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

Point 32 about rapid erosion of coastlines is false. It cites the relatively quick erosion of Beachy Head and the Yorkshire coastline and positing that if those coasts had been eroding at that rate since the Cretaceous period then thousands of miles would have gone.

This is an erroneous conclusion that assumes that Britain has always been an island. It hasn't. Archeological evidence from what is now Dogger Bank shows that it not only used to be dry but it was inhabited until at least the end of the last Ice Age 5,000 years ago. Geological evidence of the seabed off the south and east coasts of Britain show that our island it used to be connected to France by dry land.

In essence, then, no-one (other than YECs) are claiming that anyone seriously believes that Beachy Head has been eroding for millions of years.

Point 65 is misleading. It posits with no evidence that because there is still a small, hot core in the moon that therefore the moon must be relatively young. Conversely it offers no explanation for why an ancient moon must be completely cold. Without that foundation any discussion of volcanism on the moon as evidence of its age is entirely moot.

Point 76 about the supposed youthfulness of Enceladus: no useful citations included to back up the claims so I discount this one as meaningful in any way.

Point 90 is just a re-hash of point 65 - it claims that non-creationists believe the moon to be cold all the way through (they don't) therefore evidence of scarps that are caused by a thermally active core blow the entire "evolutionist" (huh? What has the theory of evolution got to do with the origins of the moon?) theory out of the water.

That's great, if scientists claimed the moon was cold all the way through. They don't. It's well known that the moon has a hot core.

Point 96 is ridiculous as it completely ignores the many factors involved in population growth. There's more than enough evidence that can be found just be observing animal populations in the wild to show that this argument is utterly ridiculous. Hint: Predation, disease, famine and environmental factors all count against exponential population growth.

Point 101 is, essentially, "If humans have been around for 200,000 years why did it take them so long to invent agriculture?" That is an argument so ridiculous that I shall blow my nose in its direction.

Ok, I'll refute point 5 about limited variation within the Y-chromosome:

A very recent paper, published in a reputable journal reported that a previously unknown, very distinct, Y chromosome had been found which pushed back further the estimated Y-MRCA (most common recent ancestor) to 338,000 years ago (237,000 to 581,000 years ago with 95% confidence). Link to paper below.

haplogroup-a.com/Ancient-Root-AJHG2013.pdf

I am noticing a pattern here.

Along the lines of:

1. Find a scientific fact.
2. Decide that it is incompatible with the earth/universe being old on the basis of either a flawed understanding of the science or on that old favourite common sense, find at least one person with Dr. in front of their name to agree with the common sense / flawed science.
3. Declare the science fact supports YEC.

The DNA one is like that....start from the assumption that DNA shouldn't be able to survive in ANY POSSIBLE CONDITIONS for over a few thousand years. Find someone used to working with it in solution who agrees that DNA in solution wouldn't last that long and then declare the Earth is only 6000 years old.

In fact most scientists probably have zero problem whatsoever with the idea that DNA in the crystal state could essentially last forever...

Likewise the hot moon thing...common sense might dictate that the moon should be cold, but science doesn't.

Plenty of heat sources to keep it warm for millions of years to come....

I just wanted to thank everyone for, thus far, being respectful and asking good questions. Also welcome back to Pedro and a few others. Pedro, I'm sure you're a nice guy (and yes I know you're a male with a wife and a son) and we would get on well in person. Let's call a truce, shall we, and I'll try in future to not let my emotions get the best of me.

I also wanted to mention that I find it curious that people are only responding to that "101" list now as I posted it on the previous thread. To help you debunk it there is a page on another site which takes each one apart. If no one can find it, I'll post it later.

Hi Best. I was just reading Genesis and in chapter 4 I found that 7 generations after Adam and Eve Jubal played the harp and organ and Tubalcain was "an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron". This was all within 130 years of the creation of the world as all of this took place before Seth was born.

If this is the case, where do the millions of stone tools fit in the history of humankind? Why are these implements found at deeper levels of deposits than metal implements, if they were all buried by the same deluge? Why is there so much evidence of people living in caves and using these implements for thousands of years?

I would also be grateful if you could please explain to me where Neanderthals and other sub-species of homo sapiens fit in. Why are they not mentioned in the Bible if they existed at the same time as humans?

One final point I would ask you to address. I believe I wrote earlier that in the 19th century it was the Liberal Jews began to stop believing that Genesis (or the Talmud) gave a true account of the creation of the World and the history of mankind. According to the UK Chief Rabbi (whilst debating with Richard Dawkins), in the 10th century Rabbis "laid down the principle that if a Biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is not to be read literally". Therefore, I believe that Orthodox Jewish understanding of the events described would have been evolving for hundreds of years. What is your reading of this?

Thanks in advance for taking the time to address these issues.

Worth remembering also that you cannot convince people of superior intelligence (atheists) that something bullshit (the existence of gods) is true just by stamping your feet and squealing. Or by using big words.

er...I thought the 101 reasons had the backing of peer review? Now there is already a resource demonstrating each one is incorrect?

I am starting to get dizzy.

Is this another debating tactic?

Throwing in a load of stuff you are already prepared to back down on?

Is this the speed of light all over again?

"So is that one off the list then?"

ICBINEG, yours sounds like a reasonable explanation. I'm sure creation scientists would have a reason why it is not. DNA was confirmed in January 2013 to not last more than (I think it was) 100,000 years. All the reports said hopes were dashed of having a REAL Jurassic Park. That same month, they found what they thought was DNA in a dinosaur bone. That report was mysteriously swept under the rug never to be heard of again.

Eventually I will post links for these two claims. And I will reply to your other posts further down.

Why are we bothering to refute the list if best already has a link that refutes them all?

Best, why give us the list in the first place?

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

January, the links went to articles written by creation scientists which in turn refer, in the footnotes, to secular peer-reviewed journals as well as creationists peer-reviewed journals. And I reject your claim that secular journals are "non biased." We are all biased.

"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...)"

If you think it raised any valid points, let me know and I'll see if I can't give you a valid answer. Most of the time the issue is merely one of misinformation. For example, Jerry Coyne should have known better than to ask where the whales were on the Ark. (Face palm.)

"It showed that faith and science were not mutually exclusive, but also that blind faith is not the route to pursue."

I totally agree with this statement. Blind faith is not only dumb, it's dangerous.

"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."

My exact words were, "I've never used Occam's razor for that, January. I use it for the multi-verse and other gods."

Other gods is precisely what I used it for here.

"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 would say we are working with the same data sets but with different starting assumptions.

"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 you are an atheist for emotional reasons. For me, it is strictly about logic, reason and evidence. I have never once appealed to faith or a warm fuzzy feeling or a desire for cosmic justice etc. I am a theist because:

1. the scientific evidence seems to require it and
2. based on the Bible I can make predictions which are vindicated by modern science (and to be clear, I'm not referring to prophecy here). I listed 7 or so of them in my second post on Thread #1.

"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."

Thank you for acknowledging a bias - which we all have.

"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..."

Brilliant!!! That is what I have been saying since the beginning! Thank you, ICBINEG!

"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."

I didn't actually check the claim but the Miller-Urey experiment generated amino acids with 50:50 right and left handed chirality. Life forms only use (or primarily use) left-handed amino acids. Is that not correct?

"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."

Thank you, Infamous. I appreciated that you kept it simple. I just mentioned that it was short because I read it faster than I thought I would. I will check out Maimonides, but I still have to say that I am more interested in how the ancient Hebrews would have understood the text and not how modern scholars interpret it.

Your assumption (based on evolution and increasing complexity) might be that the ancient Hebrews were just a bunch of goat herders (don't mean to put words in your mouth but that is a common view today) whereas my assumption (based on the Bible) is that people where smarter back then and, due to mutations, we are degenerating and getting dumber.

Interestingly, modern science says that both neanderthals and someone from ancient Greece would be much smarter than anyone alive on the planet today. So that is a prediction of my worldview.

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

Sabrina, I know you're teasing. That is based on a scientific study. You have to read more than just the title of the article.

And at least it is something. The claim that we are all born atheists is an assertion with no evidential support. I've never seen anyone even attempt to back it up. They just take it for a granted as a brute fact. I rarely (if ever) make a claim without at least ONE source of evidence.

Interestingly, modern science says that both neanderthals and someone from ancient Greece would be much smarter than anyone alive on the planet today.

Would you provide a source for this statement please

"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."

Hi, Pedro. Good to have you back. I will name three of your starting assumptions off the top of my head:

1. Naturalism (or materialism) - "that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe." (All of science is based on this and rightly so.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29

1. The Copernican Principle - "that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position" and that "humans are not privileged observers of the universe"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

1. Uniformitarianism - "the present is the key to the past" and the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

Note these are all theistic assumptions without which science is impossible. If I think of more later, I'll post them. Thanks for the question. I was surprised someone didn't ask it earlier.

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

How is that self-refuting, Pedro? It is self-confirming, isn't it? If I say, "We can't know anything about God" I am claiming to know something about God - namely that he can't be known. But If I say, "We can know something about God" my claim is merely one example of something we can know about him. And maybe there are more.

Another favourite of mine is when somebody says, "You can't know anything for sure" and I ask them, "How do you know that for sure?"

*"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 . . . I myself do not believe that people are inherently evil."

Yes Sabrina, my wording may have been a little extreme there. Maybe you object to the use of the word "evil" - although I don't think Christians take evil to mean everyone is a mass murder or anything. Christianity says we are all sinners. Studies show that we all know right from wrong - even from a very early age (see link below) and yet we often choose to do wrong.

If you have a child, recall how young he/she was when you told them not to touch something and, with a devious smile, they looked at you and touched it anyway. They knew what they were doing was wrong. That is sin.

"Psychologists say babies know right from wrong even at six months"

phys.org/news192693376.html

"At that point, I think pretty much all of us were intrigued as to whom we were engaging with."

Islets, I had posted a video of myself in the first half of the thread with my full name and profession. Guess nobody watched it.

"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?"

No, I don't mean to come across that way. I just wanted to be treated with respect as a human being. Disrespect my ideas if you like. But I am here at your service to answer questions to anyone who is interested. When people stop caring or having questions, I will stop posting.

I am merely fulfilling my commission of 1 Peter 3:15: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (I sometimes fail on the "gentleness and respect" part but I do try to live that way everyday of my life.)

"He has done a fair amount of publicity to promote his ideas so it's fair to assume this is just another platform."

If I were here to publicize myself I sure suck at it. LOL!

"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?"

I wasn't outraged at anyone looking at my FaceBook page. I have nothing to hide and have all my setting set to "Public." It was just that someone sent a nasty message to one of my friends - an atheist no less - and called her a "creationist puppet" or something and then blocked her so she couldn't write back.

Publicity is not what I am out to achieve. If it were really all about publicity and money, I would hang around Christian message boards and try to get invited to speak at churches. (Hey, not a bad idea. Note to self.) Why would I go where I risk being called names and verbally abused? Because I truly love interacting with atheists. They are some of my best friends and I have great respect for them even if we disagree on certain things.

"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)."

My only FB friend who is on here is AgeOfReason and he's on your side. LOL! So a lot of good that's doing me.