Evidence for/against YEC

[Steelmage99]

Greetings,

Alright, tuxbox.

Back on topic...

French teen finds 560,000 year-old tooth

Kindest regards,

James

Of course, that won't help one bit to convince the classic radical evangelical Christian because they don't accept the dating methods used.

 

[Deleted member 619]

They don't accept any dating methods, because none of them can get a date. :lol:

 

[JRChadwick]

I really don't care.

I never thought you did nor did I expect you to respond to that post. That said, your hostility towards me is and was unwarranted. It takes a lot to piss me off, but one of things I will not stand for is being called a liar or dishonest which you did without any evidence to the contrary. What peaked my interest in this thread is when Dragon Glas made a claim that Nature was eternal. I questioned him on that and that was subject of this argument. If you did not like my inquire into this matter or disliked me for whatever reason, then you did not have to respond. However, you did respond and I would like to know why you responded with such hostility? My skepticism's of everything, including scientific theories are just. Or is skepticism in your book only for everything else other than scientific theories? I make inquires in this forum to learn, to adjust my own positions and think outside of my box. That is the bottom line. Even Hackenslash meets my stupid questions and inquires without being hostile as do most of the other Atheists in this forum. I’m not expecting you to respond to this, but felt the need to put this out on the table.

You really think that was hostile? I thought I was relatively kind. I admit I don't take kindly to P.R.A.T.T.s like what you said about the definition of a scientific theory. I think you got upset because I made you feel foolish with your comments about the meaning of eternal, more than any dickishness on my part. I do not know much about quantum physics, that's why I try not to make any strong claims about it and when Hackenslash corrected a misstatement I made, I accepted it. When I corrected your statement about graphing something "eternal" on a 2-d Cartesian plain, you responded with: :roll:

Speaking of which; in my last response, I should have said a singularity, not the singularity.

 

[tuxbox]

JRChadwick,

This thread is back on track, kind of. and that is where it should remain. If you would like to carry this any further via PM, then I am game. If not, then I am done responding to you in this thread. Take care.

 

[tuxbox]

How Neanderthal DNA Affects Your Genome

 

[Laurens]

Why pretend that such idiocy as YEC is even up for debate?

It's really not.

Engaging with it legitimises it. There is no debate, the idea that the world is 6000 years old is a childish and ridiculous fantasy.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Why pretend that such idiocy as YEC is even up for debate?

It's really not.

Engaging with it legitimises it. There is no debate, the idea that the world is 6000 years old is a childish and ridiculous fantasy.

Well, we cannot just ignore it, that strategy was tried in the 80s and 90s here in the U.S. What did it get us, but a whole political party using science denialism in their platform. It seems obvious to me that one major reason science denialism is so ramped here is because scientists stepped away from the public with the thought that "if people want to learn real science they will come to us." That did not happen. Thus, my generation is having to step in and promote science on social media since the denialism has gotten so bad that major networks have shows looking for Bigfoot, "lost" mythical cities, and aliens (with hints of young earth creationism sprinkled into all those).

 

[Laurens]

Why pretend that such idiocy as YEC is even up for debate?

It's really not.

Engaging with it legitimises it. There is no debate, the idea that the world is 6000 years old is a childish and ridiculous fantasy.

Well, we cannot just ignore it, that strategy was tried in the 80s and 90s here in the U.S. What did it get us, but a whole political party using science denialism in their platform. It seems obvious to me that one major reason science denialism is so ramped here is because scientists stepped away from the public with the thought that "if people want to learn real science they will come to us." That did not happen. Thus, my generation is having to step in and promote science on social media since the denialism has gotten so bad that major networks have shows looking for Bigfoot, "lost" mythical cities, and aliens (with hints of young earth creationism sprinkled into all those).

I agree that science definitely needs to be promoted and encouraged.

However, to entertain a debate as though Science and religious idiocy are equal is damaging. It gives the anti-science a legitimacy as though it were up for debate. Like this is choice A and this is choice B, you decide. It's not like that.

The only level at which it should be engaged is "look at this stupid idea, isn't it funny? Here's why it's stupid".

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well, I am not against the idea of having debates against creationists. My only reservation is that scientists should not be the ones debating the creationists. That was the best thing about the Nye-Ham debate. Nye is a science promoter, not a scientists and for whatever reason, debate are popular. Beyond that, I am not sure your strategy of "look at this stupid idea, isn't it funny" is that good of an idea. Scientists and science promoters should survey the population, find out what stupid ideas they have and nicely explain why those stupid ideas are wrong and what the correct answer is (if we actually know it). One wants to reach as many people as one can. Starting off by stating "this idea is stupid" is just going to turn people off. If you want more people to hear the correct idea, tis better to treat the bad idea with kit gloves so you will not scare off the people who need to hear it the most.

Are you familiar with the YouTuber Veritasium? He explains his very well. Just explaining the correct answer does not work as well as finding out what their ideas were and starting from there.

 

[Laurens]

Well, I am not against the idea of having debates against creationists. My only reservation is that scientists should not be the ones debating the creationists. That was the best thing about the Nye-Ham debate. Nye is a science promoter, not a scientists and for whatever reason, debate are popular. Beyond that, I am not sure your strategy of "look at this stupid idea, isn't it funny" is that good of an idea. Scientists and science promoters should survey the population, find out what stupid ideas they have and nicely explain why those stupid ideas are wrong and what the correct answer is (if we actually know it). One wants to reach as many people as one can. Starting off by stating "this idea is stupid" is just going to turn people off. If you want more people to hear the correct idea, tis better to treat the bad idea with kit gloves so you will not scare off the people who need to hear it the most.

Are you familiar with the YouTuber Veritasium? He explains his very well. Just explaining the correct answer does not work as well as finding out what their ideas were and starting from there.

I do see where you are coming from I think I have just become bitter after wasting so much time in debates.

The thing is, I have on many occasion calmly explained why someone is wrong and they do not listen, how do you cope with something like that without going insane?

I suppose debate is fine as long as it is made extremely clear that the two sides are no where near equal (without calling anyone stupid, if you must )

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

First off, I never go into a discussion with a reality denier thinking I will change their mind. Everything I do is for the fence sitters. That is the main reason I do this on a written forum. A few key words in google and any fence sitter on earth can find me easily. Second, every-so-often you will get one of the fence sitters say that you helped them out and changed their mind. It does not happen a lot but when it does, it is an amazing feeling to happen (it makes you keep chasing the dragons tail). Third, I could talk about this stuff ad nauseam, all I need is an audience. I greatly enjoy talking about science, sharing knowledge, and learning new things.

 

[Laurens]

First off, I never go into a discussion with a reality denier thinking I will change their mind. Everything I do is for the fence sitters. That is the main reason I do this on a written forum. A few key words in google and any fence sitter on earth can find me easily. Second, every-so-often you will get one of the fence sitters say that you helped them out and changed their mind. It does not happen a lot but when it does, it is an amazing feeling to happen (it makes you keep chasing the dragons tail). Third, I could talk about this stuff ad nauseam, all I need is an audience. I greatly enjoy talking about science, sharing knowledge, and learning new things.

I suppose therein lies the difference between yourself and I. I don't enjoy talking about science with someone who refuses to accept it. I enjoy talking about it with open minded people for sure, but I've experienced debates with creationists where I can't even explain what science is and how it works.

You're right though perhaps if we do engage in a debate we should do so in the hope that it might change a bystanding fence sitter's mind rather than the person that we are engaging.

It's not for me though. I'd rather talk to people who at least listen.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk