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

[Audie]

The article also rebuts HC's "no explanation" assertion.

I dont think it does that. The explanation is most likely
a combination of factors, A bit more data than from one
specimen is in order.

The "quick(ly) frozen coz of flood explanation"
certainly falsified by any number of means.

But HC seems reluctant to make any positive
statement about it at all. It is hard to rebut a
non-statement.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Can you provide an example of a demonstrably irreducibly complex system?

Simple. A mousetrap.

Now, you demonstrate it isn't.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Debunked? Yes. Not Sorry.

Or, if you actually want to try to read ...
Skeptoid: Is the human eye irreducibly complex?

Or just a synopsis...

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."

​

I do realize that facts will never change your mind.

Lol. These are only counter-arguments, with no empirical data to back them up!

You call this 'debunked'? I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell ya.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple. A mousetrap.

Now, you demonstrate it isn't.

Ken Miller did that a long time ago:

 

[Shad]

Simple. A mousetrap.

Now, you demonstrate it isn't.

That was knocked down in the Dover trial. Try to keep up to date....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That was knocked down in the Dover trial. Try to keep up to date....

Why do you say that?

 

[Shad]

What do you say that?

As Behe tried his "irreducible complexity" in the Dover trial and failed completely just as he did with his peers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you say that?

Really? You seriously have no clue?

The mousetrap tie clasp alone did that. But here is a short snippet from a lecture of his where he uses another example and goes into more detail:

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As Behe tried his "irreducible complexity" in the Dover trial and failed completely just as he did with his peers.

sorry...I mean why do you say that?

 

[Shad]

sorry...I mean why do you say that?

You were asking for an example of the "mouse trap" argument being refuted. I pointed out it was in the Dover trial. That is why I said it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Really? You seriously have no clue?

The mousetrap tie clasp alone did that. But here is a short snippet from a lecture of his where he uses another example and goes into more detail:

Unfortunately for you...which you probably won't acknowledge anyway...the only thing Miller proved, is that it took his intelligence to change it!

I saw no unguided forces at work. Did you? Did I miss something? Don't think so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately for you...which you probably won't acknowledge anyway...the only thing Miller proved, is that it took his intelligence to change it!

I saw no unguided forces at work. Did you? Did I miss something? Don't think so.

Of course it did. But your claim failed. You don't understand that.

You see the mousetrap is a built item. It would take intelligence to change it. Cells occur naturally. No intelligence needed. And it still refuted the claim. That was all that was needed. When you make excuses you have already lost the argument.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Of course it did. But your claim failed. You don't understand that.

You see the mousetrap is a built item. It would take intelligence to change it. Cells occur naturally. No intelligence needed. And it still refuted the claim. That was all that was needed. When you make excuses you have already lost the argument.

It took his intelligence for Miller to establish another function!!

You can't be that dense,...I don't believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It took his intelligence for Miller to establish another function!!

You can't be that dense,...I don't believe.

When you are making excuses you already lost the argument.

 

[Shad]

Unfortunately for you...which you probably won't acknowledge anyway...the only thing Miller proved, is that it took his intelligence to change it!

Nope. Miller used Behe's own faulty analogue against him by hitting upon Behe's reliance of "useful to" and "functional for" within a human context against Behe. After all Behe is the one that must use a subjective and human based evaluation of "use" and" functionality" in relation to usefulness to humans regarding a human made device. Behe omitted different functionality is possible via his use of an unnatural (mouse trap) which has a designed purpose made by humans. The reason for this is obvious. It refutes his argument if a system can lose a part but still have a function. More so it shows his ID oriented thinking via purpose of design rather than purpose of function. Ergo his bias.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When you are making excuses you already lost the argument.

"Excuses"? Lol. These are reasons.

Miller took the entire contraption apart, and reassembled it...minus some parts. You cannot expect a coiled spring with tension, to maintain that tension by removing parts via undirected processes!

I said you wouldn't acknowledge it. Or you don't get it.

 

[Shad]

"Excuses"? Lol. These are reasons.

Miller took the entire contraption apart, and reassembled it...minus some parts. You cannot expect a coiled spring with tension, to maintain that tension by removing parts via undirected processes!

I said you wouldn't acknowledge it. Or you don't get it.

Behe used the mousetrap, which is a designed object of human origin, as an example thus set himself up for refutation. Miller demonstrated Behe's error regarding how he defined function (according to humans, specifically Behe himself, not nature) thus it is subjective and based on human ideas (Behe's own subjective views).

Simply put Behe projected and was caught.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Excuses"? Lol. These are reasons.

Miller took the entire contraption apart, and reassembled it...minus some parts. You cannot expect a coiled spring with tension, to maintain that tension by removing parts via undirected processes!

Except the irreducible complexity argument has nothing to do with whether the process is directed or undirected, it simply makes the assertion that a complex, biological system cannot arise piece by piece since each piece is needed for the whole to function - that's the whole argument - and it's an argument which can be taken apart easily, as Miller showed. Using intelligence is irrelevant. The argument is "take away a part and it doesn't function, therefore it cannot arise gradually". That argument is refuted by removing parts and revealing that it still functions.

 

[wellwisher]

Progressive slogans like climate change and humans are destroying and/or killing the earth, if true, mean that the earth can die and be reborn into something new?

If we assume Progressivism is composed of more than psychological slogans intended to manipulate feelings and misrepresent reality then maybe the earth can die and is reborn; i.e., change, so both science and religion can both be right.

Climate change implies that the surface of the earth can change into a new dynamic situation, which is sort of like a climate rebirth that involved the death of the old climate norms. Forming a new universe and earth could represent a change.

That aside, I assume sincerely science is trying to understand the universe. But I also believe the ancients were doing the same thing, but based their universe on a very important change. In this case, what changed was the human mind, with the human mind responsible for how we perceive reality. There was a change in perception so nothing appears the same as before.

As an example, the Trump economy is doing well based on a wide variety of tangible metrics. However, the mind of the Progressive cannot see this or admit to this. Their mind alters how they see tangible reality, in spite of hard evidence. The ancient mind did not have the benefits of modern thought and theory, since it was not invented, yet. What they saw as reality, was based on starting theory from scratch.

In science, what we see today is not the final truth or else there would be no need to do anymore science. We continue to invest in science because we are not all the way to the final truth, and what we assume is true today will be the mythological in the future. For example DNA was not discovered until 1953, which means biological science before then was sort of mythology, yet the experts of 1950, would assume they had all the answers.

The ancient reality was based on only data that could be collected by and theorized from the natural senses, without artificial assistance. Science makes use of artificial senses which can collect extra data and thereby change the analysis. But modern tools are not the best they will ever be, so much data is still missing to be able to formulate the final theories.

Darwin knew noting of DNA. His theory of evolution and natural selection did not include the DNA, yet no atheist is criticizing him. There is hypocrisy in people who claim to be objective. We cut Darwin slack because we take into account the science limitations of his time, and how he made the best of a less than optimized situation. I do the same for the ancients and I don't play the hypocrite with Darwin. Although I will add DNA which Darin never included.

 

[Audie]

Progressive slogans like climate change and humans are destroying and/or killing the earth, if true, mean that the earth can die and be reborn into something new?

If we assume Progressivism is composed of more than psychological slogans intended to manipulate feelings and misrepresent reality then maybe the earth can die and is reborn; i.e., change, so both science and religion can both be right.

Climate change implies that the surface of the earth can change into a new dynamic situation, which is sort of like a climate rebirth that involved the death of the old climate norms. Forming a new universe and earth could represent a change.

That aside, I assume sincerely science is trying to understand the universe. But I also believe the ancients were doing the same thing, but based their universe on a very important change. In this case, what changed was the human mind, with the human mind responsible for how we perceive reality. There was a change in perception so nothing appears the same as before.

As an example, the Trump economy is doing well based on a wide variety of tangible metrics. However, the mind of the Progressive cannot see this or admit to this. Their mind alters how they see tangible reality, in spite of hard evidence. The ancient mind did not have the benefits of modern thought and theory, since it was not invented, yet. What they saw as reality, was based on starting theory from scratch.

In science, what we see today is not the final truth or else there would be no need to do anymore science. We continue to invest in science because we are not all the way to the final truth, and what we assume is true today will be the mythological in the future. For example DNA was not discovered until 1953, which means biological science before then was sort of mythology, yet the experts of 1950, would assume they had all the answers.

The ancient reality was based on only data that could be collected by and theorized from the natural senses, without artificial assistance. Science makes use of artificial senses which can collect extra data and thereby change the analysis. But modern tools are not the best they will ever be, so much data is still missing to be able to formulate the final theories.

Darwin knew noting of DNA. His theory of evolution and natural selection did not include the DNA, yet no atheist is criticizing him. There is hypocrisy in people who claim to be objective. We cut Darwin slack because we take into account the science limitations of his time, and how he made the best of a less than optimized situation. I do the same for the ancients and I don't play the hypocrite with Darwin. Although I will add DNA which Darin never included.

"Not even wrong"