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

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

We don't criticize ancient people and civilizations for not knowing any better. We criticize people alive today who still believe the same things as they did despite having access to much more and better information. The difference with Darwin is that the fact he didn't know about DNA is entirely irrelevant to the observations he made - he never asserted anything that he didn't have good reason to believe.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Simple. A mousetrap.

Now, you demonstrate it isn't.

It was a stroke of Genius at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial when Ken Miller came in with a very unusual tie clasp that looked strangely like a mousetrap with the catch and hold down bar removed, yet serving a useful and practical function of keeping his tie straight and sharp.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

"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.

No, I get it. You don't. You forgot the challenge and are trying to change it after the fact. You were wrong and now you are making excuses.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"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!

.........

Venus fly traps..... Jaws of crocodiles and alligators......

 

[Audie]

Venus fly traps..... Jaws of crocodiles and alligators......

What do those have to do with irreducible complexity?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What do those have to do with irreducible complexity?

You could say it has similarities to less-developed 'mousetraps'. Like the mousetrap tie clasps function is to hold a tie in place as opposed to using a complete mousetrap with the extra 'unnecessary' components. Venus fly traps and alligator jaws don't require a coiled spring. It's a poor example all around though because you're using inorganic examples, to explain biological development.

I think the bacterial flagellum is much better, or even recently the functional fully organic gears with interlocking teeth on the Plant Hopper nymph that gets removed as the hopper matures into an adult.

 

[Audie]

You could say it has similarities to less-developed 'mousetraps'. Like the mousetrap tie clasps function is to hold a tie in place as opposed to using a complete mousetrap with the extra 'unnecessary' components. Venus fly traps and alligator jaws don't require a coiled spring. It's a poor example all around though because you're using inorganic examples, to explain biological development.

I think the bacterial flagellum is much better, or even recently the functional fully organic gears with interlocking teeth on the Plant Hopper nymph that gets removed as the hopper matures into an adult.

The mousetrap idea is cute, for a minute or two, or for
those who will accept anything that goes their way.
Mechanical designs are a poor analogy anyway.

The eye is a noted example of "irreducible", and
I guess it pretty much is, if you start to go taking
pieces out of a mammal eye.

Your basic creo has of course not studied anything
about the development of eyes such that they would
see all manner of less complex intermediary steps
of development in simpler organisms.

Eyes that do not have all of the components of
mammal or bird eyes, and work correspondingly
less well, but, are not rendered functionless.

 

[ecco]

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

Behe has been peddling his irreducible complexity mantra for years. He makes a lot of money selling it to creo fundies. No one else takes him seriously. No one even bothers to rebut him anymore.

It's like repeatedly telling someone:
2+4=5 is wrong. See if you have 2 marbles in your right hand and you have 4 marbles in your left hand, altogether you have 6 marbles.
After a while, you just don't bother anymore.

Behe believes his stuff for the same reason you believe it: It contradicts Genesis. Did you ever ask yourself why you believe science up to and only up to the point it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs?

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

Did you steal that line from Rudy Guiliani?[/QUOTE]

 

[ecco]

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.

Do we have an award for the best ramble of the thread?

 

[Audie]

Behe has been peddling his irreducible complexity mantra for years. He makes a lot of money selling it to creo fundies. No one else takes him seriously. No one even bothers to rebut him anymore.

It's like repeatedly telling someone:
2+4=5 is wrong. See if you have 2 marbles in your right hand and you have 4 marbles in your left hand, altogether you have 6 marbles.
After a while, you just don't bother anymore.

Behe believes his stuff for the same reason you believe it: It contradicts Genesis. Did you ever ask yourself why you believe science up to and only up to the point it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs?


Did you steal that line from Rudy Guiliani?

[/QUOTE]


Did you ever ask yourself why you believe science up to and only up to the point it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs?

Audie's Principle holds that it is impossible to be
simultaneously an educated creationist, and,
intellectually honest.

 

[Audie]

Do we have an award for the best ramble of the thread?

Nah,just a "not even wrong" sticker.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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.

Any way you look at it, a mousetrap is a relatively simple contraption, and Behe’s arguments fit. How much more so w/ ‘complex biological systems’!

“Using intelligence is irrelevant.”

The skeptic’s wish.
Experience and empirical data always tell us otherwise.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Any way you look at it, a mousetrap is a relatively simple contraption, and Behe’s arguments fit.

Except it doesn't, because you can take a part away and it still functions. More to the point, we can do the exact same thing with biological systems, such as the bacterial flagellum, and it still functions. Irreducible complexity has been debunked.

“Using intelligence is irrelevant.”

The skeptic’s wish.
Experience and empirical data always tell us otherwise.

That's just a lie.

Once again, the argument of irreducible complexity doesn't make any claim of design - it is a claim that complex biological systems couldn't arise through gradual processes. It makes NO ASSERTION WHATSOEVER about the nature of the process that gives rise to complex systems, it merely asserts that they could not arise gradually, so your earlier argument that the existing refutations of irreducible complexity don't "count" because they employed intelligence in the process is erroneous.

Not a single piece of evidence exists of intelligent design. Behe himself has even admitted under oath 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"

SOURCE: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Except it doesn't, because you can take a part away and it still functions. More to the point, we can do the exact same thing with biological systems, such as the bacterial flagellum, and it still functions. Irreducible complexity has been debunked.


That's just a lie.

Once again, the argument of irreducible complexity doesn't make any claim of design - it is a claim that complex biological systems couldn't arise through gradual processes. It makes NO ASSERTION WHATSOEVER about the nature of the process that gives rise to complex systems, it merely asserts that they could not arise gradually, so your earlier argument that the existing refutations of irreducible complexity don't "count" because they employed intelligence in the process is erroneous.

Not a single piece of evidence exists of intelligent design. Behe himself has even admitted under oath 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"

SOURCE: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Day 12, AM: Michael Behe

This is circular reasoning at it's best....why would you expect scientific "peer-reviewed articles" on intelligent design when science only accepts naturalistic causes? It refuses to consider any ID explanation.

You keep bringing up Kitzmiller v. Dover.

How about this gem?

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

Sad that science isn't interested in discovering truth, only what reinforces naturalistic processes as per their (scientist's) limited parameters.

Show me what function the b f has by removing a part (s).

Forget the injectisome argument, based on "convergent evolution" hypotheses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is circular reasoning at it's best....why would you expect scientific "peer-reviewed articles" on intelligent design when science only accepts naturalistic causes? It refuses to consider any ID explanation.

You keep bringing up Kitzmiller v. Dover.

How about this gem?

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

Sad that science isn't interested in discovering truth, only what reinforces naturalistic processes as per their (scientist's) limited parameters.

Show me what function the b f has by removing a part (s).

Forget the injectisome argument, based on "convergent evolution" hypotheses.

Why are you complaining about that? That ID is not science is obvious to anyone that studies it, but not for the false reasons that you claimed.

Tell me, what reasonable test could show ID to be wrong, if it was wrong? If you can't answer that question you have admitted yourself that I'D is not science, as far as you know at least. And this test cannot be done with something that we already know. That would be cheating.

 

[oldbadger]

1) Genesis tells us God created all animals (dinos included) and humans in the same week.

Does it? ...... Dinos included?
All the Dino species at once?
Oh dear..... Think of that, The Garden of Eden full of very nasty dangerous hunter killers and dangerous veggie dinos as well.
I tell you what....... if I'd been Adam I'd have dug a hole and got in it with Eve and....... and........
Oh dear....... so THAT's how all the trouble started.... they had nothing to do but be naughty with each other.

OK.... moving on.....

God created an already mature creation with adult humans, mature fruit-bearing trees, and starlight already reaching earth to be appreciated by Adam even though the stars are located billions of light-years away.

Oh dear............. That means that all the stars and galaxies appeared 'as is' in a few days, yes?
That means that the astronomers, physicists and mathematicians who are looking back through light time to the times soon after the GREAT EXPANSION of our Universe are all myopic nutters?
Oh dear.......

2) Using the various Biblical genealogies and documented lifetimes, it appears the earth is about 6000 - 7000 years old.

OK............ I'll stop you there........... no further reading required.

..... which makes your 'Creation' OP a winner, because out of all of them over a period of about 8-9 years I have read more of yours than any others in the heretofore.

Your prize is the right to look up the opinions of scientists such as Brian Cox or Professor Hawking....

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why are you complaining about that? That ID is not science is obvious to anyone that studies it, but not for the false reasons that you claimed.

Tell me, what reasonable test could show ID to be wrong, if it was wrong? If you can't answer that question you have admitted yourself that I'D is not science, as far as you know at least. And this test cannot be done with something that we already know. That would be cheating.

Stating "ID is not science," shares no equivalency with stating "ID is not truth."

If scientists, by using the 'scientific method', wish to limit themselves, that's their problem.

But does the explanation of descent with modification meet those same requirements? No....

(Especially note from 2:30 on.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is circular reasoning at it's best....why would you expect scientific "peer-reviewed articles" on intelligent design when science only accepts naturalistic causes? It refuses to consider any ID explanation.

You already asserted that there is evidence of design, and have repeatedly mentioned Behe as a source on the subject, yet Behe himself admits that there is no evidence whatsoever to support intelligent design.

You keep bringing up Kitzmiller v. Dover.

How about this gem?

“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”

And what do you think the significance of that is?

Sad that science isn't interested in discovering truth, only what reinforces naturalistic processes as per their (scientist's) limited parameters.

Then please demonstrate the truth of intelligent design.

Show me what function the b f has by removing a part (s).

It functions as a type-3 secretory system.
The Flagellum Unspun
The Non-Flagellar Type III Secretion System Evolved from the Bacterial Flagellum and Diversified into Host-Cell Adapted Systems
Type three secretion system - Wikipedia

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Stating "ID is not science," shares no equivalency with stating "ID is not truth."

While this is technically true, it does mean "ID cannot be supported by scientific data" and can therefore be dismissed until it has actual, hard evidence to support it.

If scientists, by using the 'scientific method', wish to limit themselves, that's their problem.

Then please state a single method scientists could employ that would allow them to stop "limiting themselves" and test for intelligent design.

But does the explanation of descent with modification meet those same requirements?

Yes.

 

[Xax]

I firmly believe the earth is billions of years old, I think there is enough scientific evidence to support that being the case.