God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[Monk Of Reason]

He said he followed all academia, and academia includes research into metaphysics and things that skeptics want to check on, too. Be consistent. Even if it is junk science, he and you would check on it if you check on ALL academia.

Junk science is not academia. To be fair in your defense you are right in saying he doesn't follow all academia. That is nearly impossible and he doesn't have access to the most recent scientific discoveries as most of the time they are published in journals that most people don't have access to. If something new pops up then it is reported and regular forms of media step in to showcase it. But there are literally thousands of papers written every day in hundreds of different fields. It is impossible to follow all of academia. But I suppose it would be reasonable for someone to say they are up to date with most of the current and common knowledge scientific understandings at least in a laymen terms.

PS. I call baloney. Thousands and thousands of tenured, skilled, researchers and faculty are theists, creationists, even--dare I say it? Born again Bible believers. But thanks for dissing all of them (not!).

Yeah. Millions of scholars of all kinds, researchers, teachers, doctors, scientists, historians ect are theists. Far more people are theists than atheists in the academic world. Granted rates of atheism or at least "non-religious" is much higher but still not the majority. None of this has to do with any claims of pseudo science. Most biologists and evolutionary scientists are probably theists. They still accept evolution and have come to terms somehow with their faith and the facts of our collective research.

Though a fun fact is that most creationists are not young earth creationists. And the majority of legitimate scholars and scientists that are YEC have degree's in fields that have nothing to do with what they have issues with. The ones that are "creation scientists" who actively have "degrees" and "certifications" from "universities" that specialize in teaching a bible based view of science of the YEC kind are illegitimate to academia.

 

[`mud]

Now we have here an unbalanced teeter totter !
course ..... spirits don't weigh much do they, or floods ??
Did the earth get a lot smaller with all that water on it ?
I'm surprised that hell's fire didn't go out !
Everyone that drowned, they did go to heaven, didn't they ?
And before any christening....and the fire's out !!
~
silliness abounds !
~
'm

 

[outhouse]

It is impossible to follow all of academia.

Absolutely.

But he was taking my quote out of context as a desperate resort, while not having anything credible to refute my statements.

You have to remember his beliefs require him to take science out of context because of how much he refuses academia.

 

[jonathan180iq]

A creationist's Solar System model might predict that there is no such belt of that many objects, because God would not deceive us via creation. We have good reasons to believe the universe is 15B years old while the Solar System is more recent. The reasons include scientific data.

Legitimate models.... How many legitimate, scientific, astronomical models predict a young solar system with no Kuiper Belt - or with one that only contains 1,000 objects.

It sounds to me like you need to edit the Wikipedia article and delete the word theoretical in the entry, as well as personally realize why it was that such a region in space was originally theorized to exist. You also tend to overstate what is real science, because the Wikipedia entry on the Kuiper Belt states:

"Since its discovery, the number of known KBOs has increased to over a thousand..."

...something a little removed from your "We made a prediction about the type and quantities of objects out there, and so far we've discovered tens of thousands of individual objects, of which more than 1,000 are nearly as large as Pluto." Again, you might want to tell the Wikipedia editors a grievous error exists on that page if you are correct.

Yes. The Wikipedia article is not up to date and is lacking information.
Surprise. Surprise.
There's no reason to rely on Wikipedia when I've directly linked you to superior sources. There's also no reason to wholly rely on wikipedia, ever. It's just for initial introduction to things.

If you used no other sources but the ones I linked in my previous response, you'll see that there are well over 1,000 large objects and there are tables listed where you can find the tens of thousands of smaller objects as well. Just to show you that you don't need to rely on only one source, here are some more:

http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/
As part of their scanning and studying why and how the Universe is expanding, and speeding up, they occasionally discover new Trans Neptunian Objects...objects in the Kuiper Belt.

http://pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/public/
This awesome bit of technology scans the whole sky each month looking for objects which might crash into us. On occasion, they also discover and map new TNOs.... objects in the Kuiper Belt

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/css/css_facilities.html
One of the grandfather programs, they have a beast of a telescope which also looks for objects near Earth that might kill us all. And they, as you may have guessed, have also coincidentally discovered a handful of TNOs.

http://www.ctio.noao.edu/noao/content/dark-energy-camera-decam
And another...

https://dtm.carnegiescience.edu/people/scott-s-sheppard
And then there's this guy...

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/PI-Perspectives.php?page=piPerspective_10_23_2014
And let's not forget how much work went into making sure New Horizons survived her epic flight into darkness.
They also discovered new TNOs along the way.

http://www.cfeps.net
Canada & France have a joint survery... Plenty of TNOs to their credit.

Note that all of these observatories and surveys keep finding new things where things are supposed to be... In the Kuiper Belt.

And I hope this doesn't sound mean or trite, but you write on this forum as if you are a past master of all disciplines including radiocarbon dating, geology, geography, cosmology, space science, geomatics, etc. It's a little off-putting to me, a lay person whose expertise is far more in the social sciences.

....If you readily admit that you're a layperson whose expertise is in Social Science, then shouldn't you deflect in this regard to someone who is more educated in Astronomy, Geology, and other respective fields? I'm not going to argue about math with a Mathematician.... That's what you Creationists are doing - you're coming from unrelated fields and attempting to discredit real science with a smattering of a little faith, a lot of ignorance, and fiction.

I've already told you that GIS mapping and analysis is something I do for a living. Part of that requires study and integration of Geological Surveys. So I'm quite versed in not just the words in the legend of those surveys but on the science behind them. I know how the data was gathered and I know what the data implies, usually. I've also studied Astronomy as a hobby for the past 17 years, both as a backyard sky fan and academically. Incorporating the two is pretty seamless as the reconnaissance orbiters, like MRO or Cassini for example, take images of surface features on their respective moons or planets just like our satellites and planes do here on Earth. The same compositions and chemical bases, the same spectral analyses, the geological features and the same geological processes are at play here just like they are on bodies out in space.

I'm not an expert in radiometric dating, but I do at least understand the principles behind how it works and I have no reason to assume it suddenly doesn't work or provide accurate information just because a few pious people on the internet find it challenging to their preconceived religious worldviews.

I'm educated and experienced in 5 of the 6 categories that you mentioned. If my speaking from an area of knowledge is off-putting to you, that's not really my problem.
If you make a bold and baseless claim in an area of knowledge that I'm familiar with, you should expect me to respond to it. I would think that you'd prefer to be corrected in areas where you're mistaken because then you'd no longer believe things that were incorrect. If you don't like having correct information, then by all means keeping thinking incorrect things. That's just not how I roll.

You are (again) challenging whether natural evidence exists for miracles and conflating such with whether natural evidence exists for other things, like a young Solar System. A young Solar System may seem unlikely to you (or to me, since I grew up in a skeptics' home and didn't attend church) but "unlikely" isn't the same as "miraculous".

Unless you can somehow show me a situation where reality isn't supported by evidence, then you're barking up the wrong tree.
Unless there is at least one scenario where a realistic thing left no evidence of being real, then you've got no argument here.

Even if we assume Hume's "miraculous" argument, on what standard to we judge miraculous claims?
Hume has to presuppose that magic exists and that it doesn't need any evidence of natural causes to support it. Either that or he assumes that even natural causes can be considered miraculous.
...So think about that for a second, and tell me on what standard do ANY miraculous claims get judged?

I'm sorry, but your biases are showing. I don't mean to say that in any mean way. It's what I see.

Of the two of us, who has a vested interest in their worldview never changing?

I simply accept whatever the evidence suggests. I have based my argument in this conversation around observable, factual, information. If that information was somehow shown to be incorrect I would have no problem aligning my worldview with the new information.

Can you say the same thing?

 

[outhouse]

Can you say the same thing?

Some people have been shoving round blocks in square holes so long, they think that's how its done.

Proper methodology does not require evidence to fit preconceived conclusions, but some people refuse credible academia.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Legitimate models.... How many legitimate, scientific, astronomical models predict a young solar system with no Kuiper Belt - or with one that only contains 1,000 objects.





Yes. The Wikipedia article is not up to date and is lacking information.
Surprise. Surprise.
There's no reason to rely on Wikipedia when I've directly linked you to superior sources. There's also no reason to wholly rely on wikipedia, ever. It's just for initial introduction to things.

If you used no other sources but the ones I linked in my previous response, you'll see that there are well over 1,000 large objects and there are tables listed where you can find the tens of thousands of smaller objects as well. Just to show you that you don't need to rely on only one source, here are some more:

http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/
As part of their scanning and studying why and how the Universe is expanding, and speeding up, they occasionally discover new Trans Neptunian Objects...objects in the Kuiper Belt.

http://pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/public/
This awesome bit of technology scans the whole sky each month looking for objects which might crash into us. On occasion, they also discover and map new TNOs.... objects in the Kuiper Belt

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/css/css_facilities.html
One of the grandfather programs, they have a beast of a telescope which also looks for objects near Earth that might kill us all. And they, as you may have guessed, have also coincidentally discovered a handful of TNOs.

http://www.ctio.noao.edu/noao/content/dark-energy-camera-decam
And another...

https://dtm.carnegiescience.edu/people/scott-s-sheppard
And then there's this guy...

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/PI-Perspectives.php?page=piPerspective_10_23_2014
And let's not forget how much work went into making sure New Horizons survived her epic flight into darkness.
They also discovered new TNOs along the way.

http://www.cfeps.net
Canada & France have a joint survery... Plenty of TNOs to their credit.

Note that all of these observatories and surveys keep finding new things where things are supposed to be... In the Kuiper Belt.



....If you readily admit that you're a layperson whose expertise is in Social Science, then shouldn't you deflect in this regard to someone who is more educated in Astronomy, Geology, and other respective fields? I'm not going to argue about math with a Mathematician.... That's what you Creationists are doing - you're coming from unrelated fields and attempting to discredit real science with a smattering of a little faith, a lot of ignorance, and fiction.

I've already told you that GIS mapping and analysis is something I do for a living. Part of that requires study and integration of Geological Surveys. So I'm quite versed in not just the words in the legend of those surveys but on the science behind them. I know how the data was gathered and I know what the data implies, usually. I've also studied Astronomy as a hobby for the past 17 years, both as a backyard sky fan and academically. Incorporating the two is pretty seamless as the reconnaissance orbiters, like MRO or Cassini for example, take images of surface features on their respective moons or planets just like our satellites and planes do here on Earth. The same compositions and chemical bases, the same spectral analyses, the geological features and the same geological processes are at play here just like they are on bodies out in space.

I'm not an expert in radiometric dating, but I do at least understand the principles behind how it works and I have no reason to assume it suddenly doesn't work or provide accurate information just because a few pious people on the internet find it challenging to their preconceived religious worldviews.

I'm educated and experienced in 5 of the 6 categories that you mentioned. If my speaking from an area of knowledge is off-putting to you, that's not really my problem.
If you make a bold and baseless claim in an area of knowledge that I'm familiar with, you should expect me to respond to it. I would think that you'd prefer to be corrected in areas where you're mistaken because then you'd no longer believe things that were incorrect. If you don't like having correct information, then by all means keeping thinking incorrect things. That's just not how I roll.



Unless you can somehow show me a situation where reality isn't supported by evidence, then you're barking up the wrong tree.
Unless there is at least one scenario where a realistic thing left no evidence of being real, then you've got no argument here.

Even if we assume Hume's "miraculous" argument, on what standard to we judge miraculous claims?
Hume has to presuppose that magic exists and that it doesn't need any evidence of natural causes to support it. Either that or he assumes that even natural causes can be considered miraculous.
...So think about that for a second, and tell me on what standard do ANY miraculous claims get judged?


Of the two of us, who has a vested interest in their worldview never changing?

I simply accept whatever the evidence suggests. I have based my argument in this conversation around observable, factual, information. If that information was somehow shown to be incorrect I would have no problem aligning my worldview with the new information.

Can you say the same thing?

1. Demonizing your opponent by saying that 100% of creation scientists are out of their fields, biased and not true scientists is low. Stop it.

2. Minimalizing my objections with trite statements like "These two guys just found two more objects past Neptune!" is not addressing the fact that you are fudging the numbers I've cited.

3. Hume's argument revolves around seeing miracles rarely. Rare circumstances are not de facto untrue, they are just rare.

 

[outhouse]

1. Demonizing your opponent by saying that 100% of creation scientists are out of their fields, biased and not true scientists is low. Stop it.

Its not low, its typical and the truth. If you pulled your head out of the pseudoscientific biased faith based articles with no credibility your literally forced to follow, YOU would know what the academic truth actually is.

There is factually no such thing as a credible YEC scientist, in a specific field of dating the earth.

you are fudging the numbers

Your no one to talk. You ignore facts presented to you that are sourced and taught in every credible university world wide as fact..

 

[jonathan180iq]

1. Demonizing your opponent by saying that 100% of creation scientists are out of their fields, biased and not true scientists is low. Stop it.

Name me a practicing Geologist or Archaeologist who is published in a Scientific Journal and academically posits for a Young Earth or a 5,000 year old Global Flood.

In this very thread you've directly linked to articles written by a "Creation Scientist" who was attempting to discredit radiometric dating...
That creation Scientist is David Plaisted, an admitted creationist and most importantly not an expert in radioactive decay. He is an expert in Computer programming and computation. He has a strong background in math, certainly. So for questions about mathematics, or for any questions about computer science, David would be a good source. For defense of the creationist position and it's feasability as being factually historically accurate, David Plaisted is not a good source.

There are probably some wonderful scientists who happen to be creationists - but when delving into conversations about the age of the Earth and about past historical events, they are totally out of the league and field of expertise, by definition.

http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/defenses/ark-flood/global-flood-peer-review/david-plaisted/

They are, factually, making claims outside of their fields of expertise, they are admittedly biased, and they aren't true scientists in matters revolving around their faith. They assume the conclusion before ever studying the data.

The statement still stands.

2. Minimalizing my objections with trite statements like "These two guys just found two more objects past Neptune!" is not addressing the fact that you are fudging the numbers I've cited.

What are you talking about? You've only ever cited 1,000 KBOs based on an out-dated Wikipedia page.

I directly linked you to 1,300 larger objects and evidence to 70,000 smaller objects. Which part of my direct link to scientific data shows that I'm "fudging the numbers"?

3. Hume's argument revolves around seeing miracles rarely. Rare circumstances are not de facto untrue, they are just rare.

Rare occurrences can still be validated. Anything that isn't validated can't be claimed as factual.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Name me a practicing Geologist or Archaeologist who is published in a Scientific Journal and academically posits for a Young Earth or a 5,000 year old Global Flood.

In this very thread you've directly linked to articles written by a "Creation Scientist" who was attempting to discredit radiometric dating...
That creation Scientist is David Plaisted, an admitted creationist and most importantly not an expert in radioactive decay. He is an expert in Computer programming and computation. He has a strong background in math, certainly. So for questions about mathematics, or for any questions about computer science, David would be a good source. For defense of the creationist position and it's feasability as being factually historically accurate, David Plaisted is not a good source.

There are probably some wonderful scientists who happen to be creationists - but when delving into conversations about the age of the Earth and about past historical events, they are totally out of the league and field of expertise, by definition.

http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/defenses/ark-flood/global-flood-peer-review/david-plaisted/

They are, factually, making claims outside of their fields of expertise, they are admittedly biased, and they aren't true scientists in matters revolving around their faith. They assume the conclusion before ever studying the data.

The statement still stands.


What are you talking about? You've only ever cited 1,000 KBOs based on an out-dated Wikipedia page.

I directly linked you to 1,300 larger objects and evidence to 70,000 smaller objects. Which part of my direct link to scientific data shows that I'm "fudging the numbers"?


Rare occurrences can still be validated. Anything that isn't validated can't be claimed as factual.

I'm sorry--I may have missed this in your posts. You are claiming 1,300 confirmed objects or 71,300 confirmed objects, please?

Thanks.

 

[viole]

All,

Thanks for attacking the fact that I omitted a word I've used repeatedly on this thread, "circa" or "approximately". I didn't mean 5,000 years ago meaning I know the Flood occurred beyond a doubt in 2885 BCE and more important, you know I meant approximately.

So, in a few thousands years we developed all our different racial traits starting from Noah family?

If that was true, then about 5000 years passed since the flood. If we count a generation after 20 years, that is about 250 generation for people to get a black complexion, getting green eyes, blue eyes, asian eyes, etc. That is fast forward evolution. And the pictures of ancient people from the world might shorten that time considerably.

Not to speak of the different traits assumed by all animals starting from a couple, and the ridiculous idea that things like marsupials went through the ordeal of joining Noah and then go back to Australia to restart where they left.

I mean. Are you sure?

Ciao

- fiole

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm sorry--I may have missed this in your posts. You are claiming 1,300 confirmed objects or 71,300 confirmed objects, please?

Thanks.

I can argue for either one if you want to get right down to it, but let's just stick with the argument that you made that there are only 1,000 KBOs.

There are AT LEAST 1300 or so known objects of a diameter greater than 4-6km which lie beyond Neptune. There are a few hundred more if you expand your search criteria...
At minimum, there are 2,000+/- larger objects. The number of objects smaller than 1km could range anywhere from a few dozen to millions - they're too dark and cold to locate via normal observatory means and locating them via other methods takes a lot of time.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/tnoslist.html

At some point I'd like to see you get back on topic and present your evidence for a global flood that happened 5,000 years ago. All of this KBO business, which needs to be corrected since you are either completely ignorant of the facts or intentionally misrepresenting the science to fit your worldview, is just a red herring to distract from the fact that for more than 20+ pages now you STILL haven't provided anything of substance to validate your belief. Perhaps you could address some of the challenges to your position with some substantiating material of some sort, preferably from an actual expert in that respective field... Anything at all, really, would be better than dancing around the fact that you've made bold claims about reality and have supplied nothing to support those claims but biblical passages and hack science.

 

[outhouse]

I'd like to see you get back on topic and present your evidence for a global flood that happened 5,000 years ago

Don't hold your breath you will turn blue.

He cannot even supply a date to a supposed world changing event



Its pretty pathetic to refuse so much credible knowledge in academia.

 

[Ouroboros]

MAJIK

TADA!

 

[outhouse]

TADA!

Bit of the ole xmas majik in the air

 

[psychoslice]

God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!.........when I can't sleep, I think of this question, or statement, and then I laugh myself to sleep, its good therapy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, in a few thousands years we developed all our different racial traits starting from Noah family?

If that was true, then about 5000 years passed since the flood. If we count a generation after 20 years, that is about 250 generation for people to get a black complexion, getting green eyes, blue eyes, asian eyes, etc. That is fast forward evolution. And the pictures of ancient people from the world might shorten that time considerably.

Not to speak of the different traits assumed by all animals starting from a couple, and the ridiculous idea that things like marsupials went through the ordeal of joining Noah and then go back to Australia to restart where they left.

I mean. Are you sure?

Ciao

- fiole

Human population roughly doubles (before the modern medical era) every 125 years or so. Work backward from 6 Billion and see how long in Excel it takes you to get to 8 people.

PS. The Bible describes three families of men coming from Noah's sons. Why couldn't one have been black, one Asian, one occidental? I think God can save someone on a boat who has diverse genetics between himself and his spouse. Plus the three sons each had a wife who might have been diverse.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I can argue for either one if you want to get right down to it, but let's just stick with the argument that you made that there are only 1,000 KBOs.

There are AT LEAST 1300 or so known objects of a diameter greater than 4-6km which lie beyond Neptune. There are a few hundred more if you expand your search criteria...
At minimum, there are 2,000+/- larger objects. The number of objects smaller than 1km could range anywhere from a few dozen to millions - they're too dark and cold to locate via normal observatory means and locating them via other methods takes a lot of time.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/tnoslist.html

At some point I'd like to see you get back on topic and present your evidence for a global flood that happened 5,000 years ago. All of this KBO business, which needs to be corrected since you are either completely ignorant of the facts or intentionally misrepresenting the science to fit your worldview, is just a red herring to distract from the fact that for more than 20+ pages now you STILL haven't provided anything of substance to validate your belief. Perhaps you could address some of the challenges to your position with some substantiating material of some sort, preferably from an actual expert in that respective field... Anything at all, really, would be better than dancing around the fact that you've made bold claims about reality and have supplied nothing to support those claims but biblical passages and hack science.

We might be able to get back on point as soon as I understand your STRIDENT objection:

There are an estimated 100,000 such objects under discussion. Your righteous ire is because Wikipedia reminds us that about 1,000 have been found but you are adamant that no--it's got to be--let's see, 2,000 KBOs or so.

I don't think I want to "debate" someone who is so inflexible and won't admit that the Solar System model under conjecture is hardly proved. "Scientists estimate 100 missing link fossils exist, find 2, declare all other theories void." Really?

What is also annoying to me is how you claimed NO young model of the Solar System is valid. Last time I checked, the Universe is plus 15 B years old. Are you saying our Sun and Earth are proved to be more than 5 B years old? Really?

You don't argue, you browbeat. It's hard to be patient with your SS-styled tactics. Stop blustering about the god of science and think. I appeal to you because clearly you are more intelligent than the other folks on this board... "When I hear there was a Flood that wiped out most civilization and most documents about 5,000 years ago, I laugh and get a good night's sleep..." even though, of course, there are NO written documents of mankind prior to about 5,000 years ago!

 

[outhouse]

PS. The Bible describes three families of men coming from Noah's sons. Why couldn't one have been black, one Asian, one occidental?

Because it requires a leap of imagination.

 

[outhouse]

I follow all of academia, you refuse completely ALL of academia below despite its factual status.

You might want to research REAL facts, not the mythology your peddling. Pseudoscience has no credibility.


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because it requires a leap of imagination.

Well, I probably wouldn't wish to burden you with that.