Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and The Young Earth.

[Hieronymus]

Which may explain why you seem to know so little about these rocks.



Yeah, whatever.

No, not whatever.
it is of great importance to know how much of either Uranium or Lead is in there to begin with, when you want to date something by measuring how much of which is in there.

I bet that's what you meant. Look, if you are out of your depth, just say so! It's no shame! Honest! It is A-OK if you have no real understanding of the topic sufficient to make a coherent statement.

I think it's actually you who should make an effort to understand what i mean, even though i'm not good with the scientific vocabulary.
And this seems to be your objection, and you try to make that mean i don't understand my own points...
Mean while you don't understand my points apparently.
But that doesn't seem to matter to you, you're too busy implying i'm a fool (regarding these subjects).

Regarding what we're trying to discuss at the moment,
Is it really that hard to understand a person may not share your beliefs about the dead unconscious and purposeless forces and laws of nature, being able to bring order out of chaos?
Isn't it a fact that we observe natural decay, and not naturally increasing complexity and functionality?

Isn't it also a fact that the scientific community has wilfully limited itself to naturalistic explanations?
Well, i guess most people don't know this, but it is a fact. It's no secret either.

Isn't it a fact that for natural causes to have some remote chance to pull this off, you need huge amounts of time?
This means that short amounts of time are simply unacceptable and as a consequence any evidence for a short amount of time have to be dismissed.

Radiometric dating in real life is a means to add credibility to the belief that there are huge amounts of time at play.
But the actual lab results are all over the place. Basically some 2½ % of the results is used because it's close enough to what it "has to be".

 

[Hieronymus]

I do wonder whether creationism and a young earth should be consigned to the conspiracy theories forum. Since they demand a conspiracy of millions hiding/distorting the evidence.

The 'scientific establishment' admits it chooses naturalistic explanations, regardless of what the evidence may suggest.

 

[Obliquinaut]

No, not whatever.
it is of great importance to know how much of either Uranium or Lead is in there to begin with

Not really. There's a technique called isochron dating which works around this limitation.

You can read about it here: The Age of the Earth - Isochron Dating as a Current Scientific Clock: Calvin Krogman

, when you want to date something by measuring how much of which is in there.I think it's actually you who should make an effort to understand what i mean, even though i'm not good with the scientific vocabulary.

I'm used to working around folks who don't know the technical details. But on many things you've said your details seem to be incorrect.

And this seems to be your objection, and you try to make that mean i don't understand my own points...

No, my objection is your description of the science is usually just...wrong. Even if you don't use the correct words, your characterization is wrong.

Mean while you don't understand my points apparently.

You have points? Huh. You see, most of what you post is either just misinterpretations of the science or pointing people to other folks' videos.

But that doesn't seem to matter to you, you're too busy implying i'm a fool (regarding these subjects).

I'm a fool in an ENORMOUS number of subjects! That's what it means to be human!

PRIDE, however, drives the fool to critique those things he or she does not understand.

Is it really that hard to understand a person may not share your beliefs about the dead unconscious and purposeless forces and laws of nature, being able to bring order out of chaos?

Beliefs? No! Not at all! But we are talking about the science. The science you so manifestly don't really understand. That isn't a matter of "belief".

It is not a viable "belief" to think entropy has nothing to do with The Second Law of Thermodynamics as you claimed earlier. "Belief" is not viable when discussing how quickly clay minerals settle out of standing water (at least ONE of us has actually experienced this in the lab!)

Isn't it a fact that we observe natural decay, and not naturally increasing complexity and functionality?

You are taking a mushed up view of things rotting and thinking it is somehow an indictment of evolution based on your misapprehension of the Second Law of Thermo.

As I've said MANY times now: when you make ice in the freezer you are going from a high entropy state to a low entropy state.

Isn't it also a fact that the scientific community has wilfully limited itself to naturalistic explanations?

For the reasons I outlined IN DETAIL a couple times in earlier posts.

Isn't it a fact that for natural causes to have some remote chance to pull this off, you need huge amounts of time?
This means that short amounts of time are simply unacceptable and as a consequence any evidence for a short amount of time have to be dismissed.

But you see every single day we see sediment acting in a way to make layers and loose aggregations that look exactly like what we see in the rock record. And we know how slowly it happens. That means if you see a shale that is 100 feet thick you know, by definition, by observation, that it took a LONG time to form that way. And when you see some rock formations you know they might have formed faster!

The key is the DETAILS. The details tell you whether it was a giant mudflow or a well-laminated shale.

But the actual lab results are all over the place. Basically some 2½ % of the results is used because it's close enough to what it "has to be".

For the first couple years of my career as a research chemist I did a LOT of work in various analytical labs. I've been through the wringer on topics like "% error" and data validation. Your mischaracterization of how science is actually done, how analytical chemistry is done, is duly noted. Your further bearing of false witness against scientists whose work you don't even come close to knowing a thing about is also duly noted.

You think they're all just lying? Huh. Thanks. I appreciate that.

As I said, Luke 6:31 basically lets me know that you want me to assume that whatever it is you do for a living is largely lies.

I wish it were different. It is also telling that you don't tell us what it is you do for a living so we will know to avoid that type of lying person.

But don't worry. It's always good to hide behind something while you cast stones. (I would point you to an appropriate verse in the bible but I doubt it would do any good. I mean if you think the 9th Commandment is "optional" then no telling what you believe from your faith!)

 

[Ophiolite]

1) No OFFICIAL separation of Church and State in England. There is non-official sinful shame of being openly theist in public life.

Yes, for some time the British have considered that what one feels in ones heart, or does in the bedroom, is a private matter. It would be impolite to espouse ones rleigious beliefs in public. Stiff upper lip and all that.
It's not a question of "sinful shame", but of good taste and tolerance. Thus, the fact remains that though State and Religion are one (Bishops sit in the House of Lords, voting on legislation) the percentage of believers is lower than in the US.

2) Who has changed the unchangeable Laws of Nature? Lawmaker. Can we call this lawmaker "God"?

I fail to see the relevance of this. I may respond more fully in the appropriate thread, but in summary your opening assertions are nonsense, which makes them of even less relevance.

3) Don't like YEC? Never heard of the 5 minute hypothesis? What the world not 7000 years, but 5 minutes old?

And? That has no bearing that I can see on your incorrect claim that YEC does not violate the laws of physics, or on my point regarding the impact of State versus Religion.

I'm wondering if your technique is simply to throw out unrelated ideas that might, to some, sound erudite in the hope that no ones notices you have avoided addressing objections. If so, that won't work with me. If not, could you try to focus in future, or indicate the relevance of your comments.

 

[Hieronymus]

Not really. There's a technique called isochron dating which works around this limitation.

You can read about it here: The Age of the Earth - Isochron Dating as a Current Scientific Clock: Calvin Krogman

Okay, thank you.
Interesting site by the way.

I'm used to working around folks who don't know the technical details. But on many things you've said your details seem to be incorrect.

Yeah, you're probably right..

No, my objection is your description of the science is usually just...wrong. Even if you don't use the correct words, your characterization is wrong.

My point there is the choice for naturalism as a bit of a mandatory philosophical belief.

You have points? Huh. You see, most of what you post is either just misinterpretations of the science or pointing people to other folks' videos.

Yeah, i'm not too exited with how i attempt to do this either...
Posting videos may provide good arguments, but it's not how a forum discussion should be done.
So i agree with you on that.

I'm a fool in an ENORMOUS number of subjects! That's what it means to be human!

PRIDE, however, drives the fool to critique those things he or she does not understand.

We agree there.

Beliefs? No! Not at all! But we are talking about the science. The science you so manifestly don't really understand. That isn't a matter of "belief".

With respect, it is definitely a naturalistic belief that the dead unconscious purposeless laws and forces of nature are responsible for bringing forth our common reality.
This is however the idea that mainstream science has dedicated itself to.
Many respected scientists have admitted this too.

The problem in approaching this question with natural science within a naturalistic paradigm is that there can only be a naturalistic answer or no answer at all.
I don't think the amount of time is all too relevant actually.
But, without a huge amount of time, a naturalistic scenario is definitely impossible.

It is not a viable "belief" to think entropy has nothing to do with The Second Law of Thermodynamics as you claimed earlier.

I don't think that's what i claimed.

"Belief" is not viable when discussing how quickly clay minerals settle out of standing water (at least ONE of us has actually experienced this in the lab!)

We all know standing water with clay particles takes days or weeks to end up with the particles at the bottom.
But i'm wondering about streams of water or rather mud with all kinds of materials in it, depositing strata horizontally, simultaneously.
That's why i was curious about what you make of those 2 videos about 'horizontal stratification'.
Clay particles would still be a challenge though, i guess...

You are taking a mushed up view of things rotting and thinking it is somehow an indictment of evolution based on your misapprehension of the Second Law of Thermo.

No, i think i just shouldn't have used those terms.
My point was actually about 'order out of chaos' versus the natural 'chaos out of order'.

For the reasons I outlined IN DETAIL a couple times in earlier posts.

Well, i can appreciate that within the natural sciences, you can only work within the natural(istic) paradigm.
This is the obvious reality i.m.o. in the natural sciences.
What we're discussing here is about the origins of our common reality, such as the universe and living nature.
Since "science" means 'knowledge' the scope should be to find the truth of the matter, in this case about the origins of our common reality.
The answer may be beyond natural science, but that merely means that natural science is limited to the natural.
And that's fine.
There's enough to discover and invent within the space time paradigm, even when the origins of things are unknown.
And so indeed, 'thanks to science' i can communicate with people all over the world and enjoy the benefits of technological advancements.
Unfortunately humans can also use scientific knowledge for bad things, but that's not the fault of science, but of human nature.

For the first couple years of my career as a research chemist I did a LOT of work in various analytical labs. I've been through the wringer on topics like "% error" and data validation. Your mischaracterization of how science is actually done, how analytical chemistry is done, is duly noted. Your further bearing of false witness against scientists whose work you don't even come close to knowing a thing about is also duly noted.

I understand how you feel, honestly.
But what am i to do, when it is reported that people bring bits of 1 sample to various radiometric dating labs, and the results are all over the place?
And not only does it vary enormously between labs, but also between attempts of the same lab?

You think they're all just lying? Huh. Thanks. I appreciate that.

I don't know what exactly is going on, but my conclusion, based on reports from others, is that there is disingenuity at play.
I can't exactly put my finger on the cause of that sad reality, but it seems to be so.
And meanwhile, your career could be danger when you don't comply with the consensus.
Again, what am i supposed to make of respected scientists who admit they're dedicated to naturalism (naturalism = the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted), who "can't allow a divine foot in the door"?
What am i supposed to do with the fake evidence for evolution that has been shoved down our throats for decades, and even after they were exposed to be fake or disingenuous?
But i guess my lack of trust in science is about 'popular science', not 'real' science, but i'm not sure where the one ends and the other begins.
For example:
How lucky were the astronauts that supposedly went to the moon, that the van Allen belt wasn't yet discovered.
Otherwise they probably wouldn't have survived it...
I don't know, man...

Hey, but thank you for pointing out my flaws, Obliquinaut.
It's helpful.
I should take a step back and try to study more, although my head is quite full of stuff already, and ageing doesn't help either.

 

[Obliquinaut]

My point there is the choice for naturalism as a bit of a mandatory philosophical belief.

I understand your point that science is "limited" because it doesn't allow for "miracles" as an explanation. And I also note how you've consistently ignored the reason I gave for that "limit". It is as if my point was completely ignored.

With respect, it is definitely a naturalistic belief that the dead unconscious purposeless laws and forces of nature are responsible for bringing forth our common reality.

Perhaps but that says nothing about the validity of attempting to twist actual natural laws to explain how the earth could appear by all data to be old while not really being old.

I don't think the amount of time is all too relevant actually.

Then it's good you don't do geology for a living. Or biology either. That's all fine and dandy if you don't think something important is important. You are free to feel that way.

But you will get push-back when you attempt to tell people for whom it is an important topic how they are mistaken and you do that using your personal lack of understanding of the science.

I don't think that's what i claimed.

That looked to be exactly what you claimed:

This is probably not the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it is the law of entropy,...

But i'm wondering about streams of water or rather mud with all kinds of materials in it, depositing strata horizontally, simultaneously.

You seem to be of the impression that geologists look at rocks the same way you do: as just a big old confusing mess of gunk that fell out of a stream. That's not how it works.

Indeed muds collect in streams (usually if the stream is moving fast enough the clay minerals cannot settle out...remember that I keep mentioning the "Hjulstrom diagram"? Yeah, it's related to that). But we are also talking about extensive marine shale deposits.

I wish YEC's would believe that geology actually is its own discipline that has a LOT of information in it. I spent 11 years in university studying this stuff. Why do YEC's seem to think that all you have to do is look at a rock and "imagine" gunk dumping out in a stream to think they have as much insight into how the rocks form? I've never understood that about YEC's and their disdain for geology.

The answer may be beyond natural science, but that merely means that natural science is limited to the natural.

If it is beyond natural science, how do you know that religious thought gets you any closer to the answer? Religions usually simply make claims. They often demand you NOT request any evidence (such is the nature of faith).

Why is that so much more likely to get you to truth?

But what am i to do, when it is reported that people bring bits of 1 sample to various radiometric dating labs, and the results are all over the place?

What, specific, case are you referring to? You see, as I said, there's always variability in the data regardless of which piece of equipment you use or which analysis you run. That is reality.

If the error bars are TOO broad there is something wrong.

I am unaware of any measurements of radioactive decay related to the age of the earth that simultaneously encompass 6,000 years and 4,500,000,000 years.

And not only does it vary enormously between labs, but also between attempts of the same lab?I don't know what exactly is going on, but my conclusion, based on reports from others, is that there is disingenuity at play.

You will have to give me a citation for what you are talking about here. And please, please don't rely on a Creationist website. As as been noted before often we see Creationists make some pretty awful errors in data handling (like Steve Austin and the dating of the Mt. St. Helens dacite. He violated so many rules of sample handling and measurement that he may as well have vomited on paper and called it a "report".)

And meanwhile, your career could be danger when you don't comply with the consensus.

I hear that a lot from people who don't work in the sciences. Of course it isn't really true. But you've been lied to so much by various religious organizations and right-wing political organizations that you can be forgiven for thinking it is the case.

I wish you could experience science as a scientist does. It would definitely change your mind on some of the stuff people have been feeding you for their own purposes.

Again, what am i supposed to make of respected scientists who admit they're dedicated to naturalism (naturalism = the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted), who "can't allow a divine foot in the door"?

Well, considering that I've known a LOT of Christians who are also scientists and do perfectly good work in the lab every single day without once relying on "miracles" to explain their findings I would have to say it is a problem you are dealing with on your own.

How lucky were the astronauts that supposedly went to the moon, that the van Allen belt wasn't yet discovered.
Otherwise they probably wouldn't have survived it...
I don't know, man...

Yeah, sorry to break it to you but the Van Allen Radiation Belts were known BEFORE the Apollo Missions. (Again, please verify the information you get). This knowledge allowed the scientists to calculate a path through parts of the VARB's and with sufficiently short time to make it survivable.

Apollo and the Van Allen Belts

Hey, but thank you for pointing out my flaws, Obliquinaut.
It's helpful.

I'll admit I'm getting a bit aggressive. But your points all seem to revolve around how science gets this and that wrong etc. You HAVE to remember that some of us do science for a LIVING. It is really hard to be told by people who have never even darkened a science classroom door how we are being bamboozled or lied to or are liars ourselves.

I should take a step back and try to study more, although my head is quite full of stuff already, and ageing doesn't help either.

Studying is NEVER bad. But you don't have to become an expert on all things. But I would hope that you might take pause before attempting to critique a field you are not fluent in. It's A-OK to be an interested observer, a layperson in the sciences. Just don't assume that if you rely on biased information in the form of youtube videos that you will have any currency with actual scientists.

Critique science all you want but be prepared for the blow-back when you go playing in a league you may not be prepared for.

 

[Hieronymus]

I understand your point that science is "limited" because it doesn't allow for "miracles" as an explanation. And I also note how you've consistently ignored the reason I gave for that "limit". It is as if my point was completely ignored.

I don't think i ignored that, i addressed it just then:

Well, i can appreciate that within the natural sciences, you can only work within the natural(istic) paradigm.
This is the obvious reality i.m.o. in the natural sciences.

Wasn't that your / the obvious point too?
The supernatural itself can not be approached within a natural paradigm.

Perhaps but that says nothing about the validity of attempting to twist actual natural laws to explain how the earth could appear by all data to be old while not really being old.

I don't know.
You mentioned earlier a lot of energy would have to have been released when radioactive decay would have been sped up for a while.
The idea of some creationists is that this would have occurred during the flood.
For the rest, who is to say that God would have to have made things look old, when that's just the interpretation of scientists?
But i don't know.

That looked to be exactly what you claimed:

I was just wrestling with terms.

You seem to be of the impression that geologists look at rocks the same way you do: as just a big old confusing mess of gunk that fell out of a stream. That's not how it works.

I still wonder what you make of horizontal stratification, as shown in those 1st 2 of the 3 videos.
Maybe i misunderstood this too, but i think the consensus is that it all happened by vertical deposition.
I (think i) have reason to believe it happens horizontally, rapidly.

I wish YEC's would believe that geology actually is its own discipline that has a LOT of information in it. I spent 11 years in university studying this stuff. Why do YEC's seem to think that all you have to do is look at a rock and "imagine" gunk dumping out in a stream to think they have as much insight into how the rocks form? I've never understood that about YEC's and their disdain for geology.

The disdain is for naturalism and the model (consisting of sub-models) that is derived from that.
There's just too much that remains unexplained in / by those models.
But it seems there is no middle ground either...

If it is beyond natural science, how do you know that religious thought gets you any closer to the answer?

It's not religious thoughts that gets you answers.
But we have this thing called "the Bible" which turns out to be recorded history, because there's enough evidence to support the Biblical history after the flood.

Religions usually simply make claims.

That wouldn't have convinced me.
Claims have to be substantiated, or it would be unreasonable and nothing more than just claims.
I explained earlier that "i have become a bit of a YEC myself", because YEC apologetics came to my attention AFTER the evidence lead me to the truth of the Bible regarding the events after the flood, especially "the case for Christ" and the New Testament.
Before YEC i had to let go of the ToE too, after the (rather terminal) problems with that idea came to my attention while looking for more insight into the Bible and the Faith.

They often demand you NOT request any evidence (such is the nature of faith).

Maybe that's how it works for others, but not for me.
I have fooled myself before, and it seems i still do sometimes...
A feeling of knowing truth doesn't mean it is actual truth.
I don't know who you mean when you say "They often demand you NOT request any evidence", who is "they"?
I have no "they" in this.
I'm a lonely convert, once a new ager, a bit of a spiritualist with some affinity for the occult, but an evolutionist too.
(In fact, evolution is an important part of new age thinking).

Anyway, all seems to add up, although there's a lot of controversy around most things.
(So many people just don't want it to be true, and often for really bad reasons..)
But this makes me feel it is justified to believe in YEC too, because the Bible is a package deal.
I have come to believe the Bible is a history book from page 1 to the page 1200 (depends on the layout of course).
But it seems i haven't been critical enough in my approach of YEC-ism.

Why is that so much more likely to get you to truth?

I think you underestimate the mountain of knowledge that is relevant to the Christian Faith.
But you have to be careful with who / what you believe.
There's a lot of bovine excrement going around.
I've been wrong on many things because of that.
But eventually i found my way through the muck, or i will where i'm still in the muck.
This slightly humiliating discussion (because i lose...) helps too.




What, specific, case are you referring to? [/quote]This is reported by "fossil man" Don Patton and others too.
I have no links or anything in text form, sorry.

But this is also a weakness of mine.
I don't like reading large texts, especially off a screen.
So i prefer lectures and documentaries on video, even podcasts (audio only).
But it's hard to take notes from audio and video, so i usually refer to videos when i can't reproduce it in writing (or speech)

You see, as I said, there's always variability in the data regardless of which piece of equipment you use or which analysis you run. That is reality.

But what if the variation is between 1 million and 25 million years?

If the error bars are TOO broad there is something wrong.

As was explained to me by a number of creationists, you have to give an estimate of the age of the sample you want to be tested, or they won't do it.
There is usually refusal to test for C14 when the sample is from a layer that is 'traditionally' dated as very old (millions of years).
They find C14 anyway, even in diamonds.
They find soft tissue, vains and red blood cells in dinosaur bones.
Not just once, but regularly.

You will have to give me a citation for what you are talking about here. And please, please don't rely on a Creationist website. As as been noted before often we see Creationists make some pretty awful errors in data handling (like Steve Austin and the dating of the Mt. St. Helens dacite. He violated so many rules of sample handling and measurement that he may as well have vomited on paper and called it a "report".)

I don't share your opinion on Austin's work, but i understand the objections you have (i think).

I hear that a lot from people who don't work in the sciences. Of course it isn't really true. But you've been lied to so much by various religious organizations and right-wing political organizations that you can be forgiven for thinking it is the case.

Ha, not only by them, i assure you.
I'm not right wing or politically polarized.
Politics is just a puppet show anyway.
I do have a tendency to give minority views the benefit of the doubt though.

I wish you could experience science as a scientist does. It would definitely change your mind on some of the stuff people have been feeding you for their own purposes.

Maybe.

Well, considering that I've known a LOT of Christians who are also scientists and do perfectly good work in the lab every single day without once relying on "miracles" to explain their findings I would have to say it is a problem you are dealing with on your own.

Good luck explaining the universe and living nature without miracles.
Decades and billions of $ later they've still got nothing.
Meanwhile science discovers more complexity and unlikekely things they can't explain.
Sure there is evidence they can use to make a case, but it leaves many basic questions unanswered.
Obviously work in a lab has little to do with the creation of our reality in the past, so no, they don; t have to rely on miracles, and if they did it wouldn't be scientific.

Yeah, sorry to break it to you but the Van Allen Radiation Belts were known BEFORE the Apollo Missions. (Again, please verify the information you get). This knowledge allowed the scientists to calculate a path through parts of the VARB's and with sufficiently short time to make it survivable.

Apollo and the Van Allen Belts

Okay, thanks.
I wasn't sure about this, but i suspected they could maybe have avoided it.
Yeah, i only quite recently (because i was bored i guess) looked into the moon missions, and what the conspiracy theories were all about.
They lied, but I guess i fell for it...
Must say though, there's quite a bunch of things that seem a bit strange about those missions, and there are also more recent things from Nasa that seem to be hmm... not right..
But i don't know.

It's apparently harder than i thought, to decide where to draw the line when there are signs of foul play.

I'll admit I'm getting a bit aggressive.

I can't say i don't understand that.

But your points all seem to revolve around how science gets this and that wrong etc. You HAVE to remember that some of us do science for a LIVING. It is really hard to be told by people who have never even darkened a science classroom door how we are being bamboozled or lied to or are liars ourselves.

Actually, i'm a trained physics assistant in a school, you know, the guy that does the demonstrations and does the practical lessons (like with meters and stuff).
But that's all stuff you can demonstrate.
Unfortunately i totally burned out there....
Not because of the students, i loved them.
I made many many extra hours as the 'sound guy' for school music events and things like that, got a bit in the way of my actual job, and i got a heap of 'doo' over me from my superiors, who incidentally didn't even understand my job anyway...
This was my last job, i've been unemployed for some 8 years now..
I still can't bare any stress anymore...

Well, this was a long post...

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the idea of a young earth creation and of the proponents of that view.

I'd like to make a point about Ray Comfort's video:

Although the banana is a hybrid and not directly created by God in Genesis 1, God gifted us those scientists who gave us that hybrid for human consumption in the first place.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I'd like to make a point about Ray Comfort's video:

Although the banana is a hybrid and not directly created by God in Genesis 1, God gifted us those scientists who gave us that hybrid for human consumption in the first place.

Glad you are willing to note Ray's error and give credit where credit is due.

But there is a small problem (I would think you would know this and use it to attack the scientists, but since it's largely a business issue it's not correct to attack the scientists), the modern banana is The "Cavendish" banana (the name for the variety that Ray thinks God made for him) was developed after Panama Disease took out the Gros Michel cultivar. The Gros Michel apparently was, itself, monocultural because industry LOVES predictability. Unfortunately monocultural life tends to be succeptible to being killed off by one thing. Panama Disease took most of them out. Scientists had apparently warned banana companies that this might happen. But industry being what it is still wanted the predictability of the banana crop.

Ecological diversity was the key that the scientists knew about but money trumped it.

Now it seems like we are facing the same problem with the Cavendish. Seems no matter how much science tells us what we should do money and business always seem to get their way.

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/humans-made-banana-perfect-soon-itll-gone/

 

[HitchSlap]

Young earth creationists use the same methods of determining the age of the universe that secular scientists use. However, Christian scientists put God's word first and foremost in determining that age, where secular scientists will put material desires first and foremost.

Christians who are not YECs generally use a method often called "Bible Plus" in interpreting the book of Genesis, which basically means they like to add things into the Bible that aren't really there and read Genesis in a more metaphorical manner. YECs read the book of Genesis in a literal manner and take God's word at face value.

Creationists do not conduct science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists do not conduct science.

Really?

Who pioneered the biolistic process?

 

[Speedwell]

Really?

Who pioneered the biolistic process?

An IDist.

 

[AV1611VET]

An IDist.

ouch

 

[Obliquinaut]

Really?

Who pioneered the biolistic process?

And how did he use Creationism in his development of the "gene gun"?

 

[Strathos]

Maybe the Antichrist will take over this site after the Rapture and you'll get your way?

Believe me, the occurrence of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture would make me much more inclined to take many of your views more seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Believe me, the occurrence of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture would make me much more inclined to take many of your views more seriously.

Why? are you planning to stay behind!?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Why? are you planning to stay behind!?

Speaking as an atheist, I rather assume I'm going to be left behind, so I'm going to volunteer at "After the Rapture Pet Care" and we'll take care of all your pets.

Don't worry, once the Rapture happens all us atheists will know the TRUTH, so we'll make sure NOT to raise your pets in atheistic homes (there will be no more atheists at that point). The one benefit of having atheists (and of course "former atheists") taking care of your pet is that we, being so tied in to evolutionism and Darwin worship will treat your pets like our PEERS (we being all animals and such). So it's kind of win-win for you!

http://aftertherapturepetcare.com/

 

[Ophiolite]

Believe me, the occurrence of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture would make me much more inclined to take many of your views more seriously.

I would suspect a specimen collection program conducted by aliens, with full knowledge of our cultural tropes.

 

[Ophiolite]

The 'scientific establishment' admits it chooses naturalistic explanations, regardless of what the evidence may suggest.

It doesn't choose them. It seeks them.

It seeks them where the evidence suggests they may be found.

If it doesn't find them, it keeps looking, possibly widening the search and certainly looking for new observations/evidence.

If it does find them, it seeks to refine them and periodically revisits them to be sure they are plausible and well supported by the evidence.

These are things you would know with confidence if you would commit some more time to the study of science.

 

[Strathos]

Why? are you planning to stay behind!?

Depends on who gets taken really, doesn't it? We'll both be in for a surprise if it's the Catholics who disappear.