Evidence for/against YEC

[Deleted member 619]

For = intelligent, well-informed people with more than two functioning neurons accept it.

Against = many people are fuckwits.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

I found, I think what you are referring too.


No I don't accept any radiometric dating methods that operate on assumptions.

The dating methods that have massive half life's fall under three assumptions:
1) steady rate, consistent rate
2) assuming original amount of the radio active isotope
3)assuming a closed system.. No loss or gain of the radioactive isotope

So based on the fact I know no scientist was around to know the ordinal amount billions of years ago, to know there was no escape billions of years ago, and to observe the rate was constant for billions of years, I do not accept these dating methods to be accurate to any degree.

C14 belongs in a category by itself. That one is a different ball game I accept c14 dating methods within known limits. Key here is known limits. I say again known limits. This is really hard for some people... Again within known limits.

I claim any scientist who claims these dates, original amounts, and constant rates for billions of years to be vastly ignorant of the implications of assumptions and accept none of these scientists as authorities. To claim PhD such and such said they used the method and got billions of years is simply an argument from authority.

1. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

3. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD001.html

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

We know from supernova that radiometric decay rates are constant. Plus, they also show you can't use the excuse "Well the speed of light was faster"

http://young-earth-creationism.blogspot.com/2012/05/supernova-sn1987a-and-speed-of-light.htm

Many creationists would have you believe that the speed of light was once very high and has been slowing down ever since. The motivation for this reasoning is to keep the age of the universe at about 6000 years while accounting for the fact that we can see the distant stars. As I will later show you in detail, if there is any truth to that claim, then the light we now see from SN1987A must have been traveling considerably faster when it left the vicinity of that supernova. That means our telescopes today would see things happening there in slow motion! As it so happened, by studying changes in the light levels, astronomers were able to calculate the half-lives of the cobalt-56 and cobalt-57 created in the aftermath of that supernova explosion. Far from exhibiting a slower decay rate, their decay rates matched the cobalt-56 and cobalt-57 decay rates measured in our laboratories. Therefore, the light leaving the vicinity of SN1987A was traveling at its normal speed, and that means we are seeing things almost 200,000 years ago!

So we just set the minimum age of the universe at 200,000 or so years, established constant decay rates, and a constant speed of light. YEC vanquished. Thanks SN1987A and SN1991T!! :mrgreen:

 

[SpecialFrog]

No I don't accept any radiometric dating methods that operate on assumptions.

You are pretending that sound conclusions based on evidence are "assumptions".

1) steady rate, consistent rate

While obviously we haven't been collecting evidence of this for billions of years, all evidence points to it being uniform. Moreover, if the rate of radioactive decays was sufficient fast in the past to give a timeline consistent with a young earth the energy output would have melted the planet.

So at a minimum, this can't be as wrong as you need it to be.

2) assuming original amount of the radio active isotope

Again, not an assumption but a conclusion based on evidence. Besides, techniques like uranium-lead dating essentially avoid any possibility of this issue through the nature of the types of rocks used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

3)assuming a closed system.. No loss or gain of the radioactive isotope

Still not an assumption but a variable that needs to be controlled by things such as sample selection and dating method.

C14 belongs in a category by itself. That one is a different ball game I accept c14 dating methods within known limits.

The "known limit" for C14 dating is around sixty-thousand years so it still shows YEC to be false.

I claim any scientist who claims these dates, original amounts, and constant rates for billions of years to be vastly ignorant of the implications of assumptions

I don't think the scientists involved are the ones who are ignorant of the subject.

As has been demonstrated, you don't actually understand how science works or how scientists assess evidence.

 

[tuxbox]

 

[tuxbox]

Eh, that feels like a bit of an iffy interpretation for me

I don't feel like God would just abandon someone because they doubted he'd be with them. That's kind of petty.

I see no evidence that the Creator has anything to do with humans. The petty God you are referring to does not exist, nor does a God that interacts with creation. Just my opinion.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Eh, that feels like a bit of an iffy interpretation for me

I don't feel like God would just abandon someone because they doubted he'd be with them. That's kind of petty.

I see no evidence that the Creator has anything to do with humans. The petty God you are referring to does not exist, nor does a God that interacts with creation. Just my opinion.

I'm somewhere inbetween. God to me seems to be like "They need to learn on their own how to make it, that's the only way they'll progress, not with me spoonfeeding them."

Then when we royally fuck up he facepalms and decides to do something (i.e. Jesus. Took him a while though) and step in.

Heck, with the way our society is going (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2K7vmpyYSs) he may have given up at this point! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bernhard, you obviously didn't read the article on radiometric dating methods to which I linked on page 1 of this thread - kindly do so.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Greetings,

Bernhard, you obviously didn't read the article on radiometric dating methods to which I linked on page 1 of this thread - kindly do so.

Kindest regards,

James

Oh, you know he won't. Just like he wouldn't read my papers on telomere fusion, just so he could continue saying "Lol no it does not happen."

Or sorry, more like "No...no, you see...telomere's can't fuse...they don't allow it...the papers are wrong see...evilutionists are a cult, you see..."

Or wait, is that nephilimfree. I'm starting to think they're one in the same.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If YEC is true, why can you see Andromeda? and billions of light year worth of galaxies after that?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Your right I won't. Highlight the issue you want to discuss.

Yes I'm super scared of your evidence, it's amazing, wow, you have a 40 page article. By that logic I respond with this:

http://Www.bible.com

Read that article.

Then when you figure out that this is a discussion site not a whip articles (especially lengthy ones) around site... Unless asked....

Then we can press on and ask the relevant questions... I'm here to defend YEC.

I already gather from title that it's "a Christians perspective" right. Still an argument from authority. I don't care if it's a Christian, Muslim, atheist, voodoo, Buddhist, etc etc scientist... If they accept billions of years as a fact... They are wrong.

This includes williamLane Craig.. Who on many subjects I consider him extremely wise... But on this issue I disagree.

So kindly... Ask the relevant questions.. Or don't bother. I will not respond to articles... I want to respond to your personal questions against YEC not what some article says from I don't care who.

There are many things I could say here based on your response, however, I'll limit myself to one for now:

On what basis do you disagree, Bernhard?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mr_Wilford]

If YEC is true, why can you see Andromeda? and billions of light year worth of galaxies after that?

Goddidit

I'm betting he's either gonna say

1. Speed of light is faster

2. God put light between them and earth so we can see them

Calling it

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I disagree with WLC on the dates for evolution

On the basis that the dating methods are based on assumptions.. Which I have pointed out.

Since you've missed the point I'm making, I'll ask it differently.

On what are you basing your belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

I disagree with WLC on the dates for evolution

On the basis that the dating methods are based on assumptions.. Which I have pointed out.

You are entirely wrong about this, which I pointed out here:

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=165305#p165305

Others have as well.

Edit: fixed link.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I disagree with WLC on the dates for evolution

On the basis that the dating methods are based on assumptions.. Which I have pointed out.

You are entirely wrong about this, which I pointed out here:
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=165196&sid=e86386793a74e025b27945ef3a99771c#p165196

Others have as well.

I think you meant to link to this post, SpecialFrog.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Greetings,

I think you meant to link to this post, SpecialFrog.

Kindest regards,

James

Oops. You are correct. On mobile.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I am basing my belief the earth is 6000 years old on the bible.

Which is the point to which I was hinting.

That is a argument from authority - the same argument you reject from others.

That is hypocritical of you.

So, since this comes down to which authority is more reliable - science or the bible - it's up to us to provide evidence for the validity of those authorities.

I've already provided evidence for an old Earth based on the validity of both radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods.

You have not provided any evidence for the validity of your authority - the bible.

I would draw your attention to my signature and ask you to consider its implications for a start.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No your not understanding argument from authority fallacy.

The fallacy is quoting an authority who is not an authority.

The bible is not an authority, because it is based on the unproven claim that a God exists.

It is simply a tribal culture's oral tradition that was later written down.

Therefore those scientists who claim based on assumptions the earth is billions of years old... They were not there, they did not observe, they cannot be an authority therefore argument from authority.

The radiometric dating methods have been verified as accurate - these are not "assumptions", as SpecialFrog has already explained to you.

Therefore God who is eternal, God was there. God is the authority I am quoting.

You have no objective evidence that there is any such thing as a intentional creator-entity - "God", if you will.

If you're going to claim this, you're going to have to prove God's existence.

This is not then an argument from authority

So no not hypocritical.

Yes - it is a argument from authority and hypocritical of you to reject science as the authority on which scientists base their claims, given that the methods on which scientists base their claims have been verified as accurate.

Also not which authority is more reliable science or bible... False

On the contrary, that's on what this discussion stands.

Science is.what science is. We rely on the interpretation of scientists. Science cannot be unreliable. Science is true. I agree with all science. When people agree they came to a false conclusion was science wrong? No. Science cannot make an error. The scientist admits error and moves on. I don't agree with what was not observed to be labelled as science... It's not observed but interpreted. Simply fact. I love science. I love observing new things, eyeless fish in Mexico? Awesome. But it is not science to claim took millions of years to go eyeless/blind.. That process was not observed it was interpreted. You don't know it took millions of years but based on evolution it is claimed... But that is not science... Not observed. But it is science to claim in one generation 40 % of the eyeless fish got their sight back... Think one generation.

This is confused nonsense.

Science is ever-changing - it is only what we know so far. We may learn something tomorrow that up-ends what science tells us today. The evidence we have today tells us one thing - tomorrow, new evidence may change that. Thus, the results of science can be wrong - this is not just due to scientists' interpretations but also the lack of current knowledge.

Your rejection of "historical" science over "observed" science is yet another Creationist canard that's to be expected.

"Historical" science is based on logical inferences from scientific principles, observations, and experimentation - these are not "assumptions".

If you're going to play that game, then you can't claim anything before "observation" by those alive today - anything written down by people who died prior to our grandparents is hear-say, and can be rejected - including the bible.

The bible,like science, can also be misinterpreted. I agree that based on false interpretations ( bible and science) people do horrible things. Which of those is more reliable? They are both equally reliable...it's not a dichotomy. It's the interpretation of science and/or the bible that is the problem. I can even throw the Quran in there... Is the Quran unreliable? No Quran says what Quran says. It's the interpretation of the Quran that's the problem. The Quran says things that is logically impossible therefore Quran is false. Science observes what science observes ... It's the interpretation of it. The bible says what the bible says... It's the interpretation of it. And I believe to God belongs the evidence and the interpretation. Therefore without God, the ultimate authority your interpretation will fail.

You have to prove the existence of God first before you can claim the bible is true - and you can't use the bible as evidence for (the existence of) God.

Just like if I claim evidence for young earth outside of the authority of the bible: I fall under the same assumptions, rates, original amounts,and no loss/gain.

But I base my age claim on the One who claimed to be there,not argument from authority ( unless you prove God was not there) and evidences for that claim I find in bible and Science I believe confirms the bible. But my basis... The rock bottom of my argument is on Jesus Christ who claims " I am the first and the last" . The chief argument is the bible.

Then I go into science, what is observed, and I see it agrees with creation.

I guess the question to you is this:
Do you agree based on the bible, that it is not misrepresenting the bible, that the bible claims God created? If yes then you get why I claim creation.

The second would be this:

Do you agree based on the bible, that it is not misrepresenting the bible, that the bible through lineages, claims the earth is 6000 years old? If yes then you understand why I claim6000 year earth.

If you agree the bible claims these things, I am not saying that you therefore believe the bible, but at least then you agree I am not strawmanning my position.

You cannot claim the bible is true without proving that God exists.

Your task now is to prove that God exists.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mr_Wilford]

I already gave papers that explained the mutations that caused the fish to loose their eyes, that yes it more than likely happened quickly, and no one but you claimed, EVER, that they lost their eyes gradually. Also, they were isolated in the caves for around a million years. No one said they had to loose their eyes slowly, that's yet another strawman of yours, and the experiments tell us that happened quickly. You'd know this if you read any of the actual experiments, and you'd ALSO know it has no bearing on how long these fish were in the cave. Ever hear of Stabilizing Selection?

And hey, did you ever read up on those positive, beneficial mutations that allowed forward evolution in these cave fish? Or did you ignore that to so you can keep saying "Lol nope it's just degradation, not positive or forward'

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/12/11/342.6164.1372.DC1/Rohner-SM.pdf

While the genetic data strongly support an adaptive basis for eye loss, there are several distinct (and not mutually exclusive) possibilities for selective advantage of eye reduction in this setting. One possible advantage of eye loss in the caves is the saving of energetic cost in an environment where they lack utility. Direct study of ATP consumption has shown that the retina is one of the most energy-requiring tissues in the body, and intriguingly the total energy consumption by the retina is actually four times higher in the dark than in the light (25).

Additionally contributing to the genetic signature of selection for this trait, some or all eye QTL could have been selected indirectly through pleiotropy. It has recently been shown that a vibration attraction behavior (VAB) is an adaptive trait in the caves (26) and that the crucial expansion of superficial neuromasts necessary for evolution of this trait is tightly negatively correlated with eye size (27). In addition, developmental studies have shown that enhanced activity of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) observed in the developing cave fish is critical as part of the mechanism by which wider jaws and increased numbers of taste buds form, traits that are believed to be adaptive in promoting successful feeding in the cave environment (28). However the enhanced expression of Shh in the cave fish midline also acts to promote eye regression (29). It is thus likely that multiple factors contribute to the adaptive advantage of eye loss in the cave environment.

Yep, the mutations were positive, and forward, helping the fish survive by getting rid of an energy consuming trait and redirecting that energy towards wider jaws and tastebuds, which are better for a pitch dark enviornment. This is not "devolution". Not from "inbreeding."

Really, this is just sad. :roll:

 

[SpecialFrog]

something can not come from nothing

How do you know this? There is no reason to think "nothing" ever existed let alone reason to make definitive statements about what can and cannot arise from that theoretical state.

therefore since something exists, there is that which is eternal

That which is eternal is God.

That doesn't follow even if we accept your premises. Why couldn't the universe have just always existed in some form?

And FYI, if you think big bang cosmology helps you a) you are wrong and b) big bang cosmology contradicts a recent creation.

Also, even if we accept your conclusion that a god must exist, it doesn't follow that it is the God of the Bible.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

something can not come from nothing, therefore since something exists, there is that which is eternal

That which is eternal is God.

Therefore God exists

You're claiming that something eternal is God - and, presumably, the Christian God rather than any other single- or group-entity.

This is false on two counts:

1) "Something eternal" can just as easily be Nature;
2) Even if it were God, it does not mean that it's the Christian one.

Kindest regards,

James