I am alone in a cold uncaring universe that will snuff out my life without noticing.

So I then look out on the rest of the evidence of the universe with my own internal bias. I am not expecting to find God necessary to explain the world.

Presumably those people who do feel the love of a God in themselves, find they look out on the rest of the evidence with an equal and opposite internal bias. They ARE expecting to find God to be needed to explain the world around us.

it is unsurprising that we come to different conclusions really...

[ICBINEG]

Point 8 of the 101:

This is actually the same as point 1. ie. that storage conditions are massively important when it comes to chemical reaction rates. Fossilized ANYTHING will not react at the same speed as ANYTHING in solution.

But I wanted to highlight the spectacularly incorrect side point mentioned in the article. The article states that if chemists make amino acids they would be 50:50 right and left handed. This is total and utter rubbish. All chemical reactions capable of chirality have a preference for one of the two handednesses in any given set of conditions. There are reactions that come out 99% :1% spontaneously and vice versa. Of course some come out near equal but the amino acids do not all fall into that category by any means. The related argument that evolution should have produced 50:50 is similarly rubbish. Given the conditions pervading in prebiotic reactions there will have BEEN preferences although they would certainly be smaller than those present once you have specific catalytic enzymes on the case. The better your catalyst the more specific your handedness...but catalysts include simple molecules found out in the big wide world...not just biological ones.

[ICBINEG]

hmmm points 2 and 6 make the same mistake as 1 and 8.

[ICBINEG]

OKay well I have to get some work done now...but I think 4 in an hour isn't too bad.

[infamouspoo]

The reason I posted to that very simple liberal jewish document was a, because it was very simple and b, to show that apart from a few ultra orthodoc hassidic sects, the majority of world jewry has come out of the dark ages and does not see Beresheit as literal but as a creation myth of their bronze age ancestors. Even maimonides (The RamBam) back in the 12th century said it wasnt literal and he is recognised as one of the finest jewish scholars of the Torah ever to have lived. Maybe you should read his works.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

"Children are born believers in god, academic claims" does not equal empirical evidence that children are born believing in god.

But I see you say you're not here to debate

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

Here's January's youtube clickable link

It's good - I remember watching it on the BBC.

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

There's clearly been a misquote regarding Best's opinion of "mommies groups". So in fairness, I thought I'd just drop in what was actually said by Best when his FB friends started to slate such groups:

Oh, okay. I'm not going to agree with you about the "Mom groups" because they're already monitoring this page.

Interpret that as you will, but it's fairer to show what was actually said.

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

Best, you continually state that you do not agree with the atheists' starting assumptions. I'd like to know what you think those assumptions are because personally I don't start with any assumptions, I go with the most likely theories bases on the evidence.

Incidentally, I went through your steps to believing, but had to stop at step 1 I'm afraid.

STEP #1: The truth about God can be known. (To claim it cannot is to make a truth-claim about God and is thus self-refuting.)

To claim that it can is also to make a truth claim about God and is therefore also self-refuting.

So you are left with nothing to start on.

[SabrinaMulhollandJjones]

I was more concerned about what he said about people being 'inherently evil' tbh - which he has then repeated on here.

I think inherently evil is such a very absolute term to use to describe humanity - even if he is referring to Original Sin I think most christians would find those words way too strong.

And that's before we even get started on Eve and Original Sin - which I also have huge problems with. As a feminist and an agnostic/atheist.

I myself do not believe that people are inherently evil.

[IsletsOfLangerhans]

Pedro - I put my hands up re the 'insane mommies' comment. I attributed it to his site (it was a comment made by another poster). I don't know how it morphed into being read as a comment made by best.
There was nothing untrue in what I posted. And for the record, I didn't deliberately go hunting for his facebook page to spy. It comes up pretty high when you google his name. At that point, I think pretty much all of us were intrigued as to whom we were engaging with.

Can I just ask (whilst here), what the point is of this thread? Is it a discussion? There are so many rules being applied as to and it appears to me like best thinks he is delivering some sort of lecture?

[ICBINEG]

Well my point to this thread is to go through the list of 101 reasons given and see which can be debunked.

I have done 4 so far...

[LizzyDay]

Yes, iirc in the last thread Best linked to a YouTube clip of his RL self (on a TV show? can't remember). He has done a fair amount of publicity to promote his ideas so it's fair to assume this is just another platform. Therefore it would be a bit odd for him to be outraged if people click on the top links which appear when you google his name. After all, that's surely what he wants to achieve? To be fair, again I think it's mainly his FB friends who have expressed outrage on his behalf (not that he has discouraged them mind you).

[PedroYoniLikesCrisps]

Incidentally, I happened to notice that Best linked to an article about Amanda Holden's experience with MN. Suggesting that everyone here is aggressive and self righteous. It also quotes the '600,000' registered users.

I'd like to see someone find a community of over half a million people which did not have a small number of individuals who will have strong opinions about anything that anyone says or does. I doubt very much that Amanda had contact with even a tiny fraction of a percentage of MN users and perhaps if she'd cared to look in the right places for her information, she may well have found the numerous members who are actually very nice and willing to help.

Best, on the other hand, is surely aware of the controversial nature of his opinions and is in the right place to express them and have them challenged (all very politely of course)!

[Januarymadness]

ICBINEG well if thats the point I give you

Cyran et al. Alternatives to the Wright-Fisher model: The robustness of mitochondrial Eve dating. Theoretical Population Biology, 2010; DOI: 10.1016/j.tpb.2010.06.001

 MLARice University (2010, August 17). 'Mitochondrial Eve': Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm

papers which refute the dating of mt to 6000 years ago.

I count that as 5 down

[Januarymadness]

Also the continual population growth point fails to take into account the effect of wars, famine, flood, disease, life expectancy estimates, other natural disasters etc......Thats where all the people went.