Two potential creation scenarios

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #71

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: Your characterization of what men like Batten, Ham, Sarfati, et. al. propose is so far afield, that it completely undermines your credibility in other areas -- especially the specious claim that "they've been exposed...".
I've given specifics from scientists exposing them as misrepresenting what science has found, and your only rebuttal is a generality, a claim without evidence. You've been true to your word, you won't use evidence to support your claims, just empty words.

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 the 'Lord' commands the Hebrews:

'Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

You've offered no response to this. The depravity appears to be God's. He's the one you claim called for the murder of women, infants, and suckling babes.

Your routine is tiresome. In response to actual Bible verses and to specific findings of scientists you only offer personal opinion that avoids the issue. This technique fools no one; it serves only as your announcement you can do no better.

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #72

Post by H.sapiens »

Volbrigade wrote: [Replying to post 63 by Danmark]
This leads to the next question: what is your basis for believing the Bible is the infallible word of God?
Because its narrative corresponds to reality. We exist, in a universe that exists -- the Bible explains how and why. There is something desperately wrong with mankind -- the only species that lies; that deliberately acts against its own best interests, and those of its kind. The Bible explains why.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: It tells the history of a global cataclysmic flood, the evidence for which is ubiquitous.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: It tells the story of Jesus Christ, and the Jewish people from which He came, and who are still extant, and against all odds have become reestablished in their ancestral homeland, as foretold.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: In short, it tells the truth.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: In fact -- it is the ultimate source of truth in our world. What corresponds with it, is also true; what contradicts it, is not true.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: Of course, some things can be in closer proximity to truth than others, without being completely true themselves.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: Again -- what we are faced with is an epistemological choice. I choose that knowledge is NOT limited to the sphere of the temporal and material. And that knowledge from outside that sphere has been introduced into our time domain; and that the fulfillment of that knowledge, and of Truth, is Jesus Christ.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: If you are satisfied that knowledge IS limited to the temporal and material -- well, that's your choice. Or is it? Such a view has become so predominant in our time, that many people adopt it by osmosis, and without reflection.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: I believe it is a harmful view, one of the consequences of which is the devaluation of humans (just another animal), and the subjectivity of individual rights (they certainly can't be "endowed by our Creator." Who, then? Men. On what basis?).
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote:
It seems obvious it is not the word of god because of the many errors it makes in its description of the natural world.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: I'm not aware of a single one. Enlighten me.
Can't be done because you choose willful ignorance.
Volbrigade wrote: The opposite is true, in fact. It enlightens our understanding. Illuminates it. "God stretched the heavens like a tent cloth". It assures us that there is a Divine order and design. Which is precisely what we observe -- we just leave off the "divine"; and, in our post-post-modern age (and even more incoherently), we leave off even the "design" "order" and "information" they express.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: Conversely, m2m is an endarkened theory that leads to further endarkenment. It has no explanation for existence; nor for how life arose; nor for how life climbed (either "uphill" or "sideways" -- take your pick. "Downhill?") from microbes to men, that is not based on non-sequiturs, ad hoc explanations, and pure wishful thinking. It draws, as its ultimate "logical" conclusion, the inevitable "fact" that life has no meaning or purpose; that human life is of no more value than a microbe; and murder is nothing more than one bag of chemicals acting on another.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote:
It is also obvious the bible was written so a certain tribe of nomads could claim a god gave them the right to steal land that was occupied by other men.
Unsupported claim.
Volbrigade wrote: A silly, superficial, shallow meme that expresses a deliberately obtuse and misleading bias; not held by anyone of any repute -- only Noam Chomsky-types.
Unsupported claim.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #73

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: [regarding Batten, Ham, Sarfati] I wish their radical interpretations of the evidence WERE exposed, so that more would be aware of them. Your utter misapprehensions of their positions -- as well as what the Bible says -- are solid evidence that they haven't been. Slandered; mischaracterized; condemned without investigation -- yes. "Exposed" -- no.

You would do well to engage in a thorough investigation of the evidences I provided. Then, we could have an intelligent conversation relative to their merits. I urge you to do so -- you'll be amazed at what you'll learn.
The links I provided show these guys rely on the evidence provided by real scientists like Mary Schweitzer, and they don't like the evidence so they twist it and misrepresent it. I demonstrated with both her findings and their claims that they represented her findings as being exactly the opposite from what she found.

Your reaction is to simply say 'no,' without actually explaining why and how they represented the evidence. Dr. Schweitzer specifically said there was nothing in her discoveries that contradicted the age of the Earth being billions of years old. She reaffirmed the fact the Earth is billions of years old. Your response that Batten, who is not a scientist, contradicted HER findings by using HER findings is laughably, incredibly obtuse.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17610
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #74

Post by otseng »

Volbrigade wrote: Man! I mean, people get mouth-foaming over it!
:warning: Moderator Warning


It's fine to be light-hearted, but it's not acceptable to make indirect attacks at others.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #75

Post by Volbrigade »

I don't know why, Dan, you keep referring to Dr. S.'s irrational clinging to the belief that soft tissue could have survived "50 million years" plus of fossilization, in a world that is "billions of years old."

It just goes to show you that NO AMOUNT of evidence is satisfactory to overcome the ardent faith system of those who, for personal reasons, must believe that God doesn't exist, and that microbes magically morphed into men, in a universe that has no cause (is "just one of those things...").

Sad.

Nor why you would be upset over accounts given in a book that you don't believe, involving the actions of one group of chemical bags on another group of chemical bags, as they are genetically predisposed to act by the evolution of their DNA (what other motivation could possibly be in play?).

If what you believe in terms of m2m is true, the only accurate thing you can say about such events is that they were deleterious to the perpetuation of the the genome of one of the groups -- kind of like a season of drought might be, or a harsh winter.

You appear to make judgments as to the actions of one of the groups (the Jewish one). I wonder what these judgments are based on? You refer to their non-existent God as "depraved" -- how can something that doesn't exist be depraved, or anything else?

You must mean that the actions of the aggressor group (the Jews -- if indeed the account is true, and there even were such a people. Are there any such people today?) were depraved.

That is an unsupported statement. Please provide scientific evidence to back up your claim.

A good place to look for some would be the list of 101 evidences for a young earth that I provided for you; which are actually scientific statements of truth, and not mere subjective, wishful-thinking: "I know the tissue is soft, which is impossible if it is 50 million years old -- but I still believe it is 50 million years old, anyway."

Oh -- one last thing.

If you don't mind, I'll make my own determinations as to who are, and aren't, "real scientists".

And it won't be on the basis of what is said by those who don't understand, and mischaracterize, the findings of those "real scientists"; or their stubborn belief in an uncreated universe, microbes assembling themselves, and those microbes turning into men by the sprinkling of evolutionary fairy dust.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #76

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: I don't know why, Dan, you keep referring to Dr. S.'s irrational clinging to the belief that soft tissue could have survived "50 million years" plus of fossilization, in a world that is "billions of years old."

It just goes to show you that NO AMOUNT of evidence is satisfactory to overcome the ardent faith system of those who, for personal reasons, must believe that God doesn't exist, and that microbes magically morphed into men, in a universe that has no cause (is "just one of those things...").

Sad.

Nor why you would be upset over accounts given in a book that you don't believe, involving the actions of one group of chemical bags on another group of chemical bags, as they are genetically predisposed to act by the evolution of their DNA (what other motivation could possibly be in play?).

If what you believe in terms of m2m is true, the only accurate thing you can say about such events is that they were deleterious to the perpetuation of the the genome of one of the groups -- kind of like a season of drought might be, or a harsh winter.

You appear to make judgments as to the actions of one of the groups (the Jewish one). I wonder what these judgments are based on? You refer to their non-existent God as "depraved" -- how can something that doesn't exist be depraved, or anything else?

You must mean that the actions of the aggressor group (the Jews -- if indeed the account is true, and there even were such a people. Are there any such people today?) were depraved.

That is an unsupported statement. Please provide scientific evidence to back up your claim.

A good place to look for some would be the list of 101 evidences for a young earth that I provided for you; which are actually scientific statements of truth, and not mere subjective, wishful-thinking: "I know the tissue is soft, which is impossible if it is 50 million years old -- but I still believe it is 50 million years old, anyway."

Oh -- one last thing.

If you don't mind, I'll make my own determinations as to who are, and aren't, "real scientists".

And it won't be on the basis of what is said by those who don't understand, and mischaracterize, the findings of those "real scientists"; or their stubborn belief in an uncreated universe, microbes assembling themselves, and those microbes turning into men by the sprinkling of evolutionary fairy dust.
I don't know why you want to personalize things or project who is "upset." I'm not the least bit upset over the mythology of the Bible. The sad thing is that some people mistake myths for fact. Myth has power for giving meaning to life. You would profit from reading Joseph Campbell on the power of myth.

I'll believe what the evidence suggests, not some predetermined belief based on symbols and myths. To me, what is sad are false beliefs. When I meet someone who believes in creationism and does not believe in evolution I am embarrassed for him, because there is a high correlation between belief in evolution and higher education. In America only 21% of those with a high school education or less believe in evolution, while 74% of those with a graduate degree believe in evolution.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... -evolution

It's not a matter of choosing between "real" scientists and others; creation 'science' is not science at all.
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[25][26]
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[27] pseudoscience,[28][29] or junk science.[30][31] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #77

Post by H.sapiens »

[Replying to post 75 by Danmark]

"It's not a matter of choosing between "real" scientists and others; creation 'science' is not science at all."

That is the key statement.

Volbrigade
Banned
Banned
Posts: 689
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:54 pm

Post #78

Post by Volbrigade »

I have benefitted from my familiarity with Campbell.

His is a perfect example of what a vague, incoherent, epistemologically void and invalid Whaterverist worldview looks like.

At an academic level. ;)

The reason why 74% of those with degrees in higher education "believe" that microbes became men, on a 4.5 billion year old earth, is that they have received 4-7 further years of indoctrination, in an atmosphere where heresy against the prevailing cult is not tolerated -- much like Islam.

If you talk with them, you will quickly discover that the overwhelming majority have no idea what they believe, or why they believe it.

The very few who DO claim to have some idea of why they believe what they've been told, in regard to microbes turning into men (as in the lovely fictitious animations they have absorbed since childhood), are repositories of "knowledge" about "things which are not so."
"It's not a matter of choosing between "real" scientists and others; creation 'science' is not science at all."
An unsubstantiated claim, and opinion, which runs counter to the truth.

"Creation science" is the ONLY science in regard to origins and history that takes into account the creative and upholding acts of God; and thus is the only science that is valid in that regard.

All the rest is based on invalid premises, wild speculations that lack substantiation, ad hoc explanations based on manipulation and equivocation, and wishful thinking (including the sadly deceived wish "I hope there is no God").

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #79

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is condemnation before investigation." -- Herbert Spencer

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
But Spencer's 'condemnation before investigation' is exactly what you're doing with evolution. It is helpful to keep in mind that creationism came first. Primitive man's general explanation of nature, when he couldn't discover a natural cause, to say "the gods did it." Thus creationism has certainly been investigated over the Centuries. It is that investigation that has led to condemnation of creationism; IOW, creationism WAS investigated and found to be in error. As easy as it is to demonstrate evolution, it is even easier to disprove 'Young Earth'

Radiometric dating is one of the clearest ways to date the age of the Earth. Creationists argue that radiometric dating doesn't prove anything because it relies on uniformity and does not account for the possibility that there may have been wild swings in the rate of decay or in the amount of background radiation. They have no evidence of these wild swings, but that is their argument.

So let's put that aside for the moment and look at two issues http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ignores completely in its effort to claim the Earth is only 6000 years old:
1. The growth of coral
2. Continental drift [tectonic plate movement]

Growth of Coral
Research indicates that maximum rates of reef growth are about 8 millimeters per year, determined by examining the present growth rates of numerous reefs in the vicinity of Eniwetok. Admittedly, one may question whether the growth rate wasn't perhaps faster for this particular reef, but there are limits to how fast corals can grow. Growing biological systems obey strict physical and chemical laws relating to metabolism, reproduction, and intake of nutrients. This last item is particularly important because the rate of growth of coral depends on the amount of dissolved calcium carbonate it can extract from the seawater. Calcium carbonate, though, is rather insoluble, so there is not a large concentration of it in ocean water. Thereby reef growth is limited to a fraction of an inch per year.

Thus 8 millimeters per year cannot be far from the actual growth rate of the Eniwetok corals. Using this value, the age of the reef is calculated by dividing 4,610 feet by 8 millimeters (about .3 inch) per year, which is about 175,000 years. But this is a minimum age since we have not taken into account the time periods (represented by the unconformities mentioned above) when the reef was not growing. Nor have we taken into account the time necessary to form the volcanic base on which the reef grew.

Recently, further calculations for the rate of reef growth have been based on the concentration of dissolved calcium carbonate in seawater and upon the rate at which corals can absorb it and manufacture their shells. This rate turns out to be only about 5 millimeters per year, which means that the Eniwetok reef is more like 280,000 years old, not counting pauses in growth. A similar analysis for the much larger Grand Bahama Reef reveals an age of 790,000 years. And again, this is a minimum age, since that reef also contains numerous unconformities.
http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/reefstct.htm

Continental Drift
Today, scientists believe that several supercontinents like Pangaea have formed and broken up over the course of the Earth’s lifespan. These include Pannotia, which formed about 600 million years ago, and Rodinia, which existed more than a billion years ago.

The continents are still moving today. Underwater exploration has revealed seafloor spreading. Seafloor spreading is the process of new crust forming between two plates that are moving apart. Along a network of mountain ranges in the ocean, molten rock rises from within the Earth and adds new seafloor to the edges of the old. As the seafloor grows wider, the continents on opposite sides of the ridges move away from each other.

North America and Europe, for example, are moving away from each other at the rate of about 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) per year.
http://education.nationalgeographic.com ... ft/?ar_a=1

It is instructive that the YEC folks do not even address these facts. At any rate they should not be ignored. In order to explain these facts away, it is not sufficient to simply ignore the facts, or to claim rates have varied. Actual analysis is required.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post #80

Post by Danmark »

Volbrigade wrote: I have benefitted from my familiarity with Campbell.

His is a perfect example of what a vague, incoherent, epistemologically void and invalid Whaterverist worldview looks like.
The reason why 74% of those with degrees in higher education "believe" that microbes became men, on a 4.5 billion year old earth, is that they have received 4-7 further years of indoctrination, in an atmosphere where heresy against the prevailing cult is not tolerated -- much like Islam.
What you write just isn't so. You make a vague claim about Campbell throwing in "epistemologically," while not demonstrating you know what you are talking about. Rather than shout out a label, a conclusion, please show the analysis that leads to your conclusion.

I'm a case in point that refutes your "years of indoctrination" claim. I was raised in an evangelical Christian home, in an evangelical Christian community. I graduated from an evangelical Christian college, Seattle Pacific where I studied Anthropology under a professor who, tho' acknowledging the truth of evolution, incorrectly claimed all humanoid fossils were either clearly human or clearly apes [The truth is that humans ARE apes]. I had post graduate training in theology and spent two years as a Christian missionary in Asia. Any 'indoctrination' I was subject to was from the Christian perspective.

Post Reply