Hoaxes

[lasthero]

I don't see that either.

This caught my eye quickly and I didn't like it: " They must believe this, and they must try to convince others to believe it too, no matter how nonsensical it is.". Yes, I exaggerated who "they" are. But this is simply wrong. I don't have to convince anyone that I am a creationist.

Try reading the whole post.

 

[Blue Wren]

I think you must mean spout.

I did, yes. Thanks.

 

[sfs]

I did, yes. Thanks.

I kind of like the image of sprouting ignorance.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Lie. None of the evidence supports a 6,000 year old earth or a global flood 4,000 years ago. Genesis is not supportable by scientific evidence. And no, disproving evolution gets you no closer to a 6,000 year old earth.

That's your opinion, to which of course, you are entitled. But others draw totally different conclusions. For example:-

"Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (slow) Creationists, there are numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe. In fact, such young earth indicators are in the majority. But because the scientific establishment and the media are biased against a Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely told about the mounting evidence that contradicts the belief in an old earth and the many holes in evolution.

In the pages that follow we discuss 22 clocks, or indicators that the Earth and Universe are young. Or to say it another way: there is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is perhaps only thousands of years old, and that the 4.5 billion year age that evolution-believing "scientists" have LOUDLY and repeatedly proclaimed to be a fact, is actually based on a strong desire to eliminate God from His own Creation rather than on scientific facts." You can find the full article here:-
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

dark matter is hypothesized

Exactly - it's just a hypothesis. Does it not occur to anyone that the Creator of this universe is the force that's holding it all together?

Creationism is not some default position that automatically wins as soon as every other current viable explanation is ruled out. It requires its own supporting evidence - and I mean real supporting evidence, not your personal interpretation of a 2000-year-old book - and its own falsification criteria.

It's not my own interpretation and the book is much older than 2000 years and was written over a period of about 1,400 years by 40+ people from different backgounds and countries, so it's consistency is astonishing, but that's because God is the ultimate author and has made sure His book has survived all attempts to destroy it. The most anyone has been able to do is ridicule it.

None of their objections or explanations hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

The same could be said of much of the evolutionary claims - Life from non-life? (LOL); an ordered and precisely-tuned universe from nothing [for nothing, substitute what rocks dream about] (big joke). It all boils down to metaphysical conjecture.

Interestingly, the Bible tells us that the ruler of this world is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44; 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 1 John 14-19). Anyone searching for truth in this world is therefore quite likely to encounter a lie. The most powerful of lies of course, are those that are mostly true. Just a little bit of deception can go a long way. According to Paul, the ascendancy of the lie is actually a judgement from God upon the disobedience of mankind...

2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders,
2Th 2:10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.

 

[The Cadet]

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm

If I show that every clock on this page is not only wrong, but demonstrably wrong and known to be wrong for at least a decade, would you care? Would it have any impact on your belief in a young earth? Or maybe on how you gather your information and evaluate sources? Because that list is essentially a collection of PRATT that has absolutely no place in a discourse in the 21st century. Nothing on it holds up to even the slightest scrutiny. Most of it is debunked simply by giving the TalkOrigins "index of creationist claims" a quick look. You could just as easily say that others draw different conclusions about 9/11 by pointing to AE911's asinine report, or that others draw different conclusions about the shape of the earth by pointing to this list - it's just as valid. Sure, it's wrong, but every single entry on that list is blatantly and obviously flawed.

So I ask: if I show all of those to be completely wrong, will you care?

 

[Armoured]

I think he mistakenly suggest that all Christians are creationists.

I don't think he suggested that for a second. Most Christians are, of course, theistic evolutionists.

 

[Armoured]

That's your opinion, to which of course, you are entitled. But others draw totally different conclusions. For example:-

"Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (slow) Creationists, there are numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe. In fact, such young earth indicators are in the majority. But because the scientific establishment and the media are biased against a Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely told about the mounting evidence that contradicts the belief in an old earth and the many holes in evolution.

So, there's a conspiracy among scientists to keep all these young Earth findings secret?

Seems odd I wasn't told about it when I did my diploma in biomedical science, because we covered several dating methods quite extensively... you'd think someone might have mentioned.

 

[The Cadet]

Like, just to take one simple example:

Up until the recent past, when the top of Niagara Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward Lake Erie at the rate of about 4-5 feet per year. Since the channel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet), this means that the age of Niagara Falls is between 7,000 and 8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant. The age of North America, is likely the same.78,79,80 For more details see Ian Juby's article on this topic.

Even assuming that the rate of erosion was constant, all that means is that the age of Niagara Falls is between 7,000 and 8,750 years old. This argument is right up there with "This bookshelf in your room is a month old, therefore your house must be a month old". But of course, there are good reasons to believe that the rate was not constant in the last few millennia. The Niagara river is fed by Lake Erie. What did Erie look like 4,000 years ago? Oh. It didn't exist in its current form. Does this mean North America didn't exist 4,000 years ago? Or is this argument just bogus?

So not only is the argument incredibly fallacious (the fact that any given landmark did not exist 7,000 years ago does not mean that the land it's sitting on didn't exist before then!), but it failed to do even the most basic research about the Niagara River, its sources, the surrounding geography, and the surrounding paleoclimatology. You may recognize these subjects as "the things the argument appeals to".



I found this in two minutes on google and five minutes on Wikipedia. It took me less than 15 minutes to completely demolish the argument. @Not_By_Chance , did this really pass the sniff test from where you're standing? Really? Did you seriously look at this argument and say, "Yep, that sounds reasonable,"? Or did you just pull any old list off the internet, regardless of quality (I feel now is probably a good time to point out that this site is blue and purple text on dark blue background) in the hopes of bolstering your side of the argument? You can find thousands such "slow clocks" - there's a reason the index of creationist claims is such a huge list - but if not one of them actually holds water, then not one of them actually holds water.

I repeat myself. None of the evidence supports a 6,000 year old earth or a global flood 4,000 years ago. For CMI to claim otherwise when they know full well that it's wrong is rank dishonesty on their part.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Seems odd I wasn't told about it when I did my diploma in biomedical science, because we covered several dating methods quite extensively... you'd think someone might have mentioned.

How many of the 200 or so dating methods did you cover and if not all, what selection process was used to determine which dating methods would be covered?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Most Christians are, of course, theistic evolutionists.

The pastor of my local church teaches Genesis as literal truth and so does another great pastor that teaches at a church near Bath in the UK. I have no idea whether, as you state, most Christians are Theistic Evolutionists, but it does cause a lot of confusion. Here's just one comment I found on another website as an example (written by an Atheist by the way):-

"I think its [Theistic Evolution] a contradiction in terms. Evolution disproves the Christian god. It doesn't disprove every god you could have other concepts of god that are at least logically consistent with evolution, but evolution and the Christian god are in contradiction. On this at least, the creationists are right.
Nature is cruel. It is not a garden it is a jungle and nature is uncaring and it is brutal. I saw a nature show just recently and an elephant was dying it was badly injured and its lying there unable to defend itself. Obviously this starts to attract the lions, the hyenas etc. The elephant is still alive when they start to eat it. I was really wishing the camera time had a rifle so they could just shoot it and put the poor animal out of its misery. This is what happens in nature all the time. It is red in tooth and claw. Unconscionable suffering across the entire animal kingdom and this has been going on for billions of years. Waves of mass extinction millions of species wiped out all in animals completely incapable of any concept of sin I might add. This is the driving force behind evolution.Now this isn't a problem for me I don't believe in any gods. I believe the universe is completely impersonal. Its amoral it does not love or hate or reward or punish or judge its just the laws of physics. When the lion rips apart a zebra, it just is.
You however believe in a loving God that created the universe and therefore evolution is presumably part of the plan. So this loving God, deliberately chose a mechanism of creation that requires the suffering of countless billions of innocent animals for billions of years. That elephant being eaten alive by a pack of lions, you have to believe your God wanted that. Its part of the plan. Your infinitely loving God not only doesn't care enough to help the elephant even by granting it a mercy killing (which I would have had I been there, which also makes me more loving than your infinitely loving God) he deliberately MADE IT THAT WAY. Even humans, God's chosen creation apparently, are predators. We are an apex predator we ourselves are physiologically geared (designed if you believe in God) to kill prey animals. Our large brains, binocular vision, mixed dentition and relatively short gut are the hallmarks of an animals that is at least partly carnivorous.
So this is the contradiction. Loving God deliberately makes a creation that requires death in order to work. How do you square that circle? I don't think you can. I'd love to hear your response to this because frankly I don't think you can construct a logically consistent rebuttal."

 

[Armoured]

How many of the 200 or so dating methods did you cover and if not all, what selection process was used to determine which dating methods would be covered?

Let's see, maybe 5 of the main radiometrics, dendrochronology and genetic drift.

 

[Armoured]

The pastor of my local church teaches Genesis as literal truth and so does another great pastor that teaches at a church near Bath in the UK. I have no idea whether, as you state, most Christians are Theistic Evolutionists, but it does cause a lot of confusion. Here's just one comment I found on another website as an example (written by an Atheist by the way):-

"I think its [Theistic Evolution] a contradiction in terms. Evolution disproves the Christian god. It doesn't disprove every god you could have other concepts of god that are at least logically consistent with evolution, but evolution and the Christian god are in contradiction. On this at least, the creationists are right.
Nature is cruel. It is not a garden it is a jungle and nature is uncaring and it is brutal. I saw a nature show just recently and an elephant was dying it was badly injured and its lying there unable to defend itself. Obviously this starts to attract the lions, the hyenas etc. The elephant is still alive when they start to eat it. I was really wishing the camera time had a rifle so they could just shoot it and put the poor animal out of its misery. This is what happens in nature all the time. It is red in tooth and claw. Unconscionable suffering across the entire animal kingdom and this has been going on for billions of years. Waves of mass extinction millions of species wiped out all in animals completely incapable of any concept of sin I might add. This is the driving force behind evolution.Now this isn't a problem for me I don't believe in any gods. I believe the universe is completely impersonal. Its amoral it does not love or hate or reward or punish or judge its just the laws of physics. When the lion rips apart a zebra, it just is.
You however believe in a loving God that created the universe and therefore evolution is presumably part of the plan. So this loving God, deliberately chose a mechanism of creation that requires the suffering of countless billions of innocent animals for billions of years. That elephant being eaten alive by a pack of lions, you have to believe your God wanted that. Its part of the plan. Your infinitely loving God not only doesn't care enough to help the elephant even by granting it a mercy killing (which I would have had I been there, which also makes me more loving than your infinitely loving God) he deliberately MADE IT THAT WAY. Even humans, God's chosen creation apparently, are predators. We are an apex predator we ourselves are physiologically geared (designed if you believe in God) to kill prey animals. Our large brains, binocular vision, mixed dentition and relatively short gut are the hallmarks of an animals that is at least partly carnivorous.
So this is the contradiction. Loving God deliberately makes a creation that requires death in order to work. How do you square that circle? I don't think you can. I'd love to hear your response to this because frankly I don't think you can construct a logically consistent rebuttal."

So?

 

[lasthero]

The pastor of my local church teaches Genesis as literal truth and so does another great pastor that teaches at a church near Bath in the UK. I have no idea whether, as you state, most Christians are Theistic Evolutionists, but it does cause a lot of confusion. Here's just one comment I found on another website as an example (written by an Atheist by the way):-

That is what the data would seem to indicate.

 

[USincognito]

"Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (slow) Creationists,

Any claim that begins with an appeal to conspiracy theory is immediately suspect.

there are numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a young age for the earth, solar system, and universe.

Actually zero of these supposed clocks tells us anything about the age of the earth, solar system or universe. They, at best, tell us the age of the subject in question but they don't inform us about the age of the earth.

But because the scientific establishment and the media are biased against a Creator, and because evolution requires an old earth to appear plausible, the public at large is rarely told about the mounting evidence that contradicts the belief in an old earth and the many holes in evolution.

Actually most people do not know about these supposed clocks because none of them inform us about the age of the earth and many of the claims made by Creationists are specious at best. Also, the continued appeal to conspiracy theory doesn't help the author.

In the pages that follow we discuss 22 clocks,

1. Moon recession. Addressed. Evidence from ancient coral reefs show that tidal interaction between earth and moon was different in the past.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/q-a-is-the-moon-s-recession-evidence-for-a-young-earth

2. Oil pressure. Oil, once formed, can be trapped and there will be no loss of pressure. Oil also can slowly move around increasing and decreasing in pressure as it migrates.

3. Shrinking sun. The sun isn't shrinking.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=21

4. Oldest living thing. Tree rings match up from fossil trees back at least 15,000 years. Also this clonal tree is 80,000 years old.
- Note this one is an example of what I'm talking about. The oldest living thing doesn't say anything about the age of the earth. It only tells us the age of the oldest living thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

5. Atmospheric helium - "If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make: i.e. no initial helium in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium." That's a bad assumption since helium can escape the atmosphere into space.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0032063392901236

6. Short period comets. Kuiper belt objects have been observed. Orbital trajectories of short period comets suggest they originated in the area where we supect the Oort cloud resides.

That's enough for now.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

That is what the data would seem to indicate.

So it's only really Catholic/Orthodox Christians that have any significant majority of believers in evolution and even then, it's relatively marginal. That's encouraging.

 

[crjmurray]

So it's only really Catholic/Orthodox Christians that have any significant majority of believers in evolution and even then, it's relatively marginal. That's encouraging.

Oh are you a Jehovah's witness?

 

[Armoured]

So it's only really Catholic/Orthodox Christians that have any significant majority of believers in evolution and even then, it's relatively marginal. That's encouraging.

"Only"? We do make up the bulk of all Christianity in the world, you know.

 

[lasthero]

So it's only really Catholic/Orthodox Christians that have any significant majority of believers in evolution and even then, it's relatively marginal. That's encouraging.

A) As US pointed out, Catholics are no small percentage of Christians.

B) This poll was taken in the US, where creationism is stronger than just about anywhere in the civilized world. Those numbers would be quite a bit higher in favor of evolution in countries like Canada, or in Europe.

 

[The Cadet]

Any claim that begins with an appeal to conspiracy theory is immediately suspect.



Actually zero of these supposed clocks tells us anything about the age of the earth, solar system or universe. They, at best, tell us the age of the subject in question but they don't inform us about the age of the earth.



Actually most people do not know about these supposed clocks because none of them inform us about the age of the earth and many of the claims made by Creationists are specious at best. Also, the continued appeal to conspiracy theory doesn't help the author.



1. Moon recession. Addressed. Evidence from ancient coral reefs show that tidal interaction between earth and moon was different in the past.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/q-a-is-the-moon-s-recession-evidence-for-a-young-earth

2. Oil pressure. Oil, once formed, can be trapped and there will be no loss of pressure. Oil also can slowly move around increasing and decreasing in pressure as it migrates.

3. Shrinking sun. The sun isn't shrinking.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=21

4. Oldest living thing. Tree rings match up from fossil trees back at least 15,000 years. Also this clonal tree is 80,000 years old.
- Note this one is an example of what I'm talking about. The oldest living thing doesn't say anything about the age of the earth. It only tells us the age of the oldest living thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)

5. Atmospheric helium - "If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make: i.e. no initial helium in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium." That's a bad assumption since helium can escape the atmosphere into space.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0032063392901236

6. Short period comets. Kuiper belt objects have been observed. Orbital trajectories of short period comets suggest they originated in the area where we supect the Oort cloud resides.

That's enough for now.

@Not_By_Chance , does this matter to you? Do you care that your source was really, really wrong?

 

[Armoured]

@Not_By_Chance , does this matter to you? Do you care that your source was really, really wrong?

$10 says he, or someone with a low post count but remarkably similar posting style, will be back citing the exact same claims in a couple of months once they hope everyone's forgotten about it.