Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[A Vestigial Mote]

In fact I’ve searched. A vestigial mote has replied many times to comments addressed not to him but to others...... he can’t even be consistent about his own complaints either....

Holy crap man... this all started because YOU MISTAKENLY THOUGHT I was writing a post in response to you when I wasn't. In other words... I wasn't in a conversation with you until YOU MADE A MISTAKE. And then, try as I might to simply let you know of that FACT, you have kept responding to me, apparently trying to refute a bunch of stuff I never even came close to saying. And then you write up your latest reply to me:

Grim for you... in the end pretend is all you’ll be left with.

Seriously now... if anyone it is you who are pretending we were ever even in a conversation to begin with! The saddest part is, I still don't even think you realize it!

All you have to do is seek the truth, @Justatruthseeker, and you will find that I am the one holding "the truth" in this particular instance. Not you. That thing you're holding is your foot wrapped in leftover's tin-foil. You should probably stop trying to eat it.

 

[tas8831]

In fact my original post was to the original poster, you all just decided to jump in, even if it wasn’t addressed to you. You got no right to complain unless you first check your own self......... apparently you all decided long ago who the post is addressed to is irrelevant..... I’m just following your accepted procedure...

Didn’t keep you from addressing posts addressed to polymath or him from addressing posts to you.....

In fact I’ve searched. A vestigial mote has replied many times to comments addressed not to him but to others...... he can’t even be consistent about his own complaints either....

Yeah, so.... OK, this started when the genetics/cosmology/geology/physics/biology expert wrote:

Please show me where God is mentioned once by me????​

In response to this, which was a direct response to not-Justatruthseeker:

Your evidence could be represented (and even this is giving you the benefit of the doubt) as follows:

1. The Bible
2. The Bible
3. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
4. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
5. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
6. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
7. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
8. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
9. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
10. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
11. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
12. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God...​

Still waiting to hear about the origin of non-Arabs from a near-identical pair of inbreeding Arabs without invoking mutation......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Holy crap man... this all started because YOU MISTAKENLY THOUGHT I was writing a post in response to you when I wasn't. In other words... I wasn't in a conversation with you until YOU MADE A MISTAKE. And then, try as I might to simply let you know of that FACT, you have kept responding to me, apparently trying to refute a bunch of stuff I never even came close to saying. And then you write up your latest reply to me:

No I didn’t. I responded to your stupid claim that because someone believes in God that if they can’t explain an answer they claim God did it.

I simply pointed out to you that at no time have I brought God into the equation. You implied all creationists resort to this. I pointed out your fallacy. You got mad because I responded to you.

Seriously now... if anyone it is you who are pretending we were ever even in a conversation to begin with! The saddest part is, I still don't even think you realize it!

All you have to do is seek the truth, @Justatruthseeker, and you will find that I am the one holding "the truth" in this particular instance. Not you. That thing you're holding is a turd wrapped in tin-foil.

It’s still you that thinks his comments on a public forum can’t be answered by anyone participating in that forum. If you didn’t want other creationists addressing your error you should have not used the word creationists.

If I said all evolutionists ignore science, I would expect a response from any evolutionist that wished to contend this fact....

Don’t get mad because I addressed the error in your post for lumping all together under one word....

Take a deep breath, relax and grow up....

 

[tas8831]

Holy crap man... this all started because YOU MISTAKENLY THOUGHT I was writing a post in response to you when I wasn't. In other words... I wasn't in a conversation with you until YOU MADE A MISTAKE. And then, try as I might to simply let you know of that FACT, you have kept responding to me, apparently trying to refute a bunch of stuff I never even came close to saying. And then you write up your latest reply to me:


Seriously now... if anyone it is you who are pretending we were ever even in a conversation to begin with! The saddest part is, I still don't even think you realize it!

All you have to do is seek the truth, @Justatruthseeker, and you will find that I am the one holding "the truth" in this particular instance. Not you. That thing you're holding is your foot wrapped in leftover's tin-foil. You should probably stop trying to eat it.

Isn't it shocking that he has not produced a flood of new YEC evangelicals on here with his brotherly and intelligent antics?

 

[tas8831]

I responded to your stupid claim ...
Take a deep breath, relax and grow up....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In fact I am claiming pure science is responsible for time dilation.....

Is science really responsible for time dilation?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah, so.... OK, this started when the genetics/cosmology/geology/physics/biology expert wrote:

Please show me where God is mentioned once by me????​

In response to this, which was a direct response to not-Justatruthseeker:

Your evidence could be represented (and even this is giving you the benefit of the doubt) as follows:

1. The Bible
2. The Bible
3. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
4. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
5. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
6. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
7. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
8. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
9. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
10. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
11. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God
12. Scientific explanation inconclusive, therefore God...​

Still waiting to hear about the origin of non-Arabs from a near-identical pair of inbreeding Arabs without invoking mutation......

You mean like the origin of Poodles from the same stock of wolves?

Don’t blame me because you can’t understand the original wolf type creatures had all 100 plus dog variations possible within them, but you can’t get but a few from Poodles due to mutations and loss of information.....

Don’t blame me because every Asian born has over 100 mutations every birth, but remain Asian. Until you mix them with an African (who is also born with those 100 mutations yet remains African) that hasn’t lost the same information the Asian lost. Then you get an Afro Asian......

Oh my bad, mutation was your Only solution because you started from the wrong worldview.....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Isn't it shocking that he has not produced a flood of new YEC evangelicals on here with his brotherly and intelligent antics?

I was thinking the same thing. The sincerity, empathy and love in his witnessing is overwhelming.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I simply pointed out to you that at no time have I brought God into the equation. You implied all creationists resort to this. I pointed out your fallacy. You got mad because I responded to you.

Did I ever accuse you, specifically, of bringing "God" into the equation? No. Not once.

Did I imply that "all creationists" resort to this? No. No I didn't.

What I did do was extrapolate from the INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS stance of the original post that "God" was the one that should be given credit in the original poster's eyes. And how did I come to this conclusion? Because the first two points reference The Bible as evidence. The rest of the points are nothing but trying to poke holes in scientifically-driven data. And what else is someone trying to do who first cites The Bible as an evidential authority and then goes on to try and make it seem like the scientifically explained origins for things are incorrect? What possible course of argumentation could such a person possibly be taking except to claim that everywhere that we have inconclusive, or suspect data that we should insert "God?"

Can YOU give me a reasonable alternative to what the ORIGINAL POST was getting at when they spelled out the "evidence" as they saw it? What were they arguing for if not God? And remember... I did not once say you invoked God, and yet you still jumped on my reply to the original post.

And yet more evidence, the last sentence of the original post:

Thank You Lord for showing us Your Word is true, and may You work in the hearts and minds of those in rebellion, that some may be saved, in Jesus Name!

Is this still that poster not invoking God as the power responsible for all the "I don't know how this could have happened" bits? Remember now, I DID NOT respond to you and say you invoked God. Not at all. I specifically replied to the original post and its invocation of God. That is all I did. Stop being ridiculous.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is science really responsible for time dilation?

Unless you are proposing magic as the cause? Actual scientific explanations are about your only option....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I was thinking the same thing. The sincerity, empathy and love in his witnessing is overwhelming.

Who said I was trying to convert you???

What gave you that idea? I shook the dust off my feet with people on this forum long ago.

If you understand that reference....

Wasn’t aware love was required to discuss science..... never seen me witness once.....

Another confused soul....

I’m quite aware the tares will grow amongst the wheat and there’s nothing we can do about it.... unless you are suggesting weeding as the solution?

How did Jesus put it to those attacking the faith: vipers and hypocrites????

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You mean like the origin of Poodles from the same stock of wolves?

A combination of natural and artificial selection. Well established and supported.

Don’t blame me because you can’t understand the original wolf type creatures had all 100 plus dog variations possible within them, but you can’t get but a few from Poodles due to mutations and loss of information.....

I blame you for your ignorance and willful misunderstanding that has lead you to believe this short-sighted, incorrect and incomplete response somehow refutes evolution. You have not established that information is lost, while the evidence shows that information is increased. You claim no variation in poodles leading to new breeds of dogs, but poodle breeders are looking for the poodles they breed to breed true. Anything less than that, is not continued. Your claim falls apart. You are assuming that all variation is going to be a desired trait by a breeder and perpetuated. Your claim again falls apart.

All you have demonstrated is that you do not understand animal breeding. You need not have bothered. It was obvious.

Don’t blame me because every Asian born has over 100 mutations every birth, but remain Asian. Until you mix them with an African (who is also born with those 100 mutations yet remains African) that hasn’t lost the same information the Asian lost. Then you get an Afro Asian......

Who is it that you think you are that you express the arrogance that you are the object of blame?

What is an pure Asian? When does one stop being Asian and start being something else? You cannot even define the type, let alone show that a change from that has or has not occurred. You have just words and a lot of anger.

We have a human population full of variation. You claim that mixing members of different populations is not evolution? When did that happen? Variation acted on by selection leads to evolution no matter the source of the variation. Interbreeding does not change the fact of evolution.

Change in taxa is not a requirement of evolution. By falsely claiming it is, your argument falls apart here as well.

The most damaging feature of your assertions is your failure to establish support for them other than to repeat them. That dog genomes contain information that is different from wolves refutes you from the start. All the traits that dogs possess that wolves do not is the result of new information.

Again, there is no need to demonstrate your ignorance and even less need for you to double down on it as if it was valid. We accept that you do not like science for religious reasons. We accept that you have no valid argument to bring against it. We accept that this makes you very angry.

Oh my bad, mutation was your Only solution because you started from the wrong worldview.....

Shots fired wildly over your shoulder in retreat is not evidence to support your world view. Why do you creationists always land at the same ad hominem destination? It is because you arguments are garbage.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who said I was trying to convert you???

What gave you that idea? I shook the dust off my feet with people on this forum long ago.

If you understand that reference....

Wasn’t aware love was required to discuss science..... never seen me witness once.....

Another confused soul....

I’m quite aware the tares will grow amongst the wheat and there’s nothing we can do about it.... unless you are suggesting weeding as the solution?

How did Jesus put it to those attacking the faith: vipers and hypocrites????

I imagine that you have shaken off a lot. It would explain all the anger.

One does need to understand science to discuss science. When do you think that will happen for you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Unless you are proposing magic as the cause? Actual scientific explanations are about your only option....

Science does not cause time dilation. You have asserted it does. I just wanted to see if you were capable of admitting even a tiny, trivial error. I accept my hypothesis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Unless you are proposing magic as the cause? Actual scientific explanations are about your only option....

By the way, that was a question. I was asking you something. Again, I accept my hypothesis. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No we haven’t been in the same frame. You have already agreed in previous posts that a object increasing in velocity changes frames..... now you are arguing against your own argument. This is your problem. You switch your stance every few posts and think no one notices your conflicting arguments because you don’t even see them....

Is this similar to you arguing PGE was the cause of curvature. Thought you was totally correct then too, and that I was wrong and didn’t understand science for arguing against you.......

You just don’t learn, do you......

You are not paying attention again. Our change of velocity from our various orbital motions is very small compared to the speed of light and will introduce very little change. But even more important everything on the Earth is in the same frame of reference. There will be no change imparted on the clocks of Earth even by the changing orbits. They will all agree with each other. That is why radiometric clocks all record the same time passing. The Earth is 4.55 billion years old and your inability to understand Einstein cannot save you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Holy crap man... this all started because YOU MISTAKENLY THOUGHT I was writing a post in response to you when I wasn't. In other words... I wasn't in a conversation with you until YOU MADE A MISTAKE. And then, try as I might to simply let you know of that FACT, you have kept responding to me, apparently trying to refute a bunch of stuff I never even came close to saying. And then you write up your latest reply to me:


Seriously now... if anyone it is you who are pretending we were ever even in a conversation to begin with! The saddest part is, I still don't even think you realize it!

All you have to do is seek the truth, @Justatruthseeker, and you will find that I am the one holding "the truth" in this particular instance. Not you. That thing you're holding is your foot wrapped in leftover's tin-foil. You should probably stop trying to eat it.

I do think that he may not have an ability to admit he is wrong. People that know that they are wrong often have this behavior. They realize that all that they have is a house of cards when it comes to their beliefs, allowing one card to fall causes all of them to fall.

Earlier he made the ridiculous statement, and he sticks by it, that escape velocity would be lower from the center of the Earth than the surface This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of even Newtonian mechanics. I have offered to discuss this with him without even using the math that he either won't or more likely can't do and yet he will not respond to that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I once had a creationist use bacteria as an example of why there is no evolution. His assertion was that in all the time we have been culturing bacteria, no bacteria has changed into a new species. He failed to understand many of the assumptions that were implicit in his claim.

Most efforts to propagate bacteria are carried out in controlled conditions that are rigorously maintained. Most people culturing bacteria were not doing so in order to see if new species were evolving. They were not looking. Any changes from the desired culture would have been discarded and probably considered contamination. What a change in bacterial species was not defined or clarified. It was left ambiguous so that anything that was an example could be rationalized away.

Roll the clock forward to the last 30 years, and low and behold, when people are looking, they see evolution in bacteria including the addition of new information. Bacteria that are suddenly able to utilize new substrates through mutation, like bacteria that utilize citrate, nylon or glyphosate when their ancestors could not.

The wolf/dog/poodle argument is the same argument, with a mammalian vertebrate playing the role of the bacteria. Laughable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who said I was trying to convert you???

What gave you that idea? I shook the dust off my feet with people on this forum long ago.

If you understand that reference....

Wasn’t aware love was required to discuss science..... never seen me witness once.....

Another confused soul....

I’m quite aware the tares will grow amongst the wheat and there’s nothing we can do about it.... unless you are suggesting weeding as the solution?

How did Jesus put it to those attacking the faith: vipers and hypocrites????

I am not attacking the faith. I am addressing the opinions of a weed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do think that he may not have an ability to admit he is wrong. People that know that they are wrong often have this behavior. They realize that all that they have is a house of cards when it comes to their beliefs, allowing one card to fall causes all of them to fall.

Earlier he made the ridiculous statement, and he sticks by it, that escape velocity would be lower from the center of the Earth than the surface This demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of even Newtonian mechanics. I have offered to discuss this with him without even using the math that he either won't or more likely can't do and yet he will not respond to that.

I agree. Even on a trivial point, he could not bring himself to admit the error. Instead, he turned it into an attack.

Clearly, he is not here to discuss science and certainly not to learn anything.