Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

YEC 2

999 replies

Januarymadness · 24/04/2013 21:05

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

OP posts:
BestValue · 01/05/2013 03:31

January, I'm well aware of the re-dating of Mitochondrial Eve and addressed it on the first thread. In my view, they re-dated it because 6,000 was clearly unacceptable. I provided links explaining what they did to, in my view, skew the data to get the date they wanted. It is done all the time in science. I'm not even claiming they are dishonest. I think they truly believe the first date must have been wrong and they found a way to make it work to fit their theory.

BestValue · 01/05/2013 03:35

"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."

Welcome Snorbs. I've always heard them say that the end of the last ice age was 10,000 years ago. But your date is closer to mine. I would put it about 3,500 years ago.

BestValue · 01/05/2013 04:03

"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."

That wasn't an assumption. That was based on secular peer-reviewed science. And as of October 2012 (sorry, I thought it was January 2013), the date got even more precise.

Due to its short half-life of just 521 years, DNA can't last for more than 7 million years (sorry, I thought it was 100,000 years).

singularityhub.com/2012/10/17/no-hope-for-jurassic-park-scientists-say-dna-is-too-fragile/

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/10/05/rspb.2012.1745

Yet, the same month they seemingly found dino DNA.:

www.nature.com/news/molecular-analysis-supports-controversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

So I predict they will continue to say that the dino DNA they found could not actually be DNA based on their presupposition that dinosaurs are 65 million years old. But creationists have no problem with dino DNA, red blood cells and soft tissue being found if dinosaurs lived only thousands of years ago.

This is what I've seen time and time again. Secular scientists have to discredit or ignore mountains of evidence to keep their old earth and evolution while to creationists the evidence fits just fine into a young earth model.

BestValue · 01/05/2013 04:16

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

They have. Peer-reviewed journals contradict each other all the time. And I don't believe the following site has actually debunked them. But here it is:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe

"I am starting to get dizzy."

Lay down. It'll pass. Wink

"Is this another debating tactic?"

What do you mean "another"? I don't use "debating tactics." The book I'm writing called "How To Debate an Atheist" just gives answers to the 101 most common questions and objections. They are not "tactics" which implies that they are somehow deceptive.

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

I'm not backing down on anything. Just providing the information in the interest of honesty and full disclosure. It demonstrates how the evidence can be interpreted two ways based on one's starting assumptions - which is a point I have made from the start.

"Is this the speed of light all over again?"

No. And I never backed down from that either. Just agreed to disagree. Smile

""

I'm not afraid of you, you know. :^P

BestValue · 01/05/2013 05:03

"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."

Hi, RationalThought, thanks for coming back.

Seven generations after Adam and Eve means it was six generations AFTER Seth since Adam's descendants went through Seth's line. So it wasn't in the first 130 years. Noah was the 10th generation from Adam and he was 600 when the Flood occurred 1656 years after creation.

Check out this graph to see how the generations overlapped and how life spans dropped off dramatically after the Flood. Also note that Adam could have known Noah's father who passed on the story of creation and Noah could have taken it on the Ark. No time for the story to get corrupted and embellished into a myth.

www.linearconcepts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/GenealogicalAges.png

"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 believe "cave men" and stone tools come in AFTER the Flood and even after the Tower of Babel incident 100 years or so later. I'm skeptical of your claims that there are "millions of stone tools" and that they are "found at deeper levels of deposits than metal implements."

I don't interpret the geologic column as a record of time (from older sediments at the bottom to younger on top) so much of the evidence for deep time disappears when you look at the earth through a biblical worldview.

"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?"

I don't consider "Neanderthals and other sub-species of homo sapiens" anything else but human just as I don't consider black people or Asian people sub species of humans. Neanderthals were people after the Flood who were living to be very old and show signs of rickets and other bone deformities acquired during the ice age.

"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?"

My understanding of this is that there are always people who are willing to compromise God's Word. John 12:43 speaks of the Jewish leaders in Jesus' day who "loved human praise more than praise from God."

Therefore it does not surprise me that men and woman who are often highly intelligent are more often atheists or at least liberal Christians or Jews. The source of sin is pride. And when you think you've got it made, you begin to think you don't need God.

If you look at Eve in the Garden of Eden, she was tempted by the fruit because she saw it was "good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom." These are "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes" and "the pride of life" - the same three things that still corrupt people today. Read this.:

www.gotquestions.org/pride-of-life.html

Sorry, I went off on bit of a tangent there. Smile

IsletsOfLangerhans · 01/05/2013 07:39

Morning best. I had to pick up on one of your comments in the last post as it nearly made me spit my cup of tea all over my latop:

Neanderthals were people after the Flood who were living to be very old and show signs of rickets and other bone deformities acquired during the ice age

This is another creationist 'story'. Rickets leaves signs on bones which have never (as far as I am aware) been detected in homo sapiens neanderthalenisis or homo erectus. The differences observed in neanderthal bones do not correlate with the pathology of rickets If you know differently, please could you provide a link to a mainstream journal, not a creationist one (btw please, please stop calling non-creationist journals 'secular', there are many people out there with faith who work for and peer review for these journals).

I'm looking forward to your response to my Y chromosome link, when you have time later. And have you looked up that Alan Cutler book I mentioned on the old thread yet? I really think you would enjoy it - I found it pretty balanced and it is a fascinating insight into the history of science.

Januarymadness · 01/05/2013 07:49

For the people that didnt look at the mitochondrial eve link here is one of their heir fundimental findings:

We wanted to see how sensitive the estimates were to the assumptions of the models," Kimmel said. "We found that all of the models that accounted for random population size such as different branching processes gave similar estimates."

So according to Best all of these models that give the SAME date are manipulated and wrong.

If you carry out an experiment 100 times and you get 99 answers that are close to each other and 1 which is somewhere else. It does not mean the 1 answer is the right one. It does not prove the other 99 wrong. It doesnt show manipulation of evidence. It means you have 1 anomalous finding (which can normally be explained away during analysis).

Also by saying articles have peer reviewed journals in their footnotes it just means they have referenced from these sources. They may have been referenced to say "this person said" it does not make the article itself peer reviewed, nor legitimate.

OP posts:
PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 01/05/2013 08:10

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

Then you have completely misunderstood me. I make none of those assumptions. These would all be conclusions I would draw from studying the evidence presented.

You, on the other hand, do make starting assumptions so I consider that my interpretation of the evidence is significantly less biased than yours.

PedroYoniLikesCrisps · 01/05/2013 08:14

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.

No, I think most of us did watch it. After all it was very entertaining. But that doesn't stop people wanting to find out more than just a name and profession. It would be unbelievably shallow to assume that's all it would take to know who one was speaking to.

Snorbs · 01/05/2013 08:56

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.

Indeed. And that's just one of the glaringly obvious flaws in that list of 101 claims. The claims themselves and the articles they paraphrase are not peer-reviewed science. Instead the random selection of claims I saw tend to follow a pattern either of:

  1. Say, without evidence, that "evolutionists" claim scientific idea
  2. Find peer-reviewed science that disputes
  3. Therefore God.

or:

  1. Peer-reviewed science says
  2. Take and run with it to make wildly unsupported claims that are a long long way from what actually demonstrates
  3. Therefore God.

They're specious arguments, meant to comfort people who have no real understanding of the science but a deep need to believe in the Bible. So it's easier for them to believe in a Vast Conspiracy of Evil Evolutionists deliberately making stuff up rather than face the fact that most of the Bible is nothing more than mythology.

What I find interesting, though, is that one can only assume those 101 specious points are the best that YECs have to offer to "prove" that their beliefs are correct. How desperate.

ICBINEG · 01/05/2013 09:11

Argh - no! you can't agree to disagree on whether the speed of light in the vacuum is constant?!?!

You also can't seriously think that the speed of light in the vacuum is different anywhere in our 'local' region of space. Our local region is substantially bigger than 6000 light years so even observation of our local space indicates an older universe than that by a substantial amount.

I have just recalled you mentioned a gravitational well argument...could you expand on that?

BestValue · 01/05/2013 09:14

"This is another creationist 'story'. Rickets leaves signs on bones which have never (as far as I am aware) been detected in homo sapiens neanderthalenisis or homo erectus. The differences observed in neanderthal bones do not correlate with the pathology of rickets If you know differently, please could you provide a link to a mainstream journal, not a creationist one" (btw please, please stop calling non-creationist journals 'secular', there are many people out there with faith who work for and peer review for these journals).

The following link indicates that Dr. Rudolf Virchow may have been the first to suggest Neanderthals had rickets. I understand that others have been found which were upright and dated older and so we wouldn't expect to find that view espoused in the journals today.

wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/14/9/pdfs/08-6672.pdf

The other book to see (which I acknowledge I have not read) is called "Bones of Contention" by Marvin Lubenow. In most cases I provide evidence from mainstream journals (since you don't like the word "secular" or feel free to tell me what you would like me to call them and I'll oblige) but I obviously can't always. Creationists do their own science work and have their own peer-reviewed journals which are perfectly valid to cite.

"I'm looking forward to your response to my Y chromosome link, when you have time later."

Yes, I will check it out.

"And have you looked up that Alan Cutler book I mentioned on the old thread yet? I really think you would enjoy it - I found it pretty balanced and it is a fascinating insight into the history of science."

My local library did not have it. An idea that only occurred to me just this moment is to investigate the possibility of getting the book through the inter-library loan program which I will do the next time I am in the area.

ICBINEG · 01/05/2013 09:22

best you say that creationist have their own journals...why is this?

Why not publish in the mainstream?

I don't think you can claim peer review if it is only the opinions of a subset of the scientific community in the relevant area.

I mean one could set up a journal for climate change sceptics in which each article was only ever reviewed by other sceptics...but I wouldn't have any faith in the standard of the scientific integrity of such a journal. If it was peer reviewed by a random selection of ALL climate change researchers then it would be fine....

So the big question is who exactly is peer reviewing the articles in the creationist journals?

BestValue · 01/05/2013 09:27

"Then you have completely misunderstood me. I make none of those assumptions. These would all be conclusions I would draw from studying the evidence presented. You, on the other hand, do make starting assumptions so I consider that my interpretation of the evidence is significantly less biased than yours."

I'm afraid you have misunderstood yourself - and the methods of science because all of modern science is based on those assumptions. And those assumptions are only valid if they are grounded in a theistic framework.

There's a quote I love by J.B.S. Haldane which is not entirely applicable here but I present it for your enjoyment:

"Teleology [design] is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he?s unwilling to be seen with her in public."

BestValue · 01/05/2013 09:31

"No, I think most of us did watch it. After all it was very entertaining. But that doesn't stop people wanting to find out more than just a name and profession. It would be unbelievably shallow to assume that's all it would take to know who one was speaking to."

I'm just saying it seems odd that it apparently came as quite a surprise to many to find out my real name and my marketing background towards the end of the thread if they'd already known for two weeks previously by watching the video.

IsletsOfLangerhans · 01/05/2013 09:34

Hello again.

The following link indicates that Dr. Rudolf Virchow may have been the first to suggest Neanderthals had rickets. I understand that others have been found which were upright and dated older and so we wouldn't expect to find that view espoused in the journals today.

So why did you quote it as a fact?

BestValue · 01/05/2013 09:38

"What I find interesting, though, is that one can only assume those 101 specious points are the best that YECs have to offer to "prove" that their beliefs are correct. How desperate."

What I find even more interesting is that evolutionists have probably fewer than 10 methods of dating the earth which indicate long ages while creationists have 10 times as many methods which say the earth is too young for evolution to happen.

No one uses the word "prove" as science cannot provide absolute proof. Ultimately our strongest evidence is Eye-Witness testimony from the One who was there and caused it to be written down.

BestValue · 01/05/2013 09:52

"Argh - no! you can't agree to disagree on whether the speed of light in the vacuum is constant?!?!"

Well, I don't think I EVER did that. But space is not a vacuum. The argument is whether it has ever changed. I never believed it did until new evidence came to my attention in January that even the guy who measures the constants says it changed. I gave plenty of evidence of that and links to his writings and even an audio interview of him saying it on the previous thread. And if it turned out to be wrong, I wouldn't care one bit.

"I have just recalled you mentioned a gravitational well argument...could you expand on that?"

I explained it in my own words on the previous thread and I linked to a 5-minute video and a whole chapter of a book. Here's the video again.:

And here's the chapter again.:

creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

There is also much more from mainstream sites if you Google "gravitational time dilation" as it is not a creationist concept.

sieglinde · 01/05/2013 09:53

Hi, Islets,

I'd love to know more about neanderthals and rickets and the actual science on this (as opposed to C19th claims). It sounds utterly incredible, really, tracing rickets on skeletons is actually astoundingly simple. Do any neanderthals have the rachetic rosary, for example? Bow legs? Reduced height due to malformation of the long bones, as opposed to scoliosis?

And for best, if neanderthals are really humans with rickets, why do they look so very unlike rickets sufferers now - in other words, why are there no neanderthal-like skeletons in (say) the Spitalfields dig?

BestValue · 01/05/2013 10:00

João Magueijo is Professor of Physics at Imperial College London and not a creationist. He proposes a varying speed of light to rescue the big bang from its own light travel problem. I haven't watched it because I just found it and the lecture is over an hour long.

ICBINEG · 01/05/2013 10:11

best see this is the consensus problem...there is a theory (inflation) that deals with this issue without altering the speed of light. You found a person saying...oh yeah you could also fix it with a variable speed of light...well of course you could but what evidence is there to support the idea that each of these theories is more likely? Well there is massively more evidence to support inflation than speed of light variation...so guess which one I subscribe to?

Obviously I know what time dilation is (I am a physicist), I was asking how the creationists think this would help....also how they explain that if we are at the bottom of a deep deep gravitational well, we don't see any of the other curious affects that we should do...like all the incoming light from distant stars being massively blue shifted with respect to the spectrum of the sun....

TBH I would have more respect for an argument that just redefined 1 year to mean 2 million years...then I too can get on board with the bible being right about the age of the earth (although there would still be a large number of outstanding issues).

BestValue · 01/05/2013 10:16

A Science Channel documentary by João Magueijo about his varying speed of light theory. Looks good.

Snorbs · 01/05/2013 10:16

Best, do you understand the difference between the scientific concepts of "evolution" and "cosmology" or do they both just come under the heading of "vast secular conspiracy" to you?

As for, ahem, eye-witness testimony, I think this article sums it up quite well.

IsletsOfLangerhans · 01/05/2013 10:29

Hi sieglinde - just like to say I'm not an expert on bone pathology and rickets! I can't find any direct links to evidence to suggest rickets was present in Neandarthals, but there is no reason why it shouldn't. It just can't be used as an explanation for the differences in a homo sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalensis skeleton.

If you are interested, there was a really interesting paper published a couple of months back where they compared eye socket size and endocranial volumes in neanderthal and modern human brains. They made some interesting projections of the data regarding differences in forebrain size. However, it is clear that Neanderthals had larger eye sockets - I don't think this can be put down to Rickets.

articuloscientificos.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/doc114.pdf

ICBINEG · 01/05/2013 10:34

Has anyone read 'snow crash' by Neal Stephenson?

Amongst a range of other things, it really brought home to me what a disastrous idea it is for religions to write down their musings.

Times change. And religions can change with them...unless you write it down and claim God said it. Then you can't change it, even when it becomes increasingly obvious that if a God did indeed write it then he would have to have written it while massively drunk/stoned due to the huge level of mistakes made.

There is something with the Koran about proofs that it is the word of God because it talks about things that couldn't been known at the time...

well yes..but if it was the actual word of god it would be massively scientifically in advance of where we are NOW not just where we were thousands of years ago....also how come it doesn't predict that woman are equal to men, or that raping children is immoral? If it is the word of GOD surely it's morality should EXCEED that which we have NOW not be strikingly similar to the morality present a few thousand years ago.

The same goes for the bible really....when the morality of humans exceeds the morality of god...well what are we left with?