Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Minimalist]

Well, not one word of that nonsense is true.

But I bet he believes it on "faith." It's hard to argue with the terminally faithful.

[Sam]

Well I don’t believe that the beams of light were created in place, but it does not violate the law of conservation of energy because that is a natural law that would have been created simultaneously. You guys always make the error of assuming that the laws of nature predate nature itself, which cannot happen.

It would have been created simultaneously? In genesis god supposedly creates the Earth, among other things 3 days before he got around to Starlight, the Sun, the Moon etc ... So according to Genesis the natural world already existed when light was conjured into it. I also don’t see any reference to a separate creation of natural law, so a literal reading of genesis would suggest they came into force when the natural world was created. I suppose you have an answer for this simple interpretation though.

I disagree with your assessment of rescue mechanisms. Oort clouds have never been observed, yet many textbooks talk of them as if they are a proven fact; which of course is ridiculous. Old-Earthers just know that Comets can’t last longer than 10,000 years, rather than re-evaluating their old-universe ideas they create a magical cloud of ice that can magically spit out comets every now and then. Have we observed this ever to happen? Nope. It’s a super-natural explanation dressed up in a tuxedo.
So despite these things never being observed, you find them “plausible”? Sounds a bit like a Flying Spaghetti Monster belief system to me.

In all fairness Statler you can’t use your personal opinions as a definitive proof of your argument. This is a logical fallacy I’m afraid, what you’re saying is;

“I have never seen a text book which I consider to represent Oort Clouds as a working theory therefore everyone believes in them and Science is using super-natural explanation”

Obviously your subjective experiences count for nothing in the same way that I could say;

“All the material I’ve reviewed regarding Oort clouds suggests that is a working theory and not an established fact”

Obviously in light of this you can’t just assert it as a super-natural explanation.

Perhaps the reason they are continuing to work on the theory rather than instantly changing their opinion is that Comets simply represent one unknown in an otherwise scientifically sound model of the Solar System and Universe. You could hardly expect a scientist to deny this in light of one unknown factor without fully investigating the matter.

There are many unobserved features which are plausible Statler, it seems foolhardy for a proponent of Science to conclude that only the observed is plausible.

Actually it seems foolhardy for someone who believes in an unobservable, super natural deity to challenge me supposing an unobserved feature is plausible. Yes, I believe the theory is plausible that comets originate from gatherings of ice and particulate matter termed ‘Oort Clouds’.

I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude it as fact but it is more probable than the mountains of evidence from background radiation, distant starlight etc, etc ... all being suddenly nullified by one unknown factor. This is how science works Statler, in your words “develop a model, test your model” ... if that comes up short in one area you investigate and re-evaluate.

So you believe in things because you think they are “plausible”, but then you turn around and believe in things that you admit are “implausible” because they only have to happen once? So you essentially will believe in anything then? In an interview Richard Dawkins stated that he is “99.99” percent sure that God does not exist, so this would mean that he is 0.01 percent open to God existing. This means according to a poster child of Evolution it is a lot more plausible that God exists than than guessing a 5000 digit pin number on your first try, so then will you believe in God ? Somehow I think you will not, despite your previous reasoning on the subject.

First of all, let me clarify because you either don’t get it or are attempting to misquote me;

I do not believe in things I find plausible. If I find a theory plausible I consider it a more valid theory than something which is far more implausible. Essentially I’m just applying Occam ’s razor. If these theories are validated with sufficient evidence I will hold them as true until proven otherwise. There is no belief required.
Also you’re mixing up two different contexts.

I said I find a theory plausible (Oort Clouds), I then said that arguing a theory involves an improbability and is therefore wrong is faulty logic. Further to this my point was that Abiogenesis is a more plausible explanation than ‘god’.

So essentially I haven’t said anything of the sort ‘I’ll believe anything’.

On the contrary I felt I made it quite clear that by default I work the principle of plausibility as shown by current science.

Also you misinterpret what Dawkins was saying; firstly in that he wasn’t talking about plausibility as much as he is talking about his rational position as an ‘Agnostic Atheist’ essentially accepting that he can never know for sure that there is no ‘Super-natural’ god but that given the evidence, he holds that it is highly improbable. I’m afraid misrepresenting someone’s point out of context does not lend credence to your argument Statler.

As to your question about “who created God?” I will set up a simple logically valid syllogism for you since valid logic is important to me.

Premise 1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe has a beginning.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
Premise 1: Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Premise 2: God is eternal, he has no beginning.
Conclusion: God has no cause.

So just using logic we can easily concur that the “God needs a creator” argument is not logically valid.

Can we?

I suppose the logical fallacy of assuming god is eternal based on a book which claims to be the irrefutable word of the being you use it to prove doesn’t affect your valid logic? I call ‘Assuming the Proof’ or ‘Circular Reasoning’ on this. So argument refuted I guess.

Also, as a point – While the work is still tentative, it is currently observed that some subatomic particles can come about with no observed cause. This could simply mean the cause is yet to be observed or that it is possible for subatomic interactions to occur spontaneously. If this is found to be the case, the principle could be worked back to the singularity before the Big Bang. This is not so much an argument as just a little aside I’ve wanted to mention for a while.

The Bible is not historically accurate? Then why did I just see a program on National Geographic where they were using scripture to find the cities of Sodom and Gomorra? They found the two cities exactly where Scripture said they were and they also found evidence of catastrophe in both cities. The Bible is used in Archaeology more than any other holy book.

Okay, so let us suppose that a right a book today; the book is based in England as I currently know it and features various historic cities and localities described in intricate detail. Let us then say that the subject of this book is the quest of a Super Hero through this land to rescue a maiden from an evil wizard with a angry per dragon. In the future, this book could be used to locate cities and features which have long since vanished but finding these cities would not automatically prove the epic tale of my Super Hero would it?
The bible is used in archaeology on the understanding that it was written after the events it describes using real locations from that part of the world. Using it in such a way does not mean that we have to accept the whole thing by default.

Well yes certain dating methods are meant for different materials, like radio-carbon dating is meant for organic matter and radio-metric dating is used for igneous rocks. However, when we use just different radio-metric methods on the same igneous rock you get vastly different ages. Sometimes these ages vary by a billion years! What kind of accuracy is that? When we use these methods to date igneous rocks of known ages we get ages that are sometimes thousands of times in error. We never get the correct age. So why would we assume that a method that never gives the correct age on material that has known ages would give the correct age on material that has unknown ages? Sounds like blind-faith to me.

Statler, I don’t mean to be rude here but where did you pull this from?
I’ve been reading and studying geology and paleo-environments, among other things for a number of years now. I’ve even done some dating and I’ve never seen these ‘Billion’ year inaccuracies you keep mentioning. I’m willing to hear you out Statler but I’m going to need your source for this.

All structures that exist today post-date the global flood. The methods used to date these prior to the flood are shaky at best and use false assumptions.

So, assumptions that don’t agree with your worldview are by default false?

What are these false ‘assumptions’ Statler?

That there was no global flood? – No geological evidence for a global flood, nor a consistent break in pollen records, nor a consistent break in glacial cores etc ... etc ... It’s not a false assumption if it’s supported by evidence Statler.

The Earth is full of evidence for a global flood and I would encourage you to read some of the literature on the subject.

As I said Statler, I have been reading the literature on the subject; for six or seven years. I’m not ignorant of geology, in fact it makes up a large portion of my degree.

With this in mind I am yet to see this evidence of which you speak.

First of all, how else do you prove a person event is true rather than saying the event is true? Not sure what else you’d like, kind of ridiculous standards.

That’s essentially the point, they are anecdotal points which are incredibly weak as they are so easy to falsify. I could write a list here of dozens of conversation and lectures I have had which show various things. They would go no way to convincing you though because they are anecdotes. It’s not ridiculous standards; I’m just making it clear that I find anecdotal ‘evidence’ is just a waste of breath.

Secondly, first it was “No there are no biased reviewers, they just look at the Science”, now it is “Well these are only a few cases of bias, that’s not the norm.”. Moving the goal posts to try and win a discussion is pretty lame.

When did I say there were no biased reviewers? We were talking generalisations about the process as a whole not about specific incidents. I was saying that the process is generally fair and science based. I’m not moving the goal posts you’re taking what I’ve said out of context in order to discredit me.

No reason to get grumpy.

I wasn’t getting grumpy. I find your sarcasm on the forums disingenuous and counterproductive, as I found the fact that you kept saying “And you know it” annoying.

I’m sorry you find it ‘grumpy’ when someone calls you on this.

So it’s pretty apparent that the peer-review system on your side of the aisle is pretty corrupt and not trustworthy. To think that you ot on my about the Answers Journal wanting actual Creation articles for their journal  It is also important to note that no creation journal has ever had a case of fraud. I trust them, and for good reason. So the next time someone says, “Well Creationists don’t get published in our journals!” (a false statement), I think the best response a creationist can have is, “Thank God!”.

To be honest Statler, I was quite impressed at your sourcing of quotes with regards to this subject. Obviously the peer review system in secular science has had and still has issues, many of which are being addressed by recent reforms in the nature of peer review (Double Blind Reviewing etc ...). I suppose I was a little reluctant to concede this earlier. I would note that a lot of the purported incidents are related to the medical and biological journals (based on a quick Google I admit). While the system is not perfect and can be restrictive in some instances it is on the whole useful as a means of assessing the viability of work.

I would also note Statler, that your own Dr. Lisle thinks that creationist peer review on your own side of the ‘aisle’ is still lacking as well. I might suggest you take that into account before blindly trusting any journal.

... lacks the credibility to justify publishing any submissions that we get from its adherents. I would go even further, in fact. The collection of creationist ideas (6,000 year old earth, no common ancestry, all the fossils laid down by Noah's flood, Genesis creation account read literally, etc.) has been so thoroughly discredited by both scientific and religious scholarship that I think it is entirely appropriate for Research News to print material designed to move our readers away from this viewpoint. For example, we might publish a negative review of a book promoting scientific creationism while refusing to allow the author a chance to respond. Is this an unfair bias? Or is it proper stewardship of limited editorial resources?”
- Karl Giberson

This quote doesn’t exactly support your point . I think Mr Giberson is making it clear that in the eyes of secular science ‘Creationsim’ has been completely discredited by both scientists and religious scholars.
I’d like your opinion on that Statler; even the majority of religious scholars, more knowledgeable than many YEC adherents completely disagree with you. So if secular science doesn’t accept creationism and religious scholars don’t accept creationism what makes you think your limited number of adherent are right?

Minor logical fallacies? There is no such ting, all the ones I have pointed out are quite major I assure you. It’s actually the best way to debate. There are two ways to refute an article, you can either point out the invalid logic used by the presenter, or you can demonstrate that one of the two premises is false. Why would I ignore a golden opportunity to refute an argument by ignoring a logical fallacy? It makes my job very easy. Maybe you guys should use proper logic and force me to demonstrate one of the premises is false? Thus far, nobody has even gotten to that point.

You might want to take a look at this post from P.Z. Meyers ‘Pharyngula’ website. It shows the inconsistency of the logical fallacy approach to debate, in that instantly slotting any comment that does not agree with you into a class of ‘logical fallacy’ is a tactic used to avoid answering difficult questions.

It also makes mention of the use of small, out of context quotes used in an attempt to discredit someone ... which I have to say is something you have tried a number of times.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/...lastin.php

Cheers

Sam

[Statler Waldorf]

Well, not one word of that nonsense is true.

But I bet he believes it on "faith." It's hard to argue with the terminally faithful.

Actually since OGM didn't given any reason as to why it was not true, and you beleived him, you are the one operating on blind-faith my not-so good friend.

[orogenicman]

Well, not one word of that nonsense is true.

But I bet he believes it on "faith." It's hard to argue with the terminally faithful.

Actually since OGM didn't given any reason as to why it was not true, and you beleived him, you are the one operating on blind-faith my not-so good friend.

I didn't have to give a reason. Anyone with half a brain and a highschool science education reading what you posted would know instinctively that it was nothing but pure bullshit.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

In all fairness Statler you can’t use your personal opinions as a definitive proof of your argument. This is a logical fallacy I’m afraid, what you’re saying is;

“I have never seen a text book which I consider to represent Oort Clouds as a working theory therefore everyone believes in them and Science is using super-natural explanation”

Obviously your subjective experiences count for nothing in the same way that I could say;

“All the material I’ve reviewed regarding Oort clouds suggests that is a working theory and not an established fact”

Obviously in light of this you can’t just assert it as a super-natural explanation.

Perhaps the reason they are continuing to work on the theory rather than instantly changing their opinion is that Comets simply represent one unknown in an otherwise scientifically sound model of the Solar System and Universe. You could hardly expect a scientist to deny this in light of one unknown factor without fully investigating the matter.

There are many unobserved features which are plausible Statler, it seems foolhardy for a proponent of Science to conclude that only the observed is plausible.

Actually it seems foolhardy for someone who believes in an unobservable, super natural deity to challenge me supposing an unobserved feature is plausible. Yes, I believe the theory is plausible that comets originate from gatherings of ice and particulate matter termed ‘Oort Clouds’.

I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude it as fact but it is more probable than the mountains of evidence from background radiation, distant starlight etc, etc ... all being suddenly nullified by one unknown factor. This is how science works Statler, in your words “develop a model, test your model” ... if that comes up short in one area you investigate and re-evaluate.

---

Now you are just playing games with semantics. You are right, a person can’t use personal opinion to demonstrate an argument, it’s a good thing I didn’t use personal opinion though right? I used observation. I have never observed a textbook that represents Oort clouds as only a working theory; they all pass it off as a known validated fact. Now you will probably tell me that observation is not part of Science, but that is of course wrong.
Yes comets do represent one unknown factor in the current old Universe model; however they represent just one among numerous unknown factors with that model. It looks to me like we need to adopt a new model. This really isn’t proper scientific reasoning either since it can be used to fit any model. I could just as easily say, “Well distant starlight and background radiation are just two unknowns in our young universe model, but just because we have unknowns does not make our model invalid.” However, Creation Scientists have far better explanations for these two things than the the ways old universe guys try and explain comets. I find it also interesting you would use the background radiation and starlight issues to support your argument. The Big Bang model has its own starlight problem. Using this model the universe is not nearly old enough to explain the uniformity in background radiation that we observe. So to use evidence that disagrees wtiht he current model to argue against the creation model is hardly appropriate. However, since creationists can explain the “comet problem” with their model, it is very appropriate to use this as evidence against the current old universe model.
Now you are committing the very fallacy you claimed I committed. You said you believe it is plausible for the existence of an Oort cloud. This is obviously just your personal opinion since there is no observed evidence for the existence of any such structure.
You are right, “Develop a model, and test the model”. However, you test through observation, and since we cannot observe an Oort Cloud, Dark Matter, or Dark energy these are not good components to have in your model.

---

Can we?

I suppose the logical fallacy of assuming god is eternal based on a book which claims to be the irrefutable word of the being you use it to prove doesn’t affect your valid logic? I call ‘Assuming the Proof’ or ‘Circular Reasoning’ on this. So argument refuted I guess.

---

Absolutely not, argument not refuted. Being eternal is just one of the attributes that makes something God. So to call that assuming the proof would be like saying the following syllogism is invalid…
Premise 1: All cats have cat DNA
Premise 2: Fluffy has Cat DNA.
Conclusion: Fluffy is a cat.
You would turn around and say, “Sorry! You are assuming that all cats have Cat DNA, can’t assume that!”. Well of course I can assume it because it is what makes a cat a cat. Being eternal is one of the atttributes that makes God, well God. You may not agree with the premise that God is eternal, but disagreeing with a premise does not make an argument invalid logically.

---

Okay, so let us suppose that a right a book today; the book is based in England as I currently know it and features various historic cities and localities described in intricate detail. Let us then say that the subject of this book is the quest of a Super Hero through this land to rescue a maiden from an evil wizard with a angry per dragon. In the future, this book could be used to locate cities and features which have long since vanished but finding these cities would not automatically prove the epic tale of my Super Hero would it?
The bible is used in archaeology on the understanding that it was written after the events it describes using real locations from that part of the world. Using it in such a way does not mean that we have to accept the whole thing by default.

---

Sounds like a good book actually. Well you’ll notice that I was not saying, “The Bible is historically accurate so therefore all of it is true.” I was arguing against the claim that the Bible is not historically accurate, which of course it is. So I agree with you on this, however I do not believe I was trying to make that argument.

---

Statler, I don’t mean to be rude here but where did you pull this from?
I’ve been reading and studying geology and paleo-environments, among other things for a number of years now. I’ve even done some dating and I’ve never seen these ‘Billion’ year inaccuracies you keep mentioning. I’m willing to hear you out Statler but I’m going to need your source for this.

---

Well several studies have been done demonstrating this problem. Unfortunately Creation guys are the only guys who actually consider doing these tests, it’s kind of sad that the secular community would use methods without first cross checking their validity. The tests are always done by Secular labs who are blind to the groups predictions so the data is legitimate. I would encourage you to pick up the peer-reviewed work done by the RATE Group that came out in 2008 I do believe. It is pretty complicated, but if you have a background in Geology it should be no problem. Let me see if I can find some other articles for you to look at.
If you want a secular source, this article as many P/Ar dating “muck ups” for rocks of known age…
40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:47–55, By G.B. Dalrymple
Here are some creation guys who have done more recent tests and found similar data….
Snelling, A., Radioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years, Creation 22(1):18–21, 2000.
Austin, S.A. (ed.), Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, pp. 111–131, 1994.
Like I said earlier too, the RATE Group has work published too from 2001-2008 that shows many more cases of these erroneous ages.

---

So, assumptions that don’t agree with your worldview are by default false?

What are these false ‘assumptions’ Statler?

That there was no global flood? – No geological evidence for a global flood, nor a consistent break in pollen records, nor a consistent break in glacial cores etc ... etc ... It’s not a false assumption if it’s supported by evidence Statler.

---

We have to go back to the “nature of evidence” discussion again? You can’t support your assumptions by saying the evidence supports them when you used these very assumptions to interpret the evidence. If you look at ice cores for example you will find that only the first couple thousand years have obvious annuals, where after that the layers appear all “squished” and almost as one solid layer. Secular scientists just assume though, “Well this rate of annual accumulation has been constant so we will just keep counting using our assumed annual accumulation measurement.” Whereas the Creation Scientist says, “Well that’s exactly what we would expect because the huge amount of ice that all is devoid of annuals is a result of the ice age that post dates the global flood.” Using anti-biblical assumptions to interpret data, and then using this interpretation to argue against Scripture is assuming the proof. We see this done all the time with the fossil record, radiometric dating, and radio-carbon dating. That’s why I have said many times that this really comes down to Worldviews and not the useless platitude “well the evidence says”, evidence itself says nothing.

---

As I said Statler, I have been reading the literature on the subject; for six or seven years. I’m not ignorant of geology, in fact it makes up a large portion of my degree.

With this in mind I am yet to see this evidence of which you speak.

---

Well then you have not been reading all the literature on the subject. You should pick up literature on the subject written by Creationists and see what they consider evidence for a global flood. I think you will find it very interesting and I think it is more intellectually honest than a lot of the secular geologic material printed today. I think the fossil record is some of the best evidence for a global flood available.

---

To be honest Statler, I was quite impressed at your sourcing of quotes with regards to this subject. Obviously the peer review system in secular science has had and still has issues, many of which are being addressed by recent reforms in the nature of peer review (Double Blind Reviewing etc ...). I suppose I was a little reluctant to concede this earlier. I would note that a lot of the purported incidents are related to the medical and biological journals (based on a quick Google I admit). While the system is not perfect and can be restrictive in some instances it is on the whole useful as a means of assessing the viability of work.

I would also note Statler, that your own Dr. Lisle thinks that creationist peer review on your own side of the ‘aisle’ is still lacking as well. I might suggest you take that into account before blindly trusting any journal.

---

Yes, it took me a couple hours (while watching football of course) to do all of the citations. I really appreciate your intellectual honesty on the matter and am also grateful that you took the time to read what I had written instead of just blowing it off as some do on here. I will be the first to admit that the peer-review system is important. It’s very important when checking data quality and control . I just have a beef with it when it borders on censorship or becomes kind of like the “cool kids” club. I think articles should be anonymous and should also not include a submitter’s university. A lot of people act like something becomes more “true” when it appears in the journal and I don’t think this is necessarily the case.
Well the Creation Peer Review system is fairly new (25 years or so) so yes Dr. Lisle is most likely correct, it is still working out some kinks. Though I don’t think I am giving them “blind” trust, I pointed out that I was trusting them on their track record, which to this point is very good. There was even a fraudulent article written (by Evolutionists trying to prove the Creation system was not valid) and submitted to the Journal of Creation (may have been the Answers Journal, can’t recall) that was rejected, I thought this was pretty cool that they caught it. I use the review system on both sides more for assurance that the calculations and data quality and control have all been checked, not a lot more than that really.

---

This quote doesn’t exactly support your point . I think Mr Giberson is making it clear that in the eyes of secular science ‘Creationism’ has been completely discredited by both scientists and religious scholars.
I’d like your opinion on that Statler; even the majority of religious scholars, more knowledgeable than many YEC adherents completely disagree with you. So if secular science doesn’t accept creationism and religious scholars don’t accept creationism what makes you think your limited number of adherent are right?

---

I was using that quote more to illustrate some of the dishonesty that these editors use. Claiming to be a place of intellectual honesty and fairness but then allowing a bad book review to stand and denying the author a chance to respond just because they are a Creationist is neither honest nor fair. The mentality this editor is taking is to me quite frankly disturbing. Science is not based on consensus, and this is a good thing. Could you imagine if this approach had always been used? “Well this Einstein guy wants to publish work on his relativity theory, but all the current work in the area disagrees with him so we will reject his submittal and then let a bunch of other Scientists bash on him in our journal and not let him have the chance to respond.” It’s kind of sickening people don’t just let the Science stand on its merit. So that was more of my point. Which Biblical Scholars are you referring to? The ones that I read tend to lean towards the YEC camp. It was actually interesting; ICR actually did a statistical study on the book of Genesis and the usage of the Hebrew verbs to determine whether it was written as historical narrative or just figurative allegory. The study came out conclusively that it was intended as historical narrative.

---

You might want to take a look at this post from P.Z. Meyers ‘Pharyngula’ website. It shows the inconsistency of the logical fallacy approach to debate, in that instantly slotting any comment that does not agree with you into a class of ‘logical fallacy’ is a tactic used to avoid answering difficult questions.

It also makes mention of the use of small, out of context quotes used in an attempt to discredit someone ... which I have to say is something you have tried a number of times.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/...lastin.php

Cheers

Sam

---

I did read that article but I can’t say I agree with its author much. He strikes me more as someone who got caught on shaky logical ground so he is trying the old “Despite my bad logic you still need to address the issue! So meh!” This of course is not true. I was taught in formal debate that if someone addresses you with an logically invalid argument you are in no way obligated to respond to the argument, just point out the fallacious use of logic and you win. You will see this in formal debates all the time. In fact, it is inappropriate to not point out problems in the other side’s logic because you then give credence to their bad arguments. A person must first present a valid argument before they can present a sound argument. All sound arguments are valid, not all valid arguments are sound. So if I can demonstrate the argument is invalid, then I have also demonstrated the argument cannot be sound. This is a very effective way of debating and I am not surprised that Dr. Lisle has frustrated a few people by using it.


Well I am gotting off here for the weekend, have a good weekend!

---

---

[quote='Minimalist' pid='104838' dateline='1289458252']

Well, not one word of that nonsense is true.

But I bet he believes it on "faith." It's hard to argue with the terminally faithful.

Actually since OGM didn't given any reason as to why it was not true, and you beleived him, you are the one operating on blind-faith my not-so good friend.

I didn't have to give a reason. Anyone with half a brain and a highschool science education reading what you posted would know instinctively that it was nothing but pure bullshit.

---

Lol, ah the old "Appeal to Common Sense" fallacy, nicely done. Well it's a good thing I don't have "half a brain", but rather I have a whole one. So to those of us who have whole brains it is not non-sense. Argument stands unrefuted, I win.

[orogenicman]

Statler, we are all very aware that creationists like to use the lazy argument that "it is only a theory". Please refrain from doing so as you know very well that scientific theories are not in the same catagory as 'Sally theorized that billy ate her soup'. The Oort cloud idea came about for several reasons:

1) No comet's path has been calculated to indicate as coming from interstellar space.

2) All comets so far seen don't all come from one point in space.

3) There is strong orbital and gravitational evidence that many comets furthest point from the Sun lies around 50,000 A.U., roughly 1 Light Year or 50,000 times the distance between Earth and the Sun.

No, there is no definitive evidence (yet) that the Oort cloud exists. So what?

---

Statler wrote:

Absolutely not, argument not refuted. Being eternal is just one of the attributes that makes something God. So to call that assuming the proof would be like saying the following syllogism is invalid…
Premise 1: All cats have cat DNA
Premise 2: Fluffy has Cat DNA.
Conclusion: Fluffy is a cat.
You would turn around and say, “Sorry! You are assuming that all cats have Cat DNA, can’t assume that!”. Well of course I can assume it because it is what makes a cat a cat. Being eternal is one of the atttributes that makes God, well God. You may not agree with the premise that God is eternal, but disagreeing with a premise does not make an argument invalid logically.]

O.M.G! Before you can even begin to present a validating argument that your God is eternal, you first have to prove that your God even exists. Unless you are arguing that your God is a cat named Fluffy. If so, I can almost believe that.

[Lethe]

Absolutely not, argument not refuted. Being eternal is just one of the attributes that makes something God. So to call that assuming the proof would be like saying the following syllogism is invalid…
Premise 1: All cats have cat DNA
Premise 2: Fluffy has Cat DNA.
Conclusion: Fluffy is a cat.
You would turn around and say, “Sorry! You are assuming that all cats have Cat DNA, can’t assume that!”. Well of course I can assume it because it is what makes a cat a cat. Being eternal is one of the attributes that makes God, well God. You may not agree with the premise that God is eternal, but disagreeing with a premise does not make an argument invalid logically.

O.M.G! Before you can even begin to present a validating argument that your God is eternal, you first have to prove that your God even exists. Unless you are arguing that your God is a cat named Fluffy. If so, I can almost believe that.

He hasn't even made an effort to provide evidence for the existence of this supposed "Fluffy", or it's DNA. Fluffy could be a hamster, or a piece of dandruff from a cat that would subsequently possess the DNA of a cat, or Fluffy could be a figment of his imagination -- and still other realms of possibility exist with this abstract concept of "Fluffy". Until we can assert Fluffy's existence, we can not assume it's attributes.

[Sam]

Now you are just playing games with semantics. You are right, a person can’t use personal opinion to demonstrate an argument, it’s a good thing I didn’t use personal opinion though right? I used observation. I have never observed a textbook that represents Oort clouds as only a working theory; they all pass it off as a known validated fact. Now you will probably tell me that observation is not part of Science, but that is of course wrong.

I would not presume to say that observation is not a part of Science. You seem to think you know what I am going to say Statler I’m not sure why, but alas, this is not the case.

That’s right, you observed a textbook. Then you formed an opinion about how that material had been presented and how you understood it. Obviously both your opinion and your observations are subjective with regards to this. So you are still no nearer to proving your assertion that secular science is trying to pass the Oort Cloud theory of as a validated fact and therefore your argument that secular science uses ‘Super-Natural Rescue Mechanisms’ all the time is left severely lacking.

A quick look at Wiki also produces this;

The Oort cloud (pronounced /ˈɔrt/ ort, alternatively the Öpik-Oort cloud IPA: [ˈøpik]) is a hypothesized spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun.[1] This places the cloud at nearly a quarter of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The Kuiper belt and scattered disc, the other two reservoirs of trans-Neptunian objects, are less than one thousandth the Oort cloud's distance. The outer extent of the Oort cloud defines the gravitational boundary of our Solar System.

It’s a pretty interesting read as well, take a look;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_Cloud

As Orogenicman said Statler, this hasn’t just been dreamt up on the spot and no one is claiming it as an observed and validated fact as of yet. The evidence is however, strong. I hope you can now understand my original point i.e. that the Oort Cloud is a scientifically valid, natural theory.

Yes comets do represent one unknown factor in the current old Universe model; however they represent just one among numerous unknown factors with that model. It looks to me like we need to adopt a new model.

Hence why you’re not and astronomer I guess. The presence of unknown variables does not invalidate a model by default. These are unknown features which still require investigation and quantification. They haven’t just been omitted or ignored because they don’t fit as you seem to think.

This really isn’t proper scientific reasoning either since it can be used to fit any model. I could just as easily say, “Well distant starlight and background radiation are just two unknowns in our young universe model, but just because we have unknowns does not make our model invalid.” However, Creation Scientists have far better explanations for these two things than the the ways old universe guys try and explain comets.

Hmmmm ...

So it isn’t proper scientific reasoning to establish an effective model based on the observations you have, then theorise about any unknown factors and then begin observations to validate these theories? That is what you’re saying.

You’re right; having those unknowns in your models would not invalidate it. I fail to see where you were going with that.

I’m sure in your opinion they are far greater explanations Statler. Which Journal did you say they were published in? Oh, wait . . .

Now you are committing the very fallacy you claimed I committed. You said you believe it is plausible for the existence of an Oort cloud. This is obviously just your personal opinion since there is no observed evidence for the existence of any such structure.

Have you forgotten how scientific theories work? See Orogenicmans post, the theory was devised based on the observations we had and is not accepted as fact as of yet. Also you were making absolute statements I said it was a ‘plausible theory’ . . . different things I’m afraid.

You are right, “Develop a model, and test the model”. However, you test through observation, and since we cannot observe an Oort Cloud, Dark Matter, or Dark energy these are not good components to have in your model.

Okay, So tell me Statler . . . How was the theory of gravity tested?

It was tested by observing its effects, which correlated with the theory. First off, your assertion that you can only test through direct observation is absolutely ludicrous. Secondly you say that having features we cannot observe in a model is ‘not good’ . . . any assumptions/unobservable/unknowable variable in ‘your’ model? Be honest . . .

Absolutely not, argument not refuted. Being eternal is just one of the attributes that makes something God. So to call that assuming the proof would be like saying the following syllogism is invalid…
Premise 1: All cats have cat DNA
Premise 2: Fluffy has Cat DNA.
Conclusion: Fluffy is a cat.
You would turn around and say, “Sorry! You are assuming that all cats have Cat DNA, can’t assume that!”. Well of course I can assume it because it is what makes a cat a cat. Being eternal is one of the atttributes that makes God, well God. You may not agree with the premise that God is eternal, but disagreeing with a premise does not make an argument invalid logically.

As Orogenciman & Lethe said, before you can start to make validating arguments for your God, you first have to prove ‘it’ exists otherwise your just making a circular argument. To use a simplified syllogism like that is foolish Statler.

All you’re doing is trying to bolster a faulty argument (Prime Mover or Original Cause) with theological babble about the attributes of God.

Sounds like a good book actually. Well you’ll notice that I was not saying, “The Bible is historically accurate so therefore all of it is true.” I was arguing against the claim that the Bible is not historically accurate, which of course it is. So I agree with you on this, however I do not believe I was trying to make that argument.

Actually, what you were doing was trying to argue that the bible was an ‘eyewitness account’ of historical events based on the premise that it is used in archaeology all the time . . . by your own admission this is not the case.
BTW ... That book idea is mine I’m watching all of you! *joke*

Well several studies have been done demonstrating this problem. Unfortunately Creation guys are the only guys who actually consider doing these tests, it’s kind of sad that the secular community would use methods without first cross checking their validity. The tests are always done by Secular labs who are blind to the groups predictions so the data is legitimate. I would encourage you to pick up the peer-reviewed work done by the RATE Group that came out in 2008 I do believe. It is pretty complicated, but if you have a background in Geology it should be no problem. Let me see if I can find some other articles for you to look at.
. . .Like I said earlier too, the RATE Group has work published too from 2001-2008 that shows many more cases of these erroneous ages.

I’m still trying to make my mind up about something here ... You see I looked up some of this RATE groups work.

I read it through, noted some of my criticisms, mainly concerning poor or inaccurate methodologies, misidentification of specimens, fraudulent alterations to previous works, invalid assumptions, the fact that the sample were processed by ICR not a ‘Secular Lab’. I started to write a critique actually but it was taking a long time and I have Uni work to do. Anyways here is a complete refutation by a Secular Scientist;

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

And a Christian;

http://www.answersincreation.org/RATE_cr..._he-zr.htm

Oh, and before you say it Statler, I reviewed your sides rebuttals here;

http://creationwiki.org/Criticism_of_RAT...usion_data

I hope you’ll note the complete lack of any counter to the serious issues raised in the previous two articles. Most of it is just them saying . . . “Yes, thats right but it doesn’t really matter does it?” and then kind of shrugging it off. I actually find it intellectually offensive if I’m honest.

So, this was the ‘evidence’ for non-constant radioactive decay rates then? Colour me unimpressed. Obviously I haven’t read all their work but this paper presents a serious challenge to their credibility with regards anything else they might have to say.

We have to go back to the “nature of evidence” discussion again? You can’t support your assumptions by saying the evidence supports them when you used these very assumptions to interpret the evidence. If you look at ice cores for example you will find that only the first couple thousand years have obvious annuals, where after that the layers appear all “squished” and almost as one solid layer. Secular scientists just assume though, “Well this rate of annual accumulation has been constant so we will just keep counting using our assumed annual accumulation measurement.” Whereas the Creation Scientist says, “Well that’s exactly what we would expect because the huge amount of ice that all is devoid of annuals is a result of the ice age that post dates the global flood.” Using anti-biblical assumptions to interpret data, and then using this interpretation to argue against Scripture is assuming the proof. We see this done all the time with the fossil record, radiometric dating, and radio-carbon dating. That’s why I have said many times that this really comes down to Worldviews and not the useless platitude “well the evidence says”, evidence itself says nothing.

Well, that’s not how Ice Core analysis works. First of all, the layers are ‘squished’ as you so eloquently put it, due to the accumulation of ice above them. Furthermore, we don’t just ‘keep counting’. We use ice core analyses to see how much ice accumulated at a certain time (among other things), thus indicating the nature of the climate at that time. Also we use layers of ash, pollen and other things in combination with radiometric dating (which you have yet to prove is inaccurate) to assist in this.

So to say a constant accumulation rate is assumed actually makes you seem rather ill-informed. Hey, I suppose AIG haven’t recruited an ‘expert’ in this field yet though. Also we use layers of ash, pollen and other things in combination with radiometric dating (which you have yet to prove is inaccurate) to assist in this.
I’ll paraphrase from Tiberiuss signature (@AH: Hope you don’t mind);

All opinions and assumptions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic, observation and argument than others.
Can we seriously drop this BS, I’m sick of hearing;

“Yes, yes ... that is and has been validated by science for years but you’re assuming .................................. Which I think is false because of the bible”

From now on why don’t you state categorically the assumptions you have an issue with when you have them.
I’ll say it again, the assumptions we use have been validated (in many cases) by over a hundred years of scientific study, whereas you can’t even prove any of your base assumptions or support them in observation enough to get anyone to listen to you.

Well then you have not been reading all the literature on the subject. You should pick up literature on the subject written by Creationists and see what they consider evidence for a global flood. I think you will find it very interesting and I think it is more intellectually honest than a lot of the secular geologic material printed today. I think the fossil record is some of the best evidence for a global flood available.

You’re right. I’ve been focussing my reading on the scientifically valid journals used by Academic & Professional organisations in my field of study. Considering I played to this once I fail to see why I should if you cannot even relates some of these ideas coherently.

Well the Creation Peer Review system is fairly new (25 years or so) so yes Dr. Lisle is most likely correct, it is still working out some kinks. Though I don’t think I am giving them “blind” trust, I pointed out that I was trusting them on their track record, which to this point is very good.

Not from what I’ve seen. In fact if the group you presented are to be taken as representative I’d say it has a pretty poor track record. I have to note that no secular journal would allow some of the things that were done by Dr. Humphreys.

It was actually interesting; ICR actually did a statistical study on the book of Genesis and the usage of the Hebrew verbs to determine whether it was written as historical narrative or just figurative allegory. The study came out conclusively that it was intended as historical narrative.

And this proves?

It would seem that this kind of analysis could not distinguish between something written to imitate a historical narrative and an actual historical narrative. As for which Scholars; I’m relatively sure that both the Catholic Church & Church of England now refute that genesis is an accurate account of creation. I can’t be sure though.

I did read that article but I can’t say I agree with its author much. He strikes me more as someone who got caught on shaky logical ground so he is trying the old “Despite my bad logic you still need to address the issue! So meh!” This of course is not true. I was taught in formal debate that if someone addresses you with an logically invalid argument you are in no way obligated to respond to the argument, just point out the fallacious use of logic and you win. You will see this in formal debates all the time. In fact, it is inappropriate to not point out problems in the other side’s logic because you then give credence to their bad arguments. A person must first present a valid argument before they can present a sound argument. All sound arguments are valid, not all valid arguments are sound. So if I can demonstrate the argument is invalid, then I have also demonstrated the argument cannot be sound. This is a very effective way of debating and I am not surprised that Dr. Lisle has frustrated a few people by using it.

He wasn’t really on shaky logical ground though. Dr. Lisle was picking up on the ‘Question Begging Epithet’ which is not sufficient to discount an argument in a debate. He simply uses emotive language to emphasise his point which does not make the logic invalid.

Also, this technique is used in formal debates. It removes the argument from consideration by the judges. Obviously there are no judges here so all you achieve is dodging the question.

Lol, ah the old "Appeal to Common Sense" fallacy, nicely done. Well it's a good thing I don't have "half a brain", but rather I have a whole one. So to those of us who have whole brains it is not non-sense. Argument stands unrefuted, I win.

Please don’t start arbitrarily claiming ‘I win’ Statler ... It is pointless and puerile, in fact I suspect you are doing it just to annoy people. I would much rather you just fuck off if you’re going to start doing it.

Cheers

Sam

[Welsh cake]

Absolutely not, argument not refuted. Being eternal is just one of the attributes that makes something God. So to call that assuming the proof would be like saying the following syllogism is invalid…
Premise 1: All cats have cat DNA
Premise 2: Fluffy has Cat DNA.
Conclusion: Fluffy is a cat.
You would turn around and say, “Sorry! You are assuming that all cats have Cat DNA, can’t assume that!”. Well of course I can assume it because it is what makes a cat a cat. Being eternal is one of the atttributes that makes God, well God. You may not agree with the premise that God is eternal, but disagreeing with a premise does not make an argument invalid logically.

This caught my attention. Statler, eternity is just a concept. Realistically you cannot reach it, you cannot realise something eternal because you can't measure or falsify it by its own definition. Indeed, why even assert "god" as eternal in the first instance? If you were credible and had an appreciation for the English language you would've argued your god hypothesis is transfinite instead, because at least then while you're asserting while he's greater than all things finite he's not necessarily infinite and risk making an erroneous assumption since eternal is not an attribute that provides a clear positive ontology for the existence of god, or any deity for that matter.

Anyway, you may return to your wonderful delusional-state that your brilliant arguments' premises don't require confirmers like real-world arguments, but refuters now. Ah, to live but a day in your life.

[orogenicman]

According to Statler:

40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6:47–55, By G.B. Dalrymple (who, he claims, refutes in some detail the various claims that radioactive decay rates may be influenced by neutrinos, neutrons, and cosmic radiation, including Dudley's "neutrino sea.")

The problem, sir, is that there is nothing in that book about the effect of neutrinos on decay rates.

What's more, Ireported in the following link on recent research that shows that there is no evidence that neutrinos affect decay rates.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-5027.html

A post which you have yet to respond to.