Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Guyver

Young Earth Creationism

108 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Guyver

I understand you are, but there is nothing to disprove. There statements are so utterly erroneous that anyone with access to the internet can go through their website point by point and find out for themselves why its nonsense. It shouldn't be up to other people to do the graft for you.

Well, I'm glad you get it. Mattshark seems to think I'm attempting to prove a young earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

No sorry Guyver, you are not even making a case for you claims. All you have done is say prove me wrong. That is a fallacious argument. You have presented no evidence for YEC and until you do, there is little we can discuss. You have had years to get evidence and we are still waiting.

Can you prove that the earth is more than 30,000 years old? If so, why not just do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digitalartist

P.S.: Bruce Masse collected about 150 flood stories from people around the world. He used descriptions of astronomical events in those stories to precisely date the flood's occurence: "On or about May 10, 2807 BC."

I have looked at 267 flood stories I found on the internet (not the greatest source but sometimes all you have) and looking at their descriptions of the floods themselves I found that only about 12% could be determined to be descriptions of world wide floods and they were scattered around europe the mid east and asia as one would expect of some kind of regional flooding in the mideast that was told about from person to person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digitalartist

I'm skeptical of the claim of YEC's. I presented their arguments as best I could and asked if anyone here could disprove them.

So far, no one has. Saying this or that doesn't disprove anything. As I said before, you could make the statement that young earth has been scientifically disproven. That statement doesn't disprove YEC. I could say boom boom golly golly is for real. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Have all the points the YEC's have put out been disproven in this topic? no, but Doug has had some very good points and I disproved their claim on the website you pointed to about all the oil being created by the flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

LEPRECHAUNS DON'T EXIST!

Careful there, Guyver.

Lots of folks believe in the Little People.

Example: Medb (Mave) was the Queen of Faerie. She is remembered as Merlin's antagonist in the King Arthur stories (Fifth Century AD). She was the Queen of Connaught in the early first century BC. Her "castle" (actually a hill fort) was Rath Cruaghan (modern name: Roscommon). Her sister was Ethne, who is remembered as Vivian, the Lady of the Lake. Her first husband was Conor Mor who led his army against the Romans in the Gaelic Wars.

There is better evidence for her, the Queen of Faerie, than there is for Jesus.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Can you prove that the earth is more than 30,000 years old? If so, why not just do it?

Dendrochronologists in New Zealand are doing just that. A chronology that will reach back 60,000 years when complete is currently under construction.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

No, you are just unwilling to learn.

I think Guyver is looking for ammunition to use against YECs on another website he's been perusing. Lets help him out.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Careful there, Guyver.

Lots of folks believe in the Little People.

Example: Medb (Mave) was the Queen of Faerie. She is remembered as Merlin's antagonist in the King Arthur stories (Fifth Century AD). She was the Queen of Connaught in the early first century BC. Her "castle" (actually a hill fort) was Rath Cruaghan (modern name: Roscommon). Her sister was Ethne, who is remembered as Vivian, the Lady of the Lake. Her first husband was Conor Mor who led his army against the Romans in the Gaelic Wars.

There is better evidence for her, the Queen of Faerie, than there is for Jesus.

Doug

OK.....that just gave me cranial whiplash! *blinks rapidly* walks away perplexed :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I think Guyver is looking for ammunition to use against YECs on another website he's been perusing. Lets help him out.

Doug

Truth be told, it's for my own personal benefit now. I already got banned from their site and shant be returning. And, I got banned before I could even complete my arguments. So, having left, they have misconceptions about what I actually believe or accept and what I think scripture teaches, and what I think I can prove. But, I'd still like to hear what you have to say....so say on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

Well, I'm glad you get it. Mattshark seems to think I'm attempting to prove a young earth.

No, I'm saying you are arguing a logically fallacy by asking to disprove something that there is no evidence for. You can only use available evidence for argue for what the evidence suggests.

Edited by Mattshark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

No, I'm saying you are arguing a logically fallacy by asking to disprove something that there is no evidence for. You can only use available evidence for argue for what the evidence suggests.

Wouldnt proving the Earth is 4.5 billion years old disprove YEC?

YEC isnt a "thing". Its not tangible. Its an idea. If you prove the opposite of the idea, essentially you have disproven the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Truth be told, it's for my own personal benefit now. I already got banned from their site and shant be returning. And, I got banned before I could even complete my arguments. So, having left, they have misconceptions about what I actually believe or accept and what I think scripture teaches, and what I think I can prove. But, I'd still like to hear what you have to say....so say on!

There is a longer chronology than the White Mountain one I've been talking about. It is a bristlecone pine one called the Methuselah Walk Chronology. It encompasses the years 5999 BC to 1979 AD. The URL is: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/chrnologies/northamerica/usa/ca535.crn

Two articles you might be interested in:

Pilcher, J. R., M. G. Baille and B. Becker. 2008. A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology for western Europe. Nature 312:150-152.

Helama, S., K. Mielikainene and M. Timonen. 2008. Finnish supra-long chronology extended to 5634 BC. Norwegian Journal of Geography 62(4):271-277.

Doug

P.S.: What site did you get banned from? I have several addresses; maybe I could have some fun.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Can you prove that the earth is more than 30,000 years old? If so, why not just do it?

Just found this help-wanted add. It's real. 55 million years!

Please forward this opportunity to any interested students. I believe that the opportunity is open to either an M.Sc. or PhD

student.

Graduate Student, Fossil Wood Dendrochronology, University of Toronto.

A fully-funded graduate student position is available at University of Toronto, Department of Geology, for a project using exceptionally well-preserved fossil Metasequoia wood recovered from 55 Million year old diamond-bearing kimberlite deposits in Arctic Canada. The goal of this research is to apply dendrochronological and geochemical techniques to unravel high-latitude continental climate during a period of unusual warmth in Earth History (the Paleocene-Eocene Warm interval). Students with a background in Geoscience, Bioscience or Climate Physics are encouraged to apply. Departmental application deadline is Feb. 1st, 2010 (www.geology.utoronto.ca/students/graduate-students-1). Contact jochen.halfar@utoronto.ca or zgedalof@uoguelph.ca for details ahead of deadline.

Thanks,

Z.

~v~^~^~v~^~~^~^v^~~^~v~~v~~^~~v~~^~~^~~v~~v~^~~v^~

Ze'ev Gedalof

Associate Professor

Climate & Ecosystem Dynamics Research Lab

Department of Geography, University of Guelph

Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1

519.824.4120 x58083

http://www.uoguelph.ca/geography/faculty/gedalof.htm

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adrianv

Truth be told, it's for my own personal benefit now. I already got banned from their site and shant be returning. And, I got banned before I could even complete my arguments. So, having left, they have misconceptions about what I actually believe or accept and what I think scripture teaches, and what I think I can prove. But, I'd still like to hear what you have to say....so say on!

did they give any reasons to ban you lol? i wanna know why

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

YEC has as much scientific value as unicorn farting rainbows.

So did Galileo at one time ;) , at least according to the scientific community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

So did Galileo at one time ;) , at least according to the scientific community.

No, that was with the Catholic church mate, not the scientific community ;). A lot of Europe had already accepted Galileo's conclusions by works from other scientists, he only annoyed the Holy Roman Empire. Renaissance scientific method is not really comparable to modern science either ;).

Yeti: I apologise, I appear to have misunderstood you. However my point about evidence still stands in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

No, that was with the Catholic church mate, not the scientific community ;). A lot of Europe had already accepted Galileo's conclusions by works from other scientists, he only annoyed the Holy Roman Empire. Renaissance scientific method is not really comparable to modern science either ;).

Yeti: I apologise, I appear to have misunderstood you. However my point about evidence still stands in general.

From Wikipedia ( I know, I know, but its easy LOL) : Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe

It wasn't just the catholic church (seems the scientific community likes revisionist history almost as much as the religious community) but that really wasn't my point so lets not argue that any further. My point was that when people, be it individuals or groups, get stuck in a paradigm it often is quite literally impossible for them to see facts which do not fit their paradigm.

Im drawing an absolute blank here , but last year I had to attend a seminar on CRM. During this seminar they focused largely on paradigms and they quoted a study which was done proving my above point. Kinda freakin lame me bringing it up and not being able to cite the actual source though. Sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

From Wikipedia ( I know, I know, but its easy LOL) : Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe

It wasn't just the catholic church (seems the scientific community likes revisionist history almost as much as the religious community) but that really wasn't my point so lets not argue that any further. My point was that when people, be it individuals or groups, get stuck in a paradigm it often is quite literally impossible for them to see facts which do not fit their paradigm.

Im drawing an absolute blank here , but last year I had to attend a seminar on CRM. During this seminar they focused largely on paradigms and they quoted a study which was done proving my above point. Kinda freakin lame me bringing it up and not being able to cite the actual source though. Sorry

Sorry, I should say, mainly the catholic church. Again though, you cannot compare 16th/17th century science to modern science. YEC is though by default unscientific. It requires a creator, this requires conjecture, this is unfalsifiable and ergo it is not scientific and for young age especially, there is a lot of evidence to get past before it would even get a spark of consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Sorry, I should say, mainly the catholic church. Again though, you cannot compare 16th/17th century science to modern science. YEC is though by default unscientific. It requires a creator, this requires conjecture, this is unfalsifiable and ergo it is not scientific and for young age especially, there is a lot of evidence to get past before it would even get a spark of consideration.

Im not arguing the science, I actually used to be a YEC. Now as with most things in my life I am open to possibilities either way. I still see irreducible complexity on the molecular level as a pretty convincing argument for a creator, as well as the human genome project and DNA mapping in general, but I also understand (ok well kinda understand) the evidence backing the theory of evolution and the old earth .

I guess the real reason I even posted is more and more I see scientists, or just people who have faith in science being as dogmatic on certain issues as those of religious faith. Man that is frustrating, in my life I am surrounded by christians who cannot and will not see anything which the church does not tell them. More and more I see atheists doing the exact same thing, just with science and to make it even more frustrating; more times than not if it is science which reaches a conclusion either outside of their paradigm or which they just flat dont like then THAT science is discarded in their eyes .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

Im not arguing the science, I actually used to be a YEC. Now as with most things in my life I am open to possibilities either way. I still see irreducible complexity on the molecular level as a pretty convincing argument for a creator, as well as the human genome project and DNA mapping in general, but I also understand (ok well kinda understand) the evidence backing the theory of evolution and the old earth .

I guess the real reason I even posted is more and more I see scientists, or just people who have faith in science being as dogmatic on certain issues as those of religious faith. Man that is frustrating, in my life I am surrounded by christians who cannot and will not see anything which the church does not tell them. More and more I see atheists doing the exact same thing, just with science and to make it even more frustrating; more times than not if it is science which reaches a conclusion either outside of their paradigm or which they just flat dont like then THAT science is discarded in their eyes .

Sorry mate, that really isn't true of science. The most common answer you'll get in science is "we don't know". Science isn't atheistic, it takes absolutely no stand on any deity what so ever. They simple are not part of science. Science is also very much not dogmatic. Idea's in science change based on evidence commonly. They don't, however, change on conjecture. The problem with irreducible complexity and the reason it is dismissed in science is that there is absolutely no evidence of it, evolution on the other hand (and speciation for that matter) is an observable fact. Science doesn't say there is no such thing as irreducible complexity, rather, it says that there is no reason to accept it.

Even if irreducible complexity exists, it would still not be evidence for anything other than irreducible complexity.

Science doesn't just discard things that are not liked, they discard things that there is no evidence for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Sorry, I should say, mainly the catholic church. Again though, you cannot compare 16th/17th century science to modern science. YEC is though by default unscientific. It requires a creator, this requires conjecture, this is unfalsifiable and ergo it is not scientific and for young age especially, there is a lot of evidence to get past before it would even get a spark of consideration.

Ok i know I said I wasnt going to argue the science, and im not but in reading your post you stated that YEC requires conjecture and is therefore by default unscientific. Doesn't evolution require conjecture? Please don't play semantics (remember im not arguing for or against anything necessarily), and be honest.

From Merriam-Webster :Conjecture: 2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

So a YEC's starting point is God, yours is the big bang, both reached through conjecture. YEC explains the growth and spread of life through a creator, you through a scientific theory (parts of said theory have been proven, others still require conjecture).

Just sayin...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

Ok i know I said I wasnt going to argue the science, and im not but in reading your post you stated that YEC requires conjecture and is therefore by default unscientific. Doesn't evolution require conjecture? Please don't play semantics (remember im not arguing for or against anything necessarily), and be honest.

From Merriam-Webster :Conjecture: 2 a : inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved

No testable hypothesis are not based on conjecture they are based on observable evidence. Notice the important word testable. It is not just plain semantics, it is very important in science. Theories are very much more than that again. Many evidences and tested hypothesis are used to formulate a scientific theory, this is also constantly tested too. Theories are empirically evidenced ways to explain facts.

So a YEC's starting point is God, yours is the big bang, both reached through conjecture. YEC explains the growth and spread of life through a creator, you through a scientific theory (parts of said theory have been proven, others still require conjecture).

Just sayin...............

Testable and falsifiable. It is a whole world of difference from a religious view, again theories such as BB are empirical evidenced explanations for observed facts. A theory comes from evidence, it is not reached through conjecture, and deity you care to claim doesn't fit that category. YEC has no more scientific value that Ra m********ing the universe into existence.

I think you have some serious misunderstandings about science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

Sorry mate, that really isn't true of science. The most common answer you'll get in science is "we don't know". Science isn't atheistic, it takes absolutely no stand on any deity what so ever. They simple are not part of science. Science is also very much not dogmatic. Idea's in science change based on evidence commonly. They don't, however, change on conjecture. The problem with irreducible complexity and the reason it is dismissed in science is that there is absolutely no evidence of it, evolution on the other hand (and speciation for that matter) is an observable fact. Science doesn't say there is no such thing as irreducible complexity, rather, it says that there is no reason to accept it.

Even if irreducible complexity exists, it would still not be evidence for anything other than irreducible complexity.

Science doesn't just discard things that are not liked, they discard things that there is no evidence for.

As for the dogma issue, your posts are prime examples of dogmatic thinking : YEC takes an amazing level of wilful ignorance, I'd ask for a paper and what qualifies say a academic fraud creationist and metallurgist like Melvin Cook, YEC has as much scientific value as unicorn farting rainbows.

Unless you have spent years studying YEC (the actual scientists, evidence and theories surrounding it) and Melvin Cook those statements are pure dogma. Ignoring and discarding YEC data without fully studying it and the theories surrounding it is no different than christians who throw out science because of the paradigm they live in.

As for this statement : "Science doesn't say there is no such thing as irreducible complexity, rather, it says that there is no reason to accept it. Even if irreducible complexity exists, it would still not be evidence for anything other than irreducible complexity."

To A) accept that it might exist but choose to ignore it, and B) ignore the massive ramifications it would have to your paradigm IF it did exist is again dogma in it's purest form.

A little intellectual honesty here please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

As for the dogma issue, your posts are prime examples of dogmatic thinking : YEC takes an amazing level of wilful ignorance, I'd ask for a paper and what qualifies say a academic fraud creationist and metallurgist like Melvin Cook, YEC has as much scientific value as unicorn farting rainbows.

No evidence, no value, simply as that. Cook is simply being a bad scientist by ignoring evidence. It isn't dogma, it is science. Sorry. No evidence, no falsifiable hypothesis, no case. However we tons of evidence pointing to a world being far old than any YEC claims.

Unless you have spent years studying YEC (the actual scientists, evidence and theories surrounding it) and Melvin Cook those statements are pure dogma. Ignoring and discarding YEC data without fully studying it and the theories surrounding it is no different than christians who throw out science because of the paradigm they live in.

There are no theories for YEC, there is no evidence and it isn't science. That is the point. It fails to fulfil scientific criteria. It is not falsifiable and it goes against all available evidence!

As for this statement : "Science doesn't say there is no such thing as irreducible complexity, rather, it says that there is no reason to accept it. Even if irreducible complexity exists, it would still not be evidence for anything other than irreducible complexity."

To A) accept that it might exist but choose to ignore it, and B) ignore the massive ramifications it would have to your paradigm IF it did exist is again dogma in it's purest form.

A little intellectual honesty here please.

Give over, this is honest. You are being intellectually dishonest here, not me. It is neither A) or B) and that phrasing is what makes your question dishonest. What I have told is how science is, the fact that you don't either understand or like this is not dogma, it is scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77

No testable hypothesis are not based on conjecture they are based on observable evidence. Notice the important word testable. It is not just plain semantics, it is very important in science. Theories are very much more than that again. Many evidences and tested hypothesis are used to formulate a scientific theory, this is also constantly tested too. Theories are empirically evidenced ways to explain facts.

Testable and falsifiable. It is a whole world of difference from a religious view, again theories such as BB are empirical evidenced explanations for observed facts. A theory comes from evidence, it is not reached through conjecture, and deity you care to claim doesn't fit that category. YEC has no more scientific value that Ra m********ing the universe into existence.

I think you have some serious misunderstandings about science.

From Merriam Websters: Empirical 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>

3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

Based on that definition, you have to admit that when discussing origin of life issues it is a little dishonest to claim those theories are based on empirical data absent conjecture or supposition at a minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.