Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

[quote=Statler Waldorf;113281]
[quote=Minimalist;113279]

They are written by scientists conducting science and reviewed by scientists (their peers).

Only you would call creationist shitheads "scientists."

Actually so would the dictionary. Creationists are using a systematic approach to obtain knowledge about the physical world. This by definition makes them scientists. If you want to be arbitrary and change the definition to fit your beliefs then do it, but I simply cannot agree with you for intellectual and logical reasons.


[/quote]



I'll stick with the Supreme Court if its okay with you...or even if it isn't.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/578/case.html

The court found that the Louisiana Legislature's actual intent was "to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief."

Creationists are religious shitheads....not scientists. Sorry if you don't like reality but for a guy who believes in a big fucking ark that isn't so much of a surprise.


[/quote]

---

The United States Supreme Court decides your science for you!? LOL. Well then you must believe that tomatoes are vegetables since the US Supreme Court decided that, even though those of us in the scientific community are well aware they are scientifically classified as fruit. You keep on letting people with law degrees decide your science for you; I will stick to actual definitions.

No the dictionary is a interpreter of the human language, in English, a fact is

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

or truth, since we know that the universe is a fact(the universe it exists) it's true if the universe would contradict itself

assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial. or a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.

the opposite of truth is false since the universe exists, it can't be contradictory or false

I agree with you that truth does not contradict itself, but you have not told me using your worldview why this is the case. So you are going to have to come up with a better reason than, “Just because.”- I am sorry.

Because then it would be false which is not truth because false is the opposite of truth, you can't be opposites at the same(ex i can't be a animal and a plant at the same time because animals don't have the ability to photosynthetise and plants do)

Again, this is just a circular argument. “Truth can’t contradict itself because then it wouldn’t be truth.” You have to tell me why it can’t, I understand that it can’t, and I have an actual reason as to why it can’t. You apparently cannot come up with one.

I doubt the bible divine status but admit it that it has it's historical value, i'm not aware of any atheist that doubt the historical exodus(if i remember exactly the exodus was a historical event)

Well then I have more respect for you. I have actually met many atheists who do not accept the historical accounts in the Bible, including the exodus out of Egypt. I am sure there are even a few on this website.

---

Religions evolve to save their own behinds, the pope came from a need for the church to have a figure head.

I don’t really care where the Pope came from; I do not accept his authority on such matters. Scripture alone is the final authority on these matters.

It's not a natural science, even your own argument refutes itself, because it studies the supernatural, and the supernatural is

a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.

Since it's outside of the natural order it's not natural, so it's not natural or physical, since the definition of science is

any of the branches of natural or physical science.

It's not science since scientist require to be

an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.

Therefore there's no such thing as a creationist science or scientist





...
Did i just disprove creationist as science with a dictionary...

[/quote]

---

Actually your just displayed your ignorance as to what Creation Science is. It is not the study of the supernatural. Creation scientists do not sit around and study God, they study the natural world. They just believe that the accounts of creation and other accounts in the Bible are completely accurate. Nowhere in the definition does it say that a scientist must believe in natural origins to the natural world he studies, he just has to study the natural world. I completely believe that guys like Newton, Bacon, and Kepler were indeed scientists. Again, you are just committing the “No true Scotsman” fallacy when you try and play these semantic games; though I do enjoy the debate my friend.

---

I really feel sorry for the time you guys are wasting trying to humor this creationist shit head by pretending he is somehow theoretically capable being put within reach of scientific enlightenment

---

Says the man who is wasting his time telling others they are wasting their time. If you don’t like the discussion don’t take part in it. Pretty simple.

---

... yes... all the science that Answers in Genesis can "research."
None of which are compliant with modern physics. A few of those would even break the universe if not just the solar system.
Ultimately, to acknowledge any of these 'hypothosis', you'd have to essentially dump physics out the window.

Also, since coming from youtube instantly invalidates everything:
The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention outright violates relativity becuase it relies on observer-centric anisotropic synchrony convention. There's no saving that one because relativity is so thoroughly proven correct over the past century that's it's perhaps as irrefutable as heliocentrism and gravity. This is why people often compare and elevate Einstein to the same degree as Newton or Galileo.

The Gravitational Well Model is a direct result of not understanding how gravity works. If this were the case, it would be easily observable. Also: A stable solar system could never exist in a well so heavily distorted by gravity because it would either be blown apart or crushed becuase the time dilation would have to be strong enough to rush the universe forward 1 million years for every year passed in our solar system. Also - we have the ability to detect gravitational distortions. It how we confirmed relativity and now we use it ALL THE TIME.

The Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model suffers from the same problem as the gravitational well model. Different method but the same result.

I am quite certain that all of these points (among others) were refuted in the above video.

---

Oh brother. You obviously still do not understand the ASC. It does not violate relativity at all, it’s actually greatly supported by it. Einstein himself said there is no “true” measurement of time. So to say that there is and the ASC violates the true measurement of time is in itself violating Einstein’s work.

As to the gravitational well, saying that its founder does not understand gravity and you do is ridiculous. He has had over 30 peer reviewed articles published in the most prestigious secular journals and works at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico as a Nuclear Physicist and received the “Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.” I think the guy knows a thing or two about physics.
Moshe Carmeli’s Cosmological Model is also a completely valid model despite what you think. I am sure you are well aware that Carmeli was not a Creationist; his model just solves the distant starlight problem for creationists.

---

A roll of a '1'.
There were plenty of other words they could have used and plenty of other verses that ('ball' comes to mind), when taken in-context and read as though they were from the same book, they still add up exactly as I described them. That's why I didn't post ONE quote, instead opting to post several.
They could have also chosen several other words to mean that the earth was something other than a 'circle' - but no - they chose the term circle and later specifically referred to other properties that do not define a spherical planet.

---

Why would they? The intent of the verse was not to inform the reader about the shape of the planet. It’s talking about God’s relation to man.

---

'5'
So god is truth, except when conveying prophecies about one's own life in prophecy.
The shape of the earth is consistent in all areas in the bible except in this vision sequence that's supposed to properly portray King Nebuchandnezzar as a tree that nearly reaches heaven?
Even if the tree never happened in the proper cannon of the bible, it still describes the tree's height in proper context with the rest of the earth and heaven.

---

If you believe the Bible is trying to inform its readers about the shape of the Earth during a symbolic dream then there is not much I can do for you. The fact of the matter is that I caught you, because you didn’t realize this was a symbolic dream until after you posted it. Or else you would have not used it as an example.
The shape of the earth is consistent everywhere in the Bible except for this passage? I have already pointed out that you have pointed to some verses you believe talk of a flat circular earth like a coin, and other verses talk of corners and edges. Of course these are all metaphors so we would expect this, but your claim that all of the descriptions are consistent is of course false. So you still need to get your story straight, did people in Bible times believe the earth was circular and flat or square and flat?
A better answer is that people in Bible times were well aware of the actual shape of the earth, thus why they use metaphors to convey points rather than to inform the reader of the earth’s shape.

---

Yeah... about 'they went up there' and 'never says they show all of the kingdoms from the mountain top':

---

Again, reading something into the text that is not there. It just says they went up there and Christ was shown all the kingdoms. Never says they had to be up there in order to see all the kingdoms. Bad exegesis.

---

"1"
"Sunrise" is when the sun rises above the horizon.
"Sunset" is when the sun lowers below the horizon.
Please note that none of those definitions (linked above) have any flat-earth connotions.

---

Well I am sure you are aware the sun does not actually “rise” above the horizon, it just looks that way because it is the Earth that is moving. So these are descriptive terms used by everyone because they make sense even though they are not scientifically accurate. So I see no issue with them being used in scripture. Job is also a poetic book; we know this from the Hebrew verb usage. So to interpret it otherwise is again poor exegesis.

---

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote a fantasy book that uses metaphor and other literary techniques to tell a fantastical story in a poetic manner.

---

The Bible uses poetic, metaphoric, and other literary elements just as Tolkien did. It’s a shame you give him a pass but not the Bible. Special pleading. Keep in mind Tolkien’s books are not fantasy and fiction because they use these forms of writing, so the Bible is not necessarily fantasy or fiction because it uses similar writing elements. Writing elements themselves do not determine what is and what is not true.

---

Indeed, but the fact that you think it's beautiful does nothing to detract from the obvious falsehood of this biblical 'fact.'

---

So you are suggesting you can indeed move the Earth from the relative perspective of the Earth? Wow, I think you should read a physics book.

---

Be that as it may... I don't care what commenters say, I care what the bible literally states. God did not refer to pillars being people or representing people or pillars being like people or people being like pillars (like 'pillars of a society'). It just says that the pillars of the earth are the lords and who he'll protect and who he won't protect before moving onto another topic. The passage clearly simply annoints that these pillars are god's and no one else's and that he set the world on them.

---

You’re right; you probably should not have tried your hand at biblical exegesis. Be that as it may, the context of this verse is very clear; the pillars being discussed are people. Just like “pillars of the community” is a reference to people, not physical pillars.

Let’s apply your silly little standards to some well known authors and see how they’d fair in your eyes.

“This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;”
- Edgar Allen Poe’s The Raven

Oh no! Poe must have thought that Ravens actually had eyes filled with fire since he used the term “fiery eyes”! Looks like he also believed our chests were like some sort of fruit that had physical cores. What an idiot! It sure is a good thing that nobody thinks Poe was a literary genius or anything like that!

Let’s use your standards again shall we?

"I got the drunk up the stairs somehow. He was eager to help but his legs were rubber . . . "

- Raymond Chandler’s The Long Goodbye

Oh no! Chandler must actually believe that our legs are made of physical rubber! What a moron!

This is kind of fun, let’s look at another one…

““A fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat
into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens,
where ashes take the forms of houses and
chimneys and rising smoke and finally, with a
transcendent effort, of men who move dimly
and already crumbling through the powdery air.”

- F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby

Oh no! Looks like Fitzgerald could be the biggest idiot of them all, using your same standards. He really believes that trees can magically take the form of houses and chimneys? Not to mention he thinks men can move and crumble through powdery air? What a freaking Moron, it’s a good thing nobody thinks he was a literary genius or anything like that haha.

It’s a shame you seem to be completely blind to figures of speech in writing. If you could recognize them even half the time you’d realize that the bible is a beautifully and eloquently written book with lots of different elements and literary complexities. Oh well, it’s your loss.

---

"The floodgates of heaven open and the foundations of earth shake" is a statement and not a metaphor.

---

Oh really? According to whom? You? When people say, “wow that shook the very foundations of our country!” Are they talking about the US being built on physical foundations? Nope. The verse is using descriptive metaphor to give the reader an idea of the sheer magnitude of the flood event.

---

Plenty of other words to describe the absence of anything.
A convenient excuse to somehow have 'waters' to somehow mean 'airless void.'
Even without a true meaning for 'infinate space' - Hebrew has more than enough words to describe space in a manner more befitting its actual properties since space is entirely different from 'waters'.

---

Just because you don’t like the metaphor used does not amount to anything. In fact, judging by your sheer ignorance of figures of speech and metaphoric language I think you’d be the last person I’d look to for advice.

---

So the allmighty created two lights to rule the cycles of night and day.

---

Looks like it huh?

---

The people who wrote this book clearly were ignorant of the earth's shape.

---

That’s a myth that apparently you were just gullible enough to believe. Like I pointed out, it was perpetuated by Washington Irving. People in ancient times were well aware of the Earth’s shape.

---

I'll give you an exmaple.
If a book I was reading had a sentence that stated
"The air in the room was thick, a slow moving syrup"
I would know that this is a metaphor because it is phrased exactly like a simile without the word 'like'.
"The air is a thick syrup." is not a metaphor. It is a statement.
If you can't tell the difference, then don't tell me what is and is not a metaphor.

---

Seriously? There is no rule that a metaphor has to be constructed just like a simile minus the “as” or “like”. You obviously just made that up. Nor is there a rule saying a metaphor can’t be constructed like a statement. That is made clear by the dictionary definition which uses an example that is built exactly like the “The Air is thick syrup” example you gave.

Metaphor- –noun
1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our god.”

Of course using your silly little rules, you’d have to say their example is not a metaphor and the fortress really is our god since this is constructed like a statement.

---

Indeed this is a simile. Let me know when you figure out how this negates the reason why I posted this quote, which was to prove that the biblical cosmology is wrong since the sky dome to heaven this time can open and lower something like a large sheet by its four corners.
Otherwise you're just dismissing my point without addressing it, which so far appears to be the vast majority of your responses in this post.

---

What? Since it is a simile why would you take it as a literal description of cosmology? If I say, “Wow, the stars look like campfires in the sky!” does that mean that I believe the stars are really campfires? Uh no, because it’s what we call a simile.

---

I've never heard a meteorologist state anything that ridiculous. Clouds drop rain, they don't 'open up' and drop rain.

---

I have heard them say it, and I am pretty sure that they still know how rainfall actually works. They are just using descriptive language, just like the Bible does.

---

Thanks for proving how little you know about genetics. If you weren't a bonefied creationist before, you've just served your credentials and one of its main necessary requirements.

---

Yet you fail to point out how this would be wrong. The aging of our organs and cells is determined by the length of our telomeres. So death from old age is always determined by our telomeres or by mutations in our genomes. So longer telomeres and genomes devoid of most mutations would have led to much longer lives. I can draw you a picture if you’d like.
“Cawthon's study found that when people are divided into two groups based on telomere lengths, the half with longer telomeres lives five years longer than those with shorter telomeres. That suggests lifespan could be increased five years by increasing the length of telomeres in people with shorter ones.”
- University of Utah’s research website

---

The bible says otherwise unless 'reaching salvation' and 'being saved' are two wholly different things. Though not being able to choose my own salvation sort of defeats the purpose of being judged for the worthiness of salvation, does it not? (Cue a roll of the dice in 3.. 2... 1...)

---

You are judged for your sins, not because you were not given saving grace. When a death row inmate is executed, he is executed for his crimes, not because he didn’t receive a pardon from the governor.

---

Ah. I keep forgetting the inherant design flaw that god introduced to us and then punished us through multiple genocides for - Sin. Yes, babies, animals, and even the staunchest of believers in this religion none are truely innocent.
... poor babies who were never baptized or believed in Jesus. I'm sure there's a day care center in hell for all those poor sinful children.

---

When Adam fell we all fell, he was our representative, so it is not a design flaw at all. God has just as much freedom in saving babies as He does anyone else. I feel it is consistent with His character that all babies are given saving grace. The Bible does not tell us either way, so that is more just my opinion.
Unfortunately for you, given your worldview, babies are just cosmic accidents that really have no value or purpose. So you are really just borrowing from my worldview when you say their lives have any value at all.

---

I'd believe that if god hasn't personally murdered nearly every human in the world at least once and multilpe cities on multiple occasions. He's responsible for more untimely deaths than Satan.

---

Well murder only applies to humans killing other humans. God has the right to destroy His creation, and to pass judgment upon it (Romans 9). We should just all be glad we get better than we actually deserve.

---

People don't use the term 'falling star' anymore because we figured out that those were meteors and not stars, which was well after biblical times. At the time this bible was written, the term was still valid in this respect and this is consistent with the other related quotes I've pulled up on this topic - particularly from Genesis.

---

Actually most people still use the terms “Falling Star” and “Shooting Star”.

---

oh... if only the verse stated or described an eclipse. Instead you have to infer that based on...
Guesswork? Usually, when an eclipse happens, the moon covers the sun, the stars don't fall, and the 'powers in heaven' don't shake.
An eclipse describes when the moon covers the sun, but the verse doesn't specifically describe that or anything like that. You're generalizing so much that you could be describing a super-cell thunderstorm. (and no, the passage doesn't describe that either. It states what it literally states and nothing else.)

---

Where did I say the verse was describing an eclipse? Nowhere. I was just point out that they do darken the sun from the earth’s perspective; this does not mean that is what the verse is talking about.

---

... the same way most christians are christians despite not knowing or understanding everything written in the bible or the same way you can have reputable christian scientists by not taking the bible at its word.

---

Oh yes! The old “Newton and Kepler were idiots!” argument. Newton actually spent more time studying the Bible than he did math and science. I think he understood scripture, at least better than you. I do not mind being in the same category as these men, if they didn’t see any issues with scripture’s divine inspiration claim then I guess I can’t really see any issue with it then either.

---

It was a good try though. I got you to committ a no true scotsman fallacy that basically said that the entire catholic church wasn't following the bible when they pursecuted him.

---

That actually was not a fallacy. I think I made it very clear that they objected to Galileo for reasons that are not in the Bible. Well unless you can show me where in the Bible it says that moving the earth out of the center of the universe is a means of glorifying it, which of course you can’t because it’s not in there. So my claim that they were objecting on non-biblical grounds is completely accurate, and not fallacious.

---

See? All the quotes. Not just some of them and the other half addressed seporately.

---

Pulling a smattering of quotes out of the Bible and trying to compare them all is bad exegesis, every Bible scholar knows not to do this.

---

Statler - being unsatisfied with your creation at a later time is inconsistent with any idea that god is omnicient. You can't say he knows the future of anyone or anything AT ALL if he can change his damn mind about somthing like that and the bible is littered with examples of this.

---

No not a problem at all. I’ll let Dr. Sproul answer this one since he is more of a Biblical Scholar than either of us…
[url] http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/number...god-how-c/[/url]

---

You keep telling yourself that.
This is how the speed of light can be measured.
So... yeah... it's not only been done multilpe times, but it's been possible for around 300 years.
The first link has ten people that did this very thing. The whole 'anisotropic' or whatever has already been easily disproven thanks to knowing that physics doesnt' at all work that way.

---

You just proved my point! The article you pointed me to talked of calculating the one way speed of light by measuring two way speeds off of the mirror on the moon. This of course is not directly measuring the one way speed of light; it is calculating the one way speed of light by measuring the two way speed of light. So my original claim stands un-refuted, it is impossible to directly measure the one way speed of light due to relativity.

---

No one said the vatican is infallible, Statler. The point is that the Vatican observatory is a well respected scientific organization that conducts a broad range of astrononimcal research which is peer reviewed in respected scientific journals. And like every other astronomical observatory on the planet (none of which are run by creationists), they subscribe to the big bang theory and the fact that the universe is very very old.

---

Again, scientific fact is not and never will be established by consensus. You should know better.

---

As for the Apollo Space program, even if that were true, so what? Administrators at NASA aren't necessarily scientists, and they don't set space science policy. Congress does.

---

Ignorance tsk tsk. Wernher von Braun was not just an administrator. As your guys’ beloved source Wikipedia would say, “Braun would later be regarded as the preeminent rocket engineer of the 20th century in his role with the United States civilian space agency NASA” You really need to read up a bit before you make such foolish claims bud.

---

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to who, exactly, these creationists are who have worked at some of the most prestigious labs and observatories in the world.

---

Well there are quite a few actually. One great example would be Dr. Russel Humphries who has worked at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico since 1979. Another example would be Michael Trigges who is a Senior Aerospace Engineer at NASA Johnson Space Center. You’d think you’d guys would stop making these silly claims about Creation Scientists after I have proven so many of them to be flat out wrong, but oh well.

---

And Statler, actually, none of those models work because there is no evidence for any of them. Why? Because they need facts, they need to be verifiable/repeatable, and none of those "theories" fit the prerequisites for sound science. And Statler, distant starlight is actually a death sentence for YEC. Frankly, that you would even bother to try to promote such nonsense is just sad.

---

Actually all of the models do work; it’s obvious you just haven’t read up on any of them. You had better hope they work because the “Big Bang” has its own background radiation vs. time problem that could be solved by any one of these three models.

---

This is a false statement. The entire argument of creationism can be boiled down to "God did it". And there is nothing physical or scientific in making such an unsupportable axiomatic declaration.

---

Read up on what Creation Scientists really believe before you weigh in on the matter. Thanks.

---

The anisotropic bullshit(sorry, theory) has already had so many holes shot in it that I'm amazed that you even bothered to regurgitate it here again.

As to the gravity well theory , the obvious(and ultimately disastrous) consequences of being in the gravitational field of a blackhole appear to escape the attention of its proposer

Moshes Carmeli's theory merely eliminates the need for dark matter so I don't see how you can use it to justify a young earth theory.

Next.......

---

You act as if you proved something with this post, that’s kind of scary. ASC actually has not had any holes shot in it by anyone who actually understands the model. That is probably why you didn’t shoot any holes in it here either.

You obviously don’t understand the gravitational well model, so I suggest you read up on it too before you weigh in on it. Dr. Humphries book, “Starlight and Time” would be a good place for you to begin

Well if you were familiar with Carmeli’s model you would realize that clocks on the outer edges of the universe would tick up to a trillion times faster than clocks towards the center due to the 5th dimensional expansion of time and space.

---

Statler, please describe how YEC explains away the fact that paleomagnetism and other evidence demonstrates that the ocean floors are vastly older than can be accounted for by the Genesis account of the age of the Earth.

---

Actually paleomagnetism is not a problem for the catastrophic plate tectonic model because its old ages are based off of radiometric dating. Which of course is not accepted by young earth creationists for numerous and I feel legitimate reasons. Paleomagnetism also has many other problems of its own such as remagnetization. So if you think you are coming up with something that the Geologists on the creation side of the aisle are not fully aware of, you’re mistaken.

---

[quote=TheDarkestOfAngels;113630]
Ahh. To sort of sum up everything I've said in the past few posts in regard to the biblical view of earth.
A handy visual aid to those who wonder what the Earth and cosmos of the bible looks like.
Like a spitting mirror image of reality.

---

Yeah that’s a great reference for people like you who are completely ignorant of literary elements and figures of writing. Great job! For the rest of us who know what metaphors are, I find that illustration rather laughable.

---

Yes, scientists look at the Grand Canyon and, using a variety of disciplines, they conclude the Canyon was carved by the action of the Colorado River over a very long period of time (i.e., millions of years).

---

Despite the fact that they have never observed a river carve out a canyon and the fact that there boulders at the bottom of the Grand Canyon that are far too large for the Colorado River to move even in flood season. This also ignores the fact that the Kaibab Upheaval suggests that most of the strata in the canyon were deformed while it was still saturated with water, and not over millions of years. Of course you can just ignore all of these facts and continue with your fallacious interpretation of the evidence.

---

There is nothing "scientific" about the supernatural. And do you really want scientists wasting their time considering "possible answers" that involve the supernatural? Suppose you have crushing chest pains and are rushed to the hospital. Would you want the doctor to "consider" the possibility that your chest pain is being caused by a demon sitting on your chest? Would you want him to run around looking for holy water so he could sprinkle it on your chest and see if that relieves your pain because the demon has been chased away? Or would you rather have him assume you're having a heart attack and administer appropriate treatment? Or would you consider such action by the doctor to be "not objective"?

---

Creation Scientists don’t invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences, so this whole analogy is ridiculous.

---

So you want to rip science because when it makes advances, what was previously thought to be true is shown not to be? Then I suppose science shouldn't ever make new discoveries.

---

Huh? No, I was just showing you why you should not appeal to consensus. Apparently you missed the whole point.

---

You are confusing science with philosophy. Science does not seek "truth". Science looks for the best answer given the available evidence.

---

Where did I say science was the pursuit of truth? I just pointed out that if you are making scientific progression it should be in the direction of truth not untruth. You are right, science does not determine truth.

---

And if there are invisible angels pushing the planets around the solar system, Newton's laws of motion were not a progression at all. Also, evolution has nothing to do with how old the planet is.

---

Again, the operational sciences. Creationists do not invoke the supernatural in the operational sciences. Hence, why Newton could be a creationist and still do very good scientific work.
Actually evolution is closely tied to the age of the earth. It needs old ages, hence why Darwin was such an advocate of the uniformitarian movement.

---

Wrong.

---

Baseless assertion, claim stands un-refuted.

---

Wrong again.

---

Assertion, claim stands un-refuted.

---

Because you're comparing a living being to non-living material.

---

So? The laws of thermodynamics don’t apply to living matter? I think they very much do.

---

Yeah, if I was a complete fool.

---

Well you apply this same foolish reasoning to the age of the earth so…..

---

And here is where you demonstrate how well you comprehend what I write. I did NOT talk about how the Grand Canyon was formed! I talked about the ROCK LAYERS at the Grand Canyon! Have you ever been there? I have. And you can see the different rock layers that have been laid down over time. They are composed of different materials, fossils vary depending on the layer, and the layers are even different colors! These layers are stacked one atop the other (much like a layer cake) and total up to a mile deep. The idea that these layers piled up to that depth in the space of a just a few thousand years is absolutely laughable.

---

Actually you are right; it doesn’t have to take thousands of years. The Little Grand Canyon in Washington State is 1/40th the size of the actual Grand Canyon (about 100 feet deep). It is completely stratified just like the Grand Canyon and even has a new stream running down the middle of it just like the Grand Canyon. The only problem is…it was formed in one day!! The canyon was formed by the sediment run off caused by the Mt. St. Helens eruption. The only problem is, it displays everything you just listed above as evidence for an “old” canyon and yet we know it is very young.

---

Read my question again, genius. I did NOT ask how the Grand Canyon was formed. I asked you to explain the ROCK LAYERS. Care to try again?

---

As I pointed out above, the Little Grand Canyon also has rock layers; it’s a natural phenomenon that is caused by the different grain sizes and densities. It does not prove age at all. I find it rather unbelievable that a semi-intelligent person could believe what you believe in spite of the observed evidence to the contrary.

---

Anything with the word "Creation" in its name does not qualify as a legitimate scientific organization or publication. So please stop trotting out this garbage.

---

Well it fit the criteria you gave me. So it’s obvious you are just committing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Keep it up.

---

Also, who exactly "peer-reviewed" the conclusions of the creation journals? Other creationists? This is the same as other Nazis "peer reviewing" the conclusions of Nazi researchers. Epic fail.

---

Actually it is the same as only evolutionists peer reviewing the articles that are submitted to Nature and Science lol. Can you name one scientist on the peer review board for either one of those journals who does not believe in evolution? So it is obvious you are just engaging in special pleading when you expect Creation Journals to be peer reviewed by non-creationists. Epic fail.

---

And obviously you don't understand the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

---

Well I certainly should considering you have given me about a dozen fine examples of it to learn from.

---

Would you consider the "Nazi Journal" to be an "historical source" in matters concerning the Holocaust? If not, then (according to you) you are imposing an "arbitrary definition".

---

I believe in judging science upon its merits, so point me to an article from this Nazi Journal and I will read it and let you know what I think.

---

Except their "systemic approach" is tainted by their assumption that some deity created the universe. This poisons anything they may conclude

---

Well I guess the laws of Gravity are tainted because they were discovered by someone who believed God created the earth and universe about 6,000 years ago! Bummer!

---

You still want to insist the DNA evidence is "circumstantial"?

---

DNA evidence is by definition circumstantial evidence yes. Hence why OJ Simpson was not convicted for murder criminally despite the fact they had DNA evidence to support the DA’s charges. This was because the jury believed (wrongfully I believe) that the DNA evidence was planted.

---

And we can observe those rock layers at the Grand Canyon...

---

Yes you can, so you can say you have strong empirical evidence that there are rock layers at the Grand Canyon. I would not argue with this at all, especially since I have seen them myself.

---

And do you have any evidence to suggest that the rates are in error? I mean other than just saying "it's prone to error".

---

The fact that these methods can’t date correctly of rocks of known ages is pretty strong evidence that the rates are not constant. If the method can’t work when used on material of known age there is no reason at all to believe it all of the sudden works on materials of unknown ages. I am sorry.

---

Clearly unlike you I do not use the as yet incomplete research into C14 dates as any evidence whatsoever therefore I have no burden; YOU DO HOWEVER, and these dates reveal that the earth WAS NOT created 6k years ago. If you use this to support your argument, then you are disproving the YEC model you have put forward in that argument. Not my problem but ceratinly yours. Your position is now totally incoherent having proposed a model and disproved it, but you are now thrashing around again saying "well it disproves your model as well and by more". Agian, before you twist anymore just to repeat I am content to wait for the research, where the conjecture is that these dates are due to contamination within the mineral structures. You either have to back off using such research or deny YEC, which is it? Again, it isn't my model but the model supported by the scientific community

---

I think your view on this matter is a prime example of intellectual laziness. I could very well be just as lazy and say, “Well I don’t accept evolution because I am sure there is some pending research that will disprove it.” Of course I do not believe this is an acceptable argument when I use it anymore than when you use it.
I am sure you are also well aware that the 40,000 year date is what we would call an “upper limit”, so the fact that 6,000 years falls under this “upper limit” is really no problem for the YEC side of the aisle. Unfortunately for you, the fact that you believe in a date that is thousands of times higher than that upper limit does provide some very serious problems for your side of the aisle.

---

I have already rebutted the ‘missing’ coelacanth point twice before. If you do not accept it then fair enough, but to convince others (including myself) all you have to do is do some research get it peer reviewed and into a scientific journal. I think you’ll find my explanation consistent with published research.

---

Ahh, it’s the old, “All legitimate science appears in secular peer-review journals” canard. I am sure you are also aware that Crick and Watson’s work on the DNA double helix was never peer-reviewed; I guess DNA does not exist then! This is a silly game you are trying to play. You never really addressed my Coelacanth point, you just threw a fit and side stepped the point. So the fact of the matter is that when an animal doesn’t appear in the fossil record sometimes it means it really didn’t exist (sea urchins), but other times it means the animal was just not fossilized (Coelacanths) and you get to just arbitrarily pick which case it is. I like the creation viewpoint that just not all animals were fossilized; it is so much more consistent with the evidence.

---

Sea urchins are bottom feeders, they are found only in late Tertiary sediments onwards. Your explanation is again incohrent. However these animals died or came to be in there present position, your argument is that they are found where they are becuase it is a record of death and burial over 6000 years. In which case the animals which are marine bottom feeders would be found only in the lowest sedimentary layers. You still have not explained why these bottom feeders are not found in the bottomost sediments? 3 times I've asked, 3 times no answer, just obviscation; keep trying!

---

Actually many such animals are found in the bottom most layers. The fact that Sea Urchins are not just means their bodies came to rest higher up where they were fossilized. It’s really not as complicated as you are trying to make it. Fossilization is a rare event, we know this.

---

Using the current worldwide measurments of mountain building rates, it takes 10's of millions of years to form such chains.

---

Yeah keyword here is “current”. I think this uniformitarian line of thinking has been disproven time and time again and even secular geologists today don’t ascribe to it due to many lines of evidence that mountain ranges have up heaved at far greater rates in the past.
Creationists actually do have a catastrophic plate tectonics model that works perfectly and has been published in both creation and peer-reviewed journals and has been shown off and conferences nationwide. I would suggest you look at some of the published work on this model.

---

Science is not infallible, but it is the best we have for truth seeking. You trust in science over religion everyday. If you or your loved ones are ill do you go to a doctor, or eschew it and pray to Jesus? Just because you have an inbuilt bias, do not try and paint everyone with the same brush. As for a worldview, you clearly have one.

---

Science is the best we can do for truth seeking? How do you know this claim is true then? Did you scientifically prove that science is the best we can do for truth seeking? That’s a self-refuting argument.
Nowhere in scripture does Christ say to not go to the doctor. To the contrary God has given man dominion over His creation and encourages him to pursue knowledge and discovery; hence why the Christian Reformation led to modern science as we know it. So your straw-man argument is really just that, a straw-man.

---

I don't have to, and I don't have to do your work for you, and I'm not the one with the lack of evidence. All these sciences have established well tested facts, they are available and open to the public. Scientific papers in these fields are peer reviewed, and grow by 100's of thousands every year. These sciences are fully explained and lead to predictions with reference to the ToE. All validate the ToE. YEC to the extent it can form a model doesn’t fit. Your response was as embarrassing as Behe at the Dover trial, where he proclaimed that the human blood clotting cascade was irreducibly complex and then the opposing attorney just brought out paper after paper refuting his claims slapping them down in front of him asking him if he had read them. Behes response was no he hadn't but it didn't matter becuase they wouldn't provide enough evidence. I am not the one who has my work cut out, I am not making the claims - YOU ARE; you'd better get going!

---

This is just more intellectual laziness. So I have provided 25 lines of evidence confirming an earth created 6,000 years old, you have provided zero. This is a pretty easy discussion then.
Besides, you are just practicing exactly what you damn Behe (not a creationist btw) for doing. Have you read every single peer-reviewed article published in the creation journals? Nope! Yet, somehow you know that they cannot provide any evidence that would persuade you to believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Hypocrite.

---

I noticed you committed the fallacy of appealing to authority, called you out on it; then like so many other things you deny it. I gave you 2 alternative conjectures. You cannot use OEC to validate YEC, nor did you refute the conjecture of the Raelians and you have chosen to ignore them. Disproving evolution does not prove YEC; it is still a bifurcation.

---

Well if you had actually read my posts you’d realize that I said that the only two options were special creation and naturalistic creation so you have done nothing to refute this claim since you really just gave me more examples that fall into either one of these categories (OEC and Raelians). Of course Evolutionary Theory is the only serious naturalistic method proposed for life on earth and the universe itself (big bang cosmology), so evidence against it is logically evidence for special creation. Special creation of course has several branches (YEC, OEC, and ID being examples), but once you admit that special creation has to be the answer then we can discuss why it has to be YEC. Right now however you are just being completely illogical, “Well I know the answer has to be an even number, but since I don’t know which even number it is I will pick an odd one!” So my point still stands.

---

No you haven’t moved any goalposts, neither have you constructed any to move; hence the problem. You have not defined information, because you can't and the response below is woefully inadequate to even start a debate. It would be useful to your argument, otherwise this is bluster.

---

So first I was moving goalposts, now I have not even built any? I guess you are at least being consistently inconsistent.

---

At the moment I fell distinctly underwhelmed (not overwhelmed) by "information theory". Replacing the word “Information” with "specifed complexity" adds exactly what to a definition of “Information”? I’ll help you on this one; it does nothing at all to define what you mean by Information, nor does it quantify it, nor does it explain why it is important, nor does it explain how much a human nor other types of animal have, nor does it explain what "information" is contained in coding as compared to non-coding DNA structures. You are the expert summarise succinctly these points for us. All this is currently, is just a set of words not backed by data, trying to masquerade as science. “Specified complexity” which is another meaningless term, unless defined. Try again.

The evidence I gave you for evolution (contrary to your hysterical assertion that I hadn't provided you with any) was specific and included complexity (ie mutations which were additional bestowed enhancements to human biology improving survival, attractiveness etc.). Does this count? That may not be right (according to your definition), nor good enough for you, so why isn’t it?, what is “Information”?, how do you quantify it? etc etc. Just answer the questions and we’ll move forward.

Its almost like you have given up!

---

Maybe what I previously wrote on information just went over your head. I will quickly point it out again, you quantify Shannon information, you do not quantify semantic information. DNA contains both, we can quantify the Shannon information in the genome, we have to measure the semantic information by quality not quantity. I gave you the option of checking out a book on the subject written by one of the world’s leading information theorists and you seem to not care enough to give it a look (as I pointed out, it is available for free online). However, it is a well established law that semantic information cannot arise devoid of a mental source. So to suggest it does this not just once but millions of times over is quite foolish. In fact it would destroy our ability to infer that anything was created by humans in the past. We would look at the pyramids and say, “Well we know that they contain specified complexity, but since the evolutionists insist that nature not only can but does produce specified complexity over and over again I guess we can infer that these buildings were not built by the Egyptians but by natural processes.” I feel that would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

---

You have missed the point (again). In the context of this debate the distinction you are proposing adds no value whatsoever. You have not answered (again) which scientist proposes supernatural theories to explain observable facts that has gained acceptance by the scientific community. Your response is to make an arbitrary distinction between origins and operational science and then say, well its OK in origins science. It isn't OK, and I have yet to hear a single published scientist claim otherwise, nor a single scientific theory claim otherwise. Perhaps you'd like to answer a question?

---

You proved my point, thanks! Observable facts are [b]only[/] dealt with by operational science! So of course you won’t even find any creation scientists who use supernatural explanations for observable facts because they believe God upholds His creation in a predictable and uniform manner (nature). This being said, the earth and universe’s origins are not observable. So proposing supernatural explanations for these is completely legitimate and has been done by some of the greats today and some of the greats in the past like Newton, Bacon, and Kepler. So you see, the distinction is not only appropriate but crucial.

---

Well , well, well. You made an unfounded assertion, invented goalposts for me then moved them on my behalf (some threads ago I might add), and make an argument such as the one above. You know NOTHING of my background and have not the good grace to retract.

---