Author Topic: I don't get YEC.  (Read 32366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12673
  • Darwins +333/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #406 on: September 10, 2013, 10:52:52 PM »
Quote from: CC
REPLY #396
because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.

Untrue. As I told you: I'm not good at science. So, why would a person not good at understanding a topic, such as science, and in addition, a topic within said topic, automatically believe it's true without the evidence to back it up?

In addition: why would a person good at science automatically take it at face value without finding other collaborating evidence to back it up?

I wouldn't, why would they?

With religion it tells you you have to. With Christianity[1] it not only tells you you have to it threatens you with torture.

See the difference?

-Nam
 1. Catholicism and protestantism combined since with the former Biblegod created everything including the Evolutionary process, and with the latter Biblegod  did it.
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #407 on: September 10, 2013, 10:55:35 PM »
Not always.  Part of thinking rationally is training ourselves not to get too personally attached to our beliefs.  A good jury, for example, will review evidence and come to a conclusion based on it, even if it contradicts their preconceived beliefs.  This does actually happen, and doesn't require that anyone believe their worldview to be convoluted.

I'm aware of this, but they aren't under any sort of pressure to keep their worldviews in that situation. You seem to be responding to me in two different areas, but not really bringing up new arguments. You just don't like me or what?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6605
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #408 on: September 10, 2013, 10:56:57 PM »
CC

Unless you're afraid, you might want to read this article, about a fundy who, as an engineer, came to realize hat evolution was indeed real.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/i_was_a_fundamentalist_until_science_changed_my_mind_partner/

If truth bothers ou, I'd advise reading a chick pamphlet instead.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #409 on: September 10, 2013, 10:58:26 PM »
Quote from: CC
REPLY #396
because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.

Untrue. As I told you: I'm not good at science. So, why would a person not good at understanding a topic, such as science, and in addition, a topic within said topic, automatically believe it's true without the evidence to back it up?

In addition: why would a person good at science automatically take it at face value without finding other collaborating evidence to back it up?

I wouldn't, why would they?

With religion it tells you you have to. With Christianity[1] it not only tells you you have to it threatens you with torture.

See the difference?

-Nam
 1. Catholicism and protestantism combined since with the former Biblegod created everything including the Evolutionary process, and with the latter Biblegod  did it.

Because they are aware of axioms, which I mentioned earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

I don't recall threatening you with violence if you disagree, but if it would help?

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2113
  • Darwins +133/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #410 on: September 10, 2013, 10:58:43 PM »
I wouldn't call it "bad" so much as unfortunate for evolution because it exposed where Darwin was incorrect.

Careful! You'll make Darwin roll over in his grave!

Any case where Darwin failed to make a prediction, didn't understand something, or was incorrect about something, doesn't debunk or go against the theory or evolution. Acquiring new knowledge and modifying existing theories, laws, and hypotheses rocks! It's what makes science, science! The theory of evolution is built in the same way every other proper theory is built. The only difference is that most theories don't conflict with peoples religious beliefs. That's why you don't read or hear about people wanting to teach the controversy surrounding circuit theory.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #411 on: September 10, 2013, 10:59:48 PM »
Not always.  Part of thinking rationally is training ourselves not to get too personally attached to our beliefs.  A good jury, for example, will review evidence and come to a conclusion based on it, even if it contradicts their preconceived beliefs.  This does actually happen, and doesn't require that anyone believe their worldview to be convoluted.

That's a very good point.  Judging from some of the indignant, defensive statements that regularly come out of the YEC camp (e.g. "I didn't come from no monkey!") there appears to be a lot of emotional attachment to the idea.  For a Biblical literalist in particular, evolution, geology and physical cosmology could be seen as a 3-pronged attack on the entire book of Genesis:  Humans sharing their ancestry with apes, rather than being created by a god; a planet 3+ billion years old, not a mere 6,000 years; and the universe created in a mindless expansion of matter/energy, without the need for a god at all.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #412 on: September 10, 2013, 11:01:20 PM »
CC

Unless you're afraid, you might want to read this article, about a fundy who, as an engineer, came to realize hat evolution was indeed real.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/i_was_a_fundamentalist_until_science_changed_my_mind_partner/

If truth bothers ou, I'd advise reading a chick pamphlet instead.

Yeah, I'm too fearful, sorry.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12673
  • Darwins +333/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #413 on: September 10, 2013, 11:01:28 PM »
Not always.  Part of thinking rationally is training ourselves not to get too personally attached to our beliefs.  A good jury, for example, will review evidence and come to a conclusion based on it, even if it contradicts their preconceived beliefs.  This does actually happen, and doesn't require that anyone believe their worldview to be convoluted.

I'm aware of this, but they aren't under any sort of pressure to keep their worldviews in that situation. You seem to be responding to me in two different areas, but not really bringing up new arguments. You just don't like me or what?

Now you're placing blame and becoming defensive. I call it The Christian Maneuver™ -- when you don't get your way you act like you're being attacked.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5058
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #414 on: September 10, 2013, 11:03:24 PM »
Everyone fits the data to their belief, whether it is evolution or creation, because they already "know". "Discovered through science" is begging the question, because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is how scientists think?  Evolution is not something you believe or don't believe in, the way you believe or don't believe in creation, making your statement here a false equivocation.  Evolution is a theory which fits the observed data, the same as all other scientific theories.  It is not something you have to 'assume' is true in order to make discoveries about it (the same as other sciences), and thus your statement that discovering something is "begging the question" is false.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Point me some data, and I will point you some creation.
Alright, explain how the finding of 33,000 year old canine remains that are more closely related to domestic dogs than to wolves is compatible with your 6,000 year creation timeline.  You know, from the link you posted a bit ago.  Please note that a mere repetition of your statement that there are 'problems' with c-14 dating, making the date 'unreliable', is not acceptable since you have given nothing to support that assertion here.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
What kind of variations are you looking for? "If fossil x has y amount of c-14, it is z years old", is the assumption that is used, and ANYthing that is dated with c-14 will be recorded as a certain age, but that will never take into account the problems I suggested, and therefore there cannot be any signs of error.
The reason it doesn't take those so-called problems into account is because we have never found any evidence to suggest that they existed to begin with.  Science is about working with the way things actually are, rather than the way we think they should be.  In other words, find evidence to support the assertions[1][2][3] you made a few hours ago.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Why are you calling me on using theistic evolutionists? Atheism much more clearly demands evolution. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_made_it_easy_to_become_an_intellectually_fulfilled_atheist
I'm calling you on using theistic evolutionists because you do not believe in theistic evolution, or evolution at all for that matter.  By your own words, you are a young-earth creationist who considers the whole concept of evolution to be false.  Furthermore, it is obvious you picked that particular wiki page because the quote supported what you wanted to assert - but you clearly were only interested in the quote, without checking its context or to see if other scientists agreed with him or not.

By the way, there are at least six major fallacies associated with the statement you linked, which are noted on that very page.  Indeed, this page is listed under the category "Creationist claims".  You might want to check your sources out a bit more carefully, so as to avoid picking out something like this which harms your case far more than it helps.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
The article I quoted presumably uses carbon dating, which I already discussed. Would you rather I quote creationist sources? Because you seem to be upset about anything else.
The problem is, by using these sources, you are effectively trying to have your cake and eat it too - you pick out things that purportedly support one point you're trying to make, but try to ignore or disregard the inherent problems they cause for your position as a whole.  I mean, you disagree that carbon-dating is reliable, which pretty much negates the conclusion of the article - yet you try to use part of that very same conclusion to support your own argument.

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Different Genetic codes are a much more difficult hurdle to overcome than you seem to think. Yes, dogs and cats have the same genetic code, but this was used as a more general argument against evolution.
Not really.  Genetic codes are not nearly as constant as you seem to think they are.  Yes, there are mechanisms to conserve a genome, but that isn't as meaningful as you seem to think it is, especially when you're talking about genome recombination in descendants (and by extension, what must have happened in their parents)

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
It's another hurdle for evolution to overcome.
Why is it a hurdle?

Quote from: ChristianConspirator
Thats certainly not always the case http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9402-bats-and-horses-get-strangely-chummy.html
Actually, this doesn't counter my argument at all.  All I was saying is that physical similarities paired with DNA similarities make it more probable that there was a common ancestor, not that you had to have both for there to be a common ancestor.

EDIT:  Let me add something that's not directly related to the post.  I do appreciate your willingness to take criticism into account.  You started using paragraphs after I pointed it out, and you stopped using stuff that came across as ad hominems as well.  I do appreciate that - there are more than a few people who would not care what someone who opposed them has to say about things not directly related to it.

I don't have any particular vested interest in trying to make you change your mind about evolution.  As long as you spend time thinking about it and take what I say into account, instead of simply posting knee-jerk responses, that's good enough for me.  And if you help me to think or to improve my arguments, even better.
 1. that the level of Earth's biomass has not been constant enough to ensure that the levels stay constant in living tissue
 2. that the rate of c-14 decay changes
 3. that the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere has changed significantly
« Last Edit: September 10, 2013, 11:11:29 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12673
  • Darwins +333/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #415 on: September 10, 2013, 11:05:44 PM »
Quote from: CC
REPLY #396
because you have to assume evolution is true before you discover things about evolution which supposedly contradict creation.

Untrue. As I told you: I'm not good at science. So, why would a person not good at understanding a topic, such as science, and in addition, a topic within said topic, automatically believe it's true without the evidence to back it up?

In addition: why would a person good at science automatically take it at face value without finding other collaborating evidence to back it up?

I wouldn't, why would they?

With religion it tells you you have to. With Christianity[1] it not only tells you you have to it threatens you with torture.

See the difference?

-Nam
 1. Catholicism and protestantism combined since with the former Biblegod created everything including the Evolutionary process, and with the latter Biblegod  did it.

Because they are aware of axioms, which I mentioned earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

I don't recall threatening you with violence if you disagree, but if it would help?

How does the "axiom" apply to me? Is it your contention that after I left my former religion I went straight to the Evolution process? You assume a lot knowing next to nothing about me. Actually, you seem to be doing this for everyone.

To your second point: your religion does, it does it for you.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #416 on: September 10, 2013, 11:06:57 PM »
I wouldn't call it "bad" so much as unfortunate for evolution because it exposed where Darwin was incorrect.

Careful! You'll make Darwin roll over in his grave!

Any case where Darwin failed to make a prediction, didn't understand something, or was incorrect about something, doesn't debunk or go against the theory or evolution. Acquiring new knowledge and modifying existing theories, laws, and hypotheses rocks! It's what makes science, science! The theory of evolution is built in the same way every other proper theory is built. The only difference is that most theories don't conflict with peoples religious beliefs. That's why you don't read or hear about people wanting to teach the controversy surrounding circuit theory.

See Reply #369 You're right in that many religions that are incapable of passing the test of operational science have died out, but dang that stubborn Christianity

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #417 on: September 10, 2013, 11:13:09 PM »
To your second point: your religion does {threaten people with torture}, it does it for you.

That's been My experience as well.  Not once in My 56 years has an evolutionary biologist threatened Me with an eternity of hurt.[1]
 1. Although the biohazard warning sticker on My brother's fridge at university (with the caption "Hazard identity:  Last night's stew") did give Me pause.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12673
  • Darwins +333/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #418 on: September 10, 2013, 11:14:32 PM »
CC,

What about those "dang" religions that are older than Christianity that are not only still around but have almost as many in their religion as yours? Actually, since you're a YEC, Catholics probably aren't True Christians™ like yourself and those like you and therefore compared to them and other religions--you're in a puny and fading religion.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2113
  • Darwins +133/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #419 on: September 10, 2013, 11:23:07 PM »
See Reply #369 You're right in that many religions that are incapable of passing the test of operational science have died out, but dang that stubborn Christianity

Christianity != Young Earth Creationism.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #420 on: September 10, 2013, 11:30:00 PM »
Quote
Alright, explain how the finding of 33,000 year old canine remains that are more closely related to domestic dogs than to wolves is compatible with your 6,000 year creation timeline.  You know, from the link you posted a bit ago.  Please note that a mere repetition of your statement that there are 'problems' with c-14 dating, making the date 'unreliable', is not acceptable since you have given nothing to support that assertion here.

You're saying I'm supposed to accept a date based on c-14, and then argue that it's wrong, thereby proving myself wrong?

Quote
The reason it doesn't take those so-called problems into account is because we have never found any evidence to suggest that they existed to begin with.  Science is about working with the way things actually are, rather than the way we think they should be.  In other words, find evidence to support the assertions[1][2][3] you made a few hours ago.
 1. that the level of Earth's biomass has not been constant enough to ensure that the levels stay constant in living tissue
 2. that the rate of c-14 decay changes
 3. that the amount of c-14 in the atmosphere has changed significantly

Burden of proof is on the people who accept it is accurate, not the people who dispute. It must be shown to be reliable before it is in the field of science.

Quote
I'm calling you on using theistic evolutionists because you do not believe in theistic evolution, or evolution at all for that matter.  By your own words, you are a young-earth creationist who considers the whole concept of evolution to be false.  Furthermore, it is obvious you picked that particular wiki page because the quote supported what you wanted to assert - but you clearly were only interested in the quote, without checking its context or to see if other scientists agreed with him or not.

What you're saying is, I'm only allowed to use creationist sources, right? Since you brought it up, which evolutionist scientist did you have in mind that DOESN'T think evolution is necessary for other sciences?

Quote
By the way, there are at least six major fallacies associated with the statement you linked, which are noted on that very page.  Indeed, this page is listed under the category "Creationist claims".  You might want to check your sources out a bit more carefully, so as to avoid picking out something like this which harms your case far more than it helps.

I fail to see how the fact I claim it, and other creationists do to, makes it wrong.

Quote
The problem is, by using these sources, you are effectively trying to have your cake and eat it too - you pick out things that purportedly support one point you're trying to make, but try to ignore or disregard the inherent problems they cause for your position as a whole.  I mean, you disagree that carbon-dating is reliable, which pretty much negates the conclusion of the article - yet you try to use part of that very same conclusion to support your own argument.

The article about dogs was to show that dog fossils have been found. You can't suggest that I use ONLY sources that strictly support me, otherwise I would be only using creationist sites, and I'm still not convinced that's what you want.

Quote
Not really.  Genetic codes are not nearly as constant as you seem to think they are.  Yes, there are mechanisms to conserve a genome, but that isn't as meaningful as you seem to think it is, especially when you're talking about genome recombination in descendants (and by extension, what must have happened in their parents)

Take a look at the website again. The different genetic codes are unable to cross over to each other.

Quote
Why is it a hurdle?

Because slight variations in those things tend to cause severe damage to the species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

Quote
Actually, this doesn't counter my argument at all.  All I was saying is that physical similarities paired with DNA similarities make it more probable that there was a common ancestor, not that you had to have both for there to be a common ancestor.

More probable? This is what I'm getting at, it's an unprovable assumption.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #421 on: September 10, 2013, 11:36:05 PM »
CC,

What about those "dang" religions that are older than Christianity that are not only still around but have almost as many in their religion as yours? Actually, since you're a YEC, Catholics probably aren't True Christians™ like yourself and those like you and therefore compared to them and other religions--you're in a puny and fading religion.

-Nam

Yes! Dang them too! BTW, Catholics technically adhere to the Nicene Creed, but you're right they aren't the one true Christians, so I suppose they'll be in purgatory until they figure that out.

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #422 on: September 10, 2013, 11:41:22 PM »
Yeah.  You being ridiculed here is just like Jesus suffering and dying on the cross.

Have you considered that sometimes people who get ridiculed, are actually being ridiculous?

Never crossed my mind. Is this forum done now?

Are you?

-Nam

No

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12673
  • Darwins +333/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #423 on: September 10, 2013, 11:42:34 PM »
CC,

What about those "dang" religions that are older than Christianity that are not only still around but have almost as many in their religion as yours? Actually, since you're a YEC, Catholics probably aren't True Christians™ like yourself and those like you and therefore compared to them and other religions--you're in a puny and fading religion.

-Nam

Yes! Dang them too! BTW, Catholics technically adhere to the Nicene Creed, but you're right they aren't the one true Christians, so I suppose they'll be in purgatory until they figure that out.

Then what I said is true: Christianity is puny and fading.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #424 on: September 10, 2013, 11:43:31 PM »
CC,

What about those "dang" religions that are older than Christianity that are not only still around but have almost as many in their religion as yours? Actually, since you're a YEC, Catholics probably aren't True Christians™ like yourself and those like you and therefore compared to them and other religions--you're in a puny and fading religion.

-Nam

Yes! Dang them too! BTW, Catholics technically adhere to the Nicene Creed, but you're right they aren't the one true Christians, so I suppose they'll be in purgatory until they figure that out.

Then what I said is true: Christianity is puny and fading.

-Nam

Yeah. I'm actually the only one left. Pleased ta meet yah.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12673
  • Darwins +333/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #425 on: September 10, 2013, 11:45:19 PM »
Now you're just being asinine. I can play that game.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #426 on: September 10, 2013, 11:48:04 PM »
Now you're just being asinine. I can play that game.

-Nam

I'm just trying to be funny. YEC's can do that too. Anyway http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I wouldn't call a third of the world puny

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5058
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #427 on: September 10, 2013, 11:54:13 PM »
I don't have the time to respond to the rest of it, since I need to be getting to bed, but I felt it necessary to explain this first part, since you apparently misunderstood what I was trying to get at.

Quote
Alright, explain how the finding of 33,000 year old canine remains that are more closely related to domestic dogs than to wolves is compatible with your 6,000 year creation timeline.  You know, from the link you posted a bit ago.  Please note that a mere repetition of your statement that there are 'problems' with c-14 dating, making the date 'unreliable', is not acceptable since you have given nothing to support that assertion here.

You're saying I'm supposed to accept a date based on c-14, and then argue that it's wrong, thereby proving myself wrong?
No, I'm saying that you have to explain how you account for data (such as the 33,000 year old canine remains) that contradicts your belief in a 6,000 year old Earth, without simply dismissing it based on the problems you have with carbon dating that are not based on actual evidence showing that your problems are valid.

In other words, don't just say that the biomass levels might have been different, or that c-14 might have decayed at a different rate, or that c-14 might have been at different levels in the atmosphere, because without evidence to support them, those are only speculative.  You can't prove or disprove a thing with speculation.  If you have evidence to support your assertions, then please present it.  If you don't, then please explain how you resolve the contradiction without relying on speculative reasoning.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12673
  • Darwins +333/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #428 on: September 10, 2013, 11:56:13 PM »
Now you're just being asinine. I can play that game.

-Nam

I'm just trying to be funny. YEC's can do that too. Anyway http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I wouldn't call a third of the world puny

If you agree that Catholics aren't Christian, or any other sect that adheres to Evolution, then you can't count them. Therefore, you're in a puny and fading religion.

Christians like you only count other Christians such as Catholics for debates like this. Otherwise you believe they are Christian just as much as you believe Muslims and Christians worship the same god.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6605
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #429 on: September 10, 2013, 11:59:50 PM »
CC

Unless you're afraid, you might want to read this article, about a fundy who, as an engineer, came to realize hat evolution was indeed real.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/09/i_was_a_fundamentalist_until_science_changed_my_mind_partner/

If truth bothers ou, I'd advise reading a chick pamphlet instead.

Yeah, I'm too fearful, sorry.

Okay, try this one.

http://machineslikeus.com/evolution-1-the-power-of-natural-selection.html

It isn't about evolution so much as the principles of evolution. How using the concept allowed engineers to make a better soap -powder making nozzle. If evolution sucks, how come humans can put the principles to work and make better tools?

Oops, forget I asked that. Wouldn't want to burden you with information.

By the way, are you keeping track of all the converts you're making with your lies and misinformation?  So far, by my count, and correct me with lies if you have to, but so far, none.

Sadly, we can't pray for you. It ain't in our tool set.

Edit. Link problem: iPads haven't evolved enough to make adding them easy

Edit: went to bed then realized I'd used the wrong spelling of principle. I know he difference, I was tired. Fixed it.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2013, 12:31:16 AM by ParkingPlaces »
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #430 on: September 11, 2013, 12:17:26 AM »
Quote
I don't have the time to respond to the rest of it, since I need to be getting to bed, but I felt it necessary to explain this first part, since you apparently misunderstood what I was trying to get at.

I win! I mean, goodbye and thank you for the discussion without being rude. I came on here really in the hopes that I would have a good discussion, because really there aren't that many atheists that I talk to on a regular basis.

Quote
No, I'm saying that you have to explain how you account for data (such as the 33,000 year old canine remains) that contradicts your belief in a 6,000 year old Earth, without simply dismissing it based on the problems you have with carbon dating that are not based on actual evidence showing that your problems are valid.

In other words, don't just say that the biomass levels might have been different, or that c-14 might have decayed at a different rate, or that c-14 might have been at different levels in the atmosphere, because without evidence to support them, those are only speculative.  You can't prove or disprove a thing with speculation.  If you have evidence to support your assertions, then please present it.  If you don't, then please explain how you resolve the contradiction without relying on speculative reasoning.

It is equally speculative to say that those things are true, which is why I mentioned it later in my reply, and the burden of proof is on the ones who call it science. You're right that I can't think of any evidence, per se, that would disqualify current radiocarbon dating methods as being possible, and I even I agree that within the last couple thousand years they are reasonably accurate, in fact. But, something like a catastrophic flood or the creation of earth, for example, might change the amount of c-14 around. Indeed, a creationist would say that past a certain point radiocarbon dating would be totally unreliable.

Come to think of it, and I realize you may not accept this, but the RATE project did find c-14 in diamonds, which should not be there. http://www.icr.org/rate/

They are the only ones who have looked for c-14 in diamonds, as far as I know, but if anyone wanted to prove that wasn't the case I imagine they would get a team of researchers on it straight away

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12673
  • Darwins +333/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #431 on: September 11, 2013, 12:23:56 AM »
You win?

What: getting your ass handed to you? Yeah, you won.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Darwins +270/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #432 on: September 11, 2013, 12:27:57 AM »
Come to think of it, and I realize you may not accept this, but the RATE project did find c-14 in diamonds, which should not be there.

Uh... Diamonds are made out of carbon, you know.  The only problem is that diamonds are formed by ancient processes that are far beyond the approximately 60,000-year time frame in which C-14 dating is considered reliable.

It is also far past the time when the original materials for diamond formation could actually be identified and dated, regardless of what method is used.  Perhaps 1.5 billion years ago, lightning hit a tree that fell over into a swamp.  Or perhaps it's from a large reptile-bird transitional flyer that fell into a volcano, asphyxiated by the fumes, and this happened only 75 million years ago.  We may never know.

The diamonds would have to be dated by some other methodology, but I have little doubt that they would contain some C-14.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #433 on: September 11, 2013, 12:29:10 AM »
Quote
Okay, try this one.

http://machineslikeus.com/evolution-1-the-power-of-natural-selection.html

It isn't about evolution so much as the principals of evolution. How using the concept allowed engineers to make a better soap -powder making nozzle. If evolution sucks, how come humans can put the principals to work and make better tools?

Creationists agree with the concepts of speciation and survival of the fittest, which I mentioned earlier. To be fair, I couldn't find it after a quick look either.

Quote
Oops, forget I asked that. Wouldn't want to burden you with information.

Good, thanks.

Quote
By the way, are you keeping track of all the converts you're making with your lies and misinformation?  So far, by my count, and correct me with lies if you have to, but so far, none.

100 billion.

Quote
Sadly, we can't pray for you. It ain't in our tool set.

But it could be? Please?

Offline ChristianConspirator

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Darwins +1/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: I don't get YEC.
« Reply #434 on: September 11, 2013, 12:33:36 AM »
Quote
Uh... Diamonds are made out of carbon, you know.  The only problem is that diamonds are formed by ancient processes that are far beyond the approximately 60,000-year time frame in which C-14 dating is considered reliable.

It is also far past the time when the original materials for diamond formation could actually be identified and dated, regardless of what method is used.  Perhaps 1.5 billion years ago, lightning hit a tree that fell over into a swamp.  Or perhaps it's from a large reptile-bird transitional flyer that fell into a volcano, asphyxiated by the fumes, and this happened only 75 million years ago.  We may never know.

The diamonds would have to be dated by some other methodology, but I have little doubt that they would contain some C-14.

I'm not an expert here, which is why I was reluctant to post it. The RATE book is in my list of reading tho, I've only gotten part of the way through the Helium in Zircons thing.

It is my understanding tho that there would be c-14 in it, but it should not be at the level that exists. i.e. it should probably be undetectable by current methods