Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

I just don't find either video very funny or well thought out.

As to the "you can't be a scientist and be religious" thing, then then that would disqualify some of the World's greatest scientists, even the father of modern science himself. So of course that is not a valid statement. Religion gives us the very basis for modern science.

What part of it give us the basis of science, the part that says that you can't disobey the book and you should be killed for it, or the part that tells you to go nearest village and kill anyone that isn't a female virgin and kill them, or is it part that the earth is immobile and flat.

These videos are both funny and well though out, in fact why don't you point me a factual error in it(comedy is not an error)

You also failed to comment on my points that proven macroevolution

No where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat, to the contrary it is made quite apparent by several versus that people in those days were well aware of the earth's actual shape.

The Bible gives us the very preconditions for intelligibility that we require to conduct science. We are told that God is truth and God will never contradict himself, this gives us the foundation for all laws of logic. We are also told that God upholds his creation in a consistent manner, this also allows us to expect uniformity in nature and that the future will be consistent with the past. The Bible also gives us the foundations for absolute morality, which allows us to make "should" and "ought" claims which are also necessary for knowledge and science. Given an evolutionary worldview there would be no basis for any of these things and all knowledge would be impossible.

One example of an error in your videos is that the first one asserts that Christians believe dinosaur fossils are a result of the devil. There is no prominent creationist today that believes this. Quite the opposite, we welcome recent findings dealing with dinosaur fossils because they are help to strengthen our model.

---

---

These videos are both funny and well though out, in fact why don't you point me a factual error in it(comedy is not an error)

Ah, but you all must remember - he won't listen to or watch any youtube video, no matter how basic the science, easily backed up the facts are, or how simple the mathmatics. It'll be wrong.

Ridiculous I know, but getting anywhere in religion isn't based on factual merit.

---

Are you still whining about the fact that I don't view youtube as a scholarly source? I suggest you get over it. The fact that I hold my sources to a higher standard than you do should be no reason for you to be upset.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm still waiting for creationists to simply give a non-retarded explanation for the - at the very least extremely convincingly ostensible - evidence for evolution that doesn't contradict their Creationism.

[Zen Badger]

Statler Waldorf; Oh really? Creationists always fail to recognize that problem? You should read the quotes below then...

So they have recognised the problem, what is their solution?

Apart from the obvious one of the universe actually being its perceived age of 14 billion years old.

[Edwardo Piet]

Their solution is to ignore valid evidence, or give a terrible explanation for why such evidence is invalid.

[Thor]

How do you define solid evidence? Remember don’t’ appeal to consensus when you do this!

This would be evidence that is tangible, measurable and/or observable. It would also include evidence that is repeatable (as when conducting experiments or tests).

Actually scientists do have beliefs, they start off with axioms (senses can be trusted, one’s memory can be trusted) which of course are beliefs.

Yeah, like this is what I meant when I said scientists don't have "beliefs".

Actually, I probably would have said "What an interesting idea! Is there any evidence to support it?".

LOL! Yeah that’s you, Mr. Objective.

Yes, I give serious consideration to scientific explanations that don't involve supernatural nonsense or woo-woo bullshit.

Any examples in the last century?

Majority of scientists were wrong about space and time before the General Theory of Relativity. Majority of scientists were wrong about the inner workings of the cell before the discovery of DNA. Both of those were in the last 100 years.

So, to you, TWO examples where the majority of scientists were wrong qualifies as being wrong "time and time again"? As for the General Theory of Relativity, that was published in 1916, so it just barely falls into "the last 100 years". Also, the theory corrected what was previously incorrect. In other words, science progressed! Same goes for the discovery of DNA. Science progressed! Science long ago moved past the point where a young Earth was thought to be the case. You and your ilk have been left in the dust of scientific advancement.

No, but we can directly observe the results of radiometric dating.

Directly observing claims about the past does not mean you can directly test the validity of those claims. Not the same thing.

Uhhhhh... yes, we can test the validity of those claims. We do not use ONE method of radiometric dating. We use several. And they all produce similar results.

Comparing radiometric dating with growth rates for people? Now THAT is a horrible analogy...

Nope not so. They are both dating methods that use very similar starting assumptions. It’s a very strong analogy actually.

No, it's a pretty poor analogy. It would be foolish to assume a person grows at a constant rate. This is not comparable to radiometric dating.

Yes, I'm wrong... the planet is really only 6,000 years old and I'm too blind to see it.

It’s not a matter of being blind; you can’t observe the age of the Earth remember?

No, but I can observe rock formations. And the claim that layers of rock thousands of feet deep (such as at the Grand Canyon) formed in just a few thousand years (a blink of an eye in geologic time) is simply absurd.

You just have a worldview that interprets the evidence incorrectly.

And what is the "correct" interpretation for the rock layers at the Grand Canyon?

Okay... now show me a legitimate scientific source that agrees with your contention that these things are all evidence of a young Earth. Good luck!

Logical fallacy, you have defined a “legitimate scientific source” arbitrarily as one that agrees with your position.

Where did I say this? A "legitimate scientific source" would be a national scientific organization, a scientific publication or a paper written by a scientist that has been peer reviewed and accepted within the scientific community. It's not my fault if your crackpot theory has no support among experts in the field.

I can play the same game; show me a legitimate scientific source that says the Earth is old! Good luck! (Keep in mind that I have defined legitimate scientific source as only young earth creation journals).

And you have just committed the logical fallacy of making a faulty definition. I did no such thing.

Can you provide a scientific source that reached this conclusion? Because I'll bet you can't.

Sure, the Journal Of Creation reached that conclusion. By definition it is a scientific source, so that was easy.

By definition, "The Journal of Creation" is most certainly NOT a "scientific source".

So you can't cite a legitimate scientific source. Didn't think you could.

No I can, just not one you think is scientific because as I already pointed out you are committing a logical fallacy.

And as I pointed out, it is YOU who are committing a logical fallacy.

I don’t know that for sure, and neither do you. I can say that there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that Lincoln was killed long before 1920 since empirical evidence is based on observation.

And I can say there is strong empirical evidence to suggest the Earth is much older than 6,000 years. Recall those rock layers at the Grand Canyon?

You seem to have the misconception that we can't know something for sure unless it is observed. That is a crock. In fact, we can know things much better when they aren't observed! Which would you give more weight? The testimony of a woman who claims she was attacked by Tom Smith? Or the results of a DNA test that indicates the skin found under the woman's fingernails most certainly was NOT from Tom Smith? According to what you're trying to sell here, you would throw out the scientific results, believe the testimony and convict Tom Smith.

You are comparing observable evidence with observable evidence so this is a false analogy.

How do you figure this? The DNA evidence is observable. What the woman is testifying to is NOT observable. We can't observe what she witnessed, we can only take her word for what happened.

We can directly observe DNA testing and repeat it; we cannot do this with the age of the Earth.

Yes, we can! We have numerous methods of radiometric dating that all give us similar results. Of course, all can you do is try to discredit all radiometric dating.

However, in a court of law witness testimony is considered stronger than circumstantial evidence just like in science.

And where have I offered "circumstantial evidence"?

[Ashendant]

The Bible gives us the very preconditions for intelligibility that we require to conduct science. We are told that God is truth and God will never contradict himself, this gives us the foundation for all laws of logic. We are also told that God upholds his creation in a consistent manner, this also allows us to expect uniformity in nature and that the future will be consistent with the past. The Bible also gives us the foundations for absolute morality, which allows us to make "should" and "ought" claims which are also necessary for knowledge and science. Given an evolutionary worldview there would be no basis for any of these things and all knowledge would be impossible.

Couldn't the same be the same about the universe? the universe is truth and it will never contradict itself, if the universe contradicted itself we wouldn't be here.

Absolute morality? that's why priests still rape children, while society as moved one besides, your so called "absolute morality" was stolen from the Egyptian book of the dead(yes another religious book but at least this one had things thought out and the bible/torah just copied it halfassed ignoring other important rules)

That's just the god of gaps argument, filling gaps in knowledge with the word "god did it" just because we don't know.

One example of an error in your videos is that the first one asserts that Christians believe dinosaur fossils are a result of the devil. There is no prominent creationist today that believes this. Quite the opposite, we welcome recent findings dealing with dinosaur fossils because they are help to strengthen our model.

Actually many believe it...

Ridiculous I know, but getting anywhere in religion isn't based on factual merit.

Are you still whining about the fact that I don't view youtube as a scholarly source? I suggest you get over it. The fact that I hold my sources to a higher standard than you do should be no reason for you to be upset.

Then your standards are pretty much skewered because you ignore claims that have been peer reviewed with a lot of proof, and choose to accept claims that have either proven false or just show a small contradiction in a large more broading theory, besides the point that the reason of that contradiction is most probable justified with other insignificant causes

[downbeatplumb]

eye witness acounts are astoundingly inaccurate.

Huff (1987) studied 500 wrongful convictions and concluded that mistaken eyewitness identification occurred in 60%. This is an amazingly high number since eyewitness identification is an important factor in only 5% of all trials (Loh, 1981).

full article.

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/mistakenid.html

I repeat an old adage. 'anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence'

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

No where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat, to the contrary it is made quite apparent by several versus that people in those days were well aware of the earth's actual shape.

I've seen you claim this over and over and over, so let's put a stop to this now.

For starters,

when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world’s first bits of soil. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep

So here we establish that before there was land, he drew a circle on the face of the deep when he created the earth

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in

So god sits above the circle of the earth so much that its inhabitants appear as grasshoppers. Note that he can actually see us because grasshoppers are visible creatures, so he's not sitting in orbit yet he can see the whole circle of the Earth.
Also, apparently heaven enfolds the circle like a tent for us to live in.

Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth.

A tree grew at the center of the Earth? In a sphere, this means a tree somehow grew in our molten iron-nickel core, but clearly this passage indicates that the center of the earth means the middle of a circle (a flat, 2 dimensional object like a paper or a table) and that the tree was so tall that it was visible to the ends of the earth.
Now, where does the surface of a sphere end? Was this tree so damn tall and wide that it was visible to the opposite side of the planet?
Further, it's top reached to heaven. Where is heaven, exactly? I'm pretty sure we fly planes each and every day higher than any tree ever grown and there haven't been any angels floating about in the clouds.
I'm pretty sure we would have found out about heaven being spread over the circle of the earth like a tent when we were building the international space station.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

All of the kingdoms are visible from a mountain top?
Note that it doesn't say 'all of the kingdoms of the land' or some variation.
It literally says 'all of the kingdoms of the world.'
From a mountaintop, it says.

that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Let me know when you find a planet with edges where you can grab hold and shake it.

Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.

2 dimensions - length and breadth
If they new the Earth was a sphere, then why is it measured like this? This is how people measure plywood or an object's surface - not a sphereical object since the math is a little more complicated than measuring X and Y dimensions.

any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other,

One end to another end.
... where are the end points on a sphere again?

More about the ends:
Deu 28:49, Deu 28:64, Deu 33:17, 1 Sam 2:10, Job 1:7, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Psa 2:8, Psa 19:4, Psa 22:27, Psa 33:13, Psa 33:14, Psa 48:10, Psa 59:13, Psa 61:2, Psa 65:5, Psa 72:8

But wait... there's more:

… He has established the world; it shall never be moved

According to wikipedia:
The earth has an equatorial rotation velocity of 1,674.4 km/h
The earth has an orbital speed of 107,200 km/h

"Never" is supposed to describe the time in which the earth can move .
Also, it's sort of hard for a circle to have a night and day sequence at all - especially when it doesnt' move (unless, of course, the universe moves around it, like the old earth-centric universe models instead of the heliocentric models that were proven correct). This goes double for a sphere, which if it didn't move would be left into space as the sun and other planets moved away from it as they revolve around the center of the galaxy.

For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.

There you have it. The circle of the earth is a stationary object on a set of 'the lord's pillars.' Ever wonder where that old adage came from? Shake the pillars of the earth? This is where it came from because at one point in time, they honestly thought it was true.
Of course, this was before an understanding of gravity and that the earth doesn't need to be supported as it flys around the solar system at breakneck speeds.

or the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.

So we've now learned that heaven has windows which can be opened and the foundations of the earth can tremble in the literal sense of the words.

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

A dome to seporate water from water. Rather straightforward.

Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!

Hey, remember that tree that nearly reached heaven? I'm pretty sure there isn't water in orbit.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.
God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,

So celestial bodies were placed on this dome for the express purpose of seporating night from day. Right at the beginning of this sordid little fantasy I might add.
So the allmighty created two lights to rule the cycles of night and day.
Also: celestial bodies being defined here as the sun, moon, planets, and stars.

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

Great, so the sky-dome has properties, in this case being 'hard as a molten mirror' and not simply another way of saying 'atmosphere' since that was also a concept yet-undiscovered in a time before a spherical world in an endless void circling a burning sun circling a great black hole at the center of our galaxy. Those things weren't known then. But god didn't apparently know either otherwise it would be somewhere in this tripe.

Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’

So yeah... the dome is dense enough for god to walk on, shrouded in clouds.
I have to wonder which clouds these could be because there are a variety of clouds that form in the earth's atmosphere, which varies by distance above the Earth's surface.

Of course, mountains can actually get above the lowest of clouds, so the tree mentioned some distance above must have been as tall or taller than a mountain. Either way, mountains don't pierce into the middle or upper atmosphere, so if this dome is tall enough to be threatened to be reached by a tree or the tower of babel, then it can't be much higher up than a mountain.
This would give the allmighty a bird's eye view of the whole circle of the earth, though humans would be invisible and not small like grasshoppers at that height.

... but no, things don't end here...
You'd think they would, being the word of god and all, but no. We get to learn more about the sky dome, becuase nothing says 'the word of god' like consistency.

And he said to him, "Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

... that's because the devil stole heaven't garage door opener.
That crafty rascal.

He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners.

a large sheet being lowered by its four corners? The onramp to heaven? The highway to hell?

"Look," he said, "I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

... and then... the backyard barbecue ensues after letting heaven's golden retriever in the front door.

And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased."

I'm curious to see what, exactly, these openings look like. They're always depicted as beams of light in order to not look retarded, but that's silly as well, because god walks on the dome (established above) so it must be transparent so he can see through it.

"When heaven (same Hebrew word as sky) is shut up and there is no rain because…

...oh right. The dome keeps the water out. I forgot that the dome was to seporate the water from the water. God must be walking upside down on the dome becuase that's just how he rolls.

Yet he commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven (same Hebrew word as sky);

Of course, the bible never seems to mention snow, hail, hurricanes, sleet, or tornadoes.
Then again, it doesn't really do any of those things in the middle east.

Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. (talking about rain for crops)

Ah. I wonder where the heavenly septic pump is for after these rains and floods he causes. Maybe the pillars are supported by a basement pump that returns the water to outside the dome?

They have authority to shut the sky, so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying,

So THAT's where the garage door opener is.

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

This is why America needs proper health reform. We just don't live to 600 years like we used to, before medicine, pennicillin, and old age diseases.
Also, I'm confused. Sometimes when heaven opens, jesus comes out or goes up. Other times, genocide by rainfall. It's like a horrifying game show of guess what's behind these doors. Choose right, you get salvation. Choose wrong and you and millions of your neighbors regardless of salvation or innocence all die.
Because god loves you all.

... but wait, for 9.95$, we still have more bargain quotes to drive my point home.

On the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the LORD; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon."

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day.

That's right. Someone found that remote from that Adam Sandler movie "Click" and hit the 'pause' button specifically on the movements of heaven. Not only is the circle of the earth stationary now, but everything else is as well, except for people.

"But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

Someone apparently didn't screw in the stars or pay heaven's power bill since the sun and moon are no longer giving off their respective light.

Also, more hated youtube videos that further demonstrate this point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0AuFKNmaaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRg9ggdcY...re=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQsuXpj7m...re=channel

I could honestly keep going, but I'll stop here.

The Bible gives us the very preconditions for intelligibility that we require to conduct science. We are told that God is truth and God will never contradict himself, this gives us the foundation for all laws of logic.

What intelligibility? Where?
You were once so quick to point out certain christian Y-E scientists in the earliest venues of science so you could attempt to demonstrate that christianity actually birthed science, despite the fact the bible not only contradicts heliocentrism and a spherical earth that the very scientists you mentioned were punished for their blasphemy - such as Newton and Galileo.
Not to mention that they arrived to their science as a result of the very scientific method used to determine what evolution is and how it works among the other sciences you roundly reject for no real good reason.

Isofar as 'God is truth and will never contradict himself...'

Isofar as God's anger:

For his anger endureth but a moment.

and...

I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever.

and...

He retaineth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in mercy.

contradicts...

And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness for forty years.

forty years of being pissed against Israel hmm? I suppose when people live for hundreds of years that's just a brief moment.
also...

Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.

and...

The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.

and...

Depart from me, he cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

So how long does god stay angry at someone? For ever or a moment, because the bible says both are true.

There are numerous ... NUMEROUS contraditions I could bring up, but I won't add to the length of this post anymore than I have.

We are also told that God upholds his creation in a consistent manner, this also allows us to expect uniformity in nature and that the future will be consistent with the past. The Bible also gives us the foundations for absolute morality, which allows us to make "should" and "ought" claims which are also necessary for knowledge and science. Given an evolutionary worldview there would be no basis for any of these things and all knowledge would be impossible.

right... until he flooded the planet in a world-spanning flood because it didn't please him like it did after creation. This omnipotent and OMNICIENT god changed his mind at least twice between being satisfied with his creation after genesis and again after the flood when he rebooted the world after being dissatisfied with the sin he allowed into the world. Also: Judgement day, or when god will end the world again for the same reason with a combination assault.

Are you still whining about the fact that I don't view youtube as a scholarly source? I suggest you get over it. The fact that I hold my sources to a higher standard than you do should be no reason for you to be upset.

I'm just amused that you'll use the source as the only reason to ignore the video despite the science behind it being so basic that it's taught to children and easily provable as factual. It's just as excuse not to address the points brought up in it - just like the flood video posted by Ashendant, which didn't even bother to mention about where all the water came from and where it's gone since that can cover the surface of the entire planet under several kilomters of water enough to be at least 20ft above Everest's peak (or the equivelent at the time - whatever mountain that was large enough to see the corners of the world).

[Minimalist]

Oh, DoA they just hate it when you shove their own book up their asses. You see, the book has corners and they hurt.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Oh, DoA they just hate it when you shove their own book up their asses. You see, the book has corners and they hurt.

Honestly, when I was copy-pasting quotes, I could hear this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6TXMsvgQg

I'll be entertained to see the counterevidence or the BS that'll inevitably come.