Silly Creationist

[Cinjin]

Nothing like a guilt trip that leads nowhere, eh?

In truth, he really is the biggest reason for my disgust with Christianity. If only he knew the extent of the disservice he and all those like him have done their religion.


Which is ironic, because in doing this disservice -- he helped to set me free.

[Epimethean]

Cheers, my friend. It's not a good tactic to try to use fear and guilt on an intelligent person. That may be the biggest problem religion is having today.

[Gawdzilla]

Cheers, my friend. It's not a good tactic to try to use fear and guilt on an intelligent person. That may be the biggest problem religion is having today.

It's a good reason for the decline of religion. The "heavens" are no longer the realm of God and his minions, they're places of even greater wonder. The more we know, the mores religions blows.

[Epimethean]

Unfortunately, like a sinking ship, this brings the rats to the gunwales.

[Gawdzilla]

Unfortunately, like a sinking ship, this brings the rats to the gunwales.

Fear-mongers love to play on panic, and the loss of their comfort zone when they realize they don't have a great sky fairy watching over them panics a lot of people. Some of them suddenly realize they have to think about something and with that comes the realization that they've never done this before and they have no clue how to do it.

[Faith No More]

Unfortunately, like a sinking ship, this brings the rats to the gunwales.

Fear-mongers love to play on panic, and the loss of their comfort zone when they realize they don't have a great sky fairy watching over them panics a lot of people. Some of them suddenly realize they have to think about something and with that comes the realization that they've never done this before and they have no clue how to do it.

Which sends them right back to religion, because their fear outweighs the search for truth.

[Gawdzilla]

Unfortunately, like a sinking ship, this brings the rats to the gunwales.

Fear-mongers love to play on panic, and the loss of their comfort zone when they realize they don't have a great sky fairy watching over them panics a lot of people. Some of them suddenly realize they have to think about something and with that comes the realization that they've never done this before and they have no clue how to do it.

Which sends them right back to religion, because their fear outweighs the search for truth.

That was the point I was making.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

See the problem here is Statler, that you scoff at the evidence provided by science and yet you defend the "evidence" provided by a book that even you have admitted requires faith. It's not fair to claim that the arguments of evolutionists is logically invalid when your own "evidence" first requires one to believe in a holy book. You ask why the Bible can't be used as proof and follow that up with the fact that you believe it is inerrant.
It seems to be blatant hypocrisy.
"I don't think your evidence is logically valid - mine isn't either, but mine is still better because it came from the hand of men who claimed they spoke to god."

It seems ever so clearly biased to me.

It's like trying to prove that you had a threesome with two supermodels by using your personal Diary as evidence. It's just simply not valid.

---

Hmm, I don’t believe I have done this, or at least not intentionally. The point I was trying to make was that the evidence evolutionists point to can logically be used to also support the creationist model and often is. As for the scripture point, we are covering that pretty extensively in another thread and I’d like to hear your thoughts on that discussion.

---

I believe your biblical flood can be explained away thus:

The water covered the tops of the highest mountains by 15 cubits (22feet). That's 22 feet taller than Everest baby.

The flood waters receded. To where exactly? Think about it

---

You are not arguing against the current Creation model, so this is really just a straw man. It’s kind of like the old, “if evolution were true, then why are there still apes?” argument. The deepest oceanic trenches and highest mountains are all a result of catastrophic plate tectonics during the flood period. So the water did not have to be above Mt. Everest at all. In fact, if you raise the oceanic trenches and lower the highest mountain ranges there is more than enough water to cover the earth. The raising of these mountain ranges would then cause the waters to recede back to the Ocean.

A fine point sir!

I think that is a bit harsh. I have not insulted your or demeaned your ability to think throughout our discussions, so why do that to me? We may have different views on these matters but we can still have a civil discussion can’t we?

---

Could you point me in the direction of an example of a dating method that comes close to a date of 6,000 as this is the first I've heard of it?

---

Yes of course, I only have a few minutes, but here are a couple examples.

1. Genetic entropy rates are consistent with a human genome origin of around 6,000 years ago.
2. A very conservative population growth of 0.5% per annum (currently it is 1.8%) would give us eight people only 4,500 years ago which is consistent with scripture.
3. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils, 50:50 would have been reached in less than 10,000 years.
4. The Earth’s magnetic field decay rates are consistent with an earth younger than 10,000 years.
5. Helium levels in the earth’s atmosphere are consistent with an earth of only 6,000 years old.
6. Y chromosome variations around the world are also consistent with mankind only being around for around 6,000 years.

That’s what I can come up with right off the top of my head, like I said; if you want to suggest an age for the earth I can guarantee you can find a dating method to “confirm” it. It’s not nearly as cut and dry as people like Dawkins want everyone to believe.

---

There is a massive list of wankers who believe in creation. So what? It has no bearing on how they got their PhDs, because you can bet dollars to donuts that they didn't do dissertations titled, "Jesus and Anklyosaurus: Clubmates?"

I think that question was far too easy and innocuous. Answer this one: How many of them publish regularly in credentialed scientific periodicals, and of the ones who do, how many toss in their creationism bullshit? Bet that list shrinks pretty precipitously there.

Fucking hell. When is this dark age dementia going to end?

---

So first it was, “I bet you can’t name any Creationists with Ph.D. degrees in Biology”. Now it is, “I bet you can’t name any who publish Creation science in Secular Peer Reviewed Journals!” I see we are moving the goalposts huh? How about you answer this question then, can you name anyone who got an article supporting Common Descent published in a Peer Reviewed Creation Journal? You see how silly that request is when it is pulled on you?

[Minimalist]

The disclaimer posted by Lehigh University on their website as a result of the insanity of creationist shithead, Michael Behe:

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

(Bold added).

[Faith No More]

1. Genetic entropy rates are consistent with a human genome origin of around 6,000 years ago.

I couldn't find any specific debunking of this as it's a fairly recent concept put out by one guy, but the general consensus is that his religious bias caused him to see what he wants(that's not my interpretation, just the only thing I could find).

2. A very conservative population growth of 0.5% per annum (currently it is 1.8%) would give us eight people only 4,500 years ago which is consistent with scripture.

Even 0.5 is a gross overestimation as even by 1000 A.D. growth was only around 0.1%

It's kind of hard to tell the exact number from this graph but you get a picture of the rate of change in the population.

3. Lack of 50:50 racemization of amino acids in fossils, 50:50 would have been reached in less than 10,000 years.

Many factors play into this and it is considered a fairly unreliable dating method. See here

4. The Earth’s magnetic field decay rates are consistent with an earth younger than 10,000 years.

Here's a response to that from talkorigins(yes I know they are anti-creationism but honestly it's hard to find anyone that isn't).

---

The earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity (Gee et al. 2000) and reversed in polarity numerous times in the earth's history. This is entirely consistent with conventional models (Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995) and geophysical evidence (Song and Richards 1996) of the earth's interior. Measurements of magnetic field field direction and intensity show little or no change between 1590 and 1840; the variation in the magnetic field is relatively recent, probably indicating that the field's polarity is reversing again (Gubbins et al. 2006).

Empirical measurement of the earth's magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better.

T. G. Barnes (1973) relied on an obsolete model of the earth's interior. He viewed it as a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay of an electrical current. However, the evidence supports Elsasser's dynamo model, in which the magnetic field is caused by a dynamo, with most of the "current" caused by convection. Barnes cited Cowling to try to discredit Elsasser, but Cowling's theorem is consistent with the dynamo earth.

Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength. The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains unchanged.

---

5. Helium levels in the earth’s atmosphere are consistent with an earth of only 6,000 years old.

Here is a site trying to reconcile the bible and science that debunks this.

6. Y chromosome variations around the world are also consistent with mankind only being around for around 6,000 years.

I will continue to search for info on this but right now the only thing I can find are 300 page papers.

That’s what I can come up with right off the top of my head, like I said; if you want to suggest an age for the earth I can guarantee you can find a dating method to “confirm” it.

Which is why you have to take in consideration all of the reliable dating methods and reconcile them to get an estimate on the earth's age which is genuinely agreed to be in the billions of years