Does it bother creationists when...

[46AND2]

Does it bother YEC when they are shown, and have to admit, that a certain claim by YEC apologists is flat out wrong, and yet rarely, if ever, corrected in YEC literature?

For example...anyathesword had made the claim that since the half-life of C14 is only 5700+ years, all of it should be gone if the earth is billions of years old.

I then explained to her that new C14 is constantly produced in the atmosphere through the interaction of the sun's cosmic rays and N14.

To which, she acknowledged that she did not know that, and would refrain from using the argument in the future.

Do these incidents create skepticism in creationists' minds? Do you wonder what other scientific claims in YEC literature might be wrong?

Anya, did you feel compelled to write the author of the website where you got your info to explain why it was a bad claim, in the spirit of academic honesty? If not, why?

The reason I ask is...when I was a YEC, this was absolutely a problem for me. I would have preferred the apologists admit they didn't have an explanation, rather than give an obviously false one.

And before you accuse me or other evolution supporters of doing the same thing, consider this:

Psychosarah made the claim that a flood which covered Mt. Everest would result in Noah and sons not being able to breathe in the thin atmosphere. However, the atmospheric pressure is dependent on sea level, so this was a bad claim. And I pointed it out to her.

I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on a bad argument, as long as the counterargument is solid.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thanks for reminding me of that humiliation. I did say I was wrong and I won't use that argument again, I might add. I feel dumb just thinking about it, ugh.

 

[46AND2]

Thanks for reminding me of that humiliation. I did say I was wrong and I won't use that argument again, I might add. I feel dumb just thinking about it, ugh.

Don't fret it. We all make mistakes, and it's no big deal if we learn from it.

I made the same exact mistake as you a couple years ago, and was corrected on it, as well.

 

[Aman777]

Psychosarah made the claim that a flood which covered Mt. Everest would result in Noah and sons not being able to breathe in the thin atmosphere. However, the atmospheric pressure is dependent on sea level, so this was a bad claim. And I pointed it out to her.

I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on a bad argument, as long as the counterargument is solid.

Dear 46AND2, Water has Never covered Mt Everest since it would still be here. The only place for it to go is into Space and that would mean that it escaped the gravity of our Planet, like the Astronauts do with the awesome power of today's Rockets.

Scripture does NOT say that our Earth was destroyed in the Flood but it does say that the first world was totally destroyed, in many, many, verses from both the Old and New Testaments. The misunderstanding comes from the False Theology of ancient men who had NO idea of what the Supreme Intelligence of Creation was telling us.

There are many ways in which Adam's world could have been "clean dissolved" Isaiah 24:19 in the Flood and NOT affect our Universe in any way, which is exactly what happened. So don't listen to the ramblings of ancient men's flawed ideas and read Genesis 7 and 8 since the answer is detailed there. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[PsychoSarah]

It names a specific mountain of specific height though, so while the floodwaters may not have been Mt Everest high, they were still pretty high.

Clean dissolved? I know that mountains and other rock formations will eventually dissolved if underwater long enough, but it would take far longer than the 400 days described in scripture.

Unless water was the strongest acid ever in those days.

 

[bhsmte]

Does it bother YEC when they are shown, and have to admit, that a certain claim by YEC apologists is flat out wrong, and yet rarely, if ever, corrected in YEC literature?

For example...anyathesword had made the claim that since the half-life of C14 is only 5700+ years, all of it should be gone if the earth is billions of years old.

I then explained to her that new C14 is constantly produced in the atmosphere through the interaction of the sun's cosmic rays and N14.

To which, she acknowledged that she did not know that, and would refrain from using the argument in the future.

And, with many, they have to give false information, because this gives them temporary relief and helps them to psychologically convince themselves their belief is correct.

Do these incidents create skepticism in creationists' minds? Do you wonder what other scientific claims in YEC literature might be wrong?

Anya, did you feel compelled to write the author of the website where you got your info to explain why it was a bad claim, in the spirit of academic honesty? If not, why?

The reason I ask is...when I was a YEC, this was absolutely a problem for me. I would have preferred the apologists admit they didn't have an explanation, rather than give an obviously false one.

And before you accuse me or other evolution supporters of doing the same thing, consider this:

Psychosarah made the claim that a flood which covered Mt. Everest would result in Noah and sons not being able to breathe in the thin atmosphere. However, the atmospheric pressure is dependent on sea level, so this was a bad claim. And I pointed it out to her.

I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on a bad argument, as long as the counterargument is solid.

Of course it bothers them, internally and causes quite a bit of internal turmoil, which is called; cognitive dissonance.

A sure sign of this, is when they react by attacking the evidence, calling it evil, calling it all lies and then contradicting themselves so often in the flurry they are going through to ease the cognitive dissonance in their mind.

It bothers them a bunch, but they will never admit the same, but they will show it in their responses.

 

[46AND2]

Dear 46AND2, Water has Never covered Mt Everest since it would still be here. The only place for it to go is into Space and that would mean that it escaped the gravity of our Planet, like the Astronauts do with the awesome power of today's Rockets.

Scripture does NOT say that our Earth was destroyed in the Flood but it does say that the first world was totally destroyed, in many, many, verses from both the Old and New Testaments. The misunderstanding comes from the False Theology of ancient men who had NO idea of what the Supreme Intelligence of Creation was telling us.

There are many ways in which Adam's world could have been "clean dissolved" Isaiah 24:19 in the Flood and NOT affect our Universe in any way, which is exactly what happened. So don't listen to the ramblings of ancient men's flawed ideas and read Genesis 7 and 8 since the answer is detailed there. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Thank you for the absolutely irrelevant post.

I made no argument about the height of the flood waters.

 

[Strathos]

Well I know some people don't care about the accuracy of the criticisms as long as people are attacking evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

Does it bother YEC when they are shown, and have to admit, that a certain claim by YEC apologists is flat out wrong, and yet rarely, if ever, corrected in YEC literature?

It depends on the spirit with which they are confronted.
Hostility and anger is a sign that the aggressor is
experiencing turmoil in their lives and is lashing out at
those around them before they experience a change, such
as Saul to Paul.

This aggressive hostility in considered a normal part of the
conversion process, so it masks any and all errors a YEC
may make by distracting the person attacked.

Thoughtful research into any facts on the matter are rarely
accomplished by "rubbing their face in the do-do".
Although over time I've dropped all my YEC topics
after such research. Sadly YEC's don't encourage anything
other than boilerplate responses to each issue.

The leadership is exactly like the leadership in many poorly
led churches and they don't encourage independent thought.
Like all "bad" groups they expect everyone to follow the leader.
There are "good" groups in all faiths that do encourage
independent research and study.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well I know some people don't care about the accuracy of the criticisms as long as people are attacking evolution.

"Origins" is a part of every faith. Evolution promoters will avoid
any backlash when they stop telling stories about the origins of
man, and just focus on information that has some value.

 

[Strathos]

"Origins" is a part of every faith. Evolution promoters will avoid
any backlash when they stop telling stories about the origins of
man, and just focus on information that has some value.

You mean when they stop simply reporting what they have discovered by examining God's creation?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You mean when they stop simply reporting what they have discovered by examining God's creation?

Technically, evolution doesn't equate to atheism. In fact, there are more Christian evolutionists than atheist evolutionists (by number, not percentage within those groups)

 

[SkyWriting]

You mean when they stop simply reporting what they have discovered by examining God's creation?

I did qualify my statement with the term "Value". Entertainment value is excluded.
Many evolution statements are included in technical reports and research for entertainment
value. The "tell" is the word "evolution" in a research document. It goes like this: Fact, fact
fact, fact, fact.........entertainment line - "this evolved into that"

"Evolution" is a process of change. Facts don't change. So the facts don't show evolution.
Evolution must be assumed in between the facts. Unless of course one can reproduce the
events. Then one can OBSERVE the process of change. Scientific evolution is only that
which can be observed. The rest is fiction.

There is no discovering of the past. Stories about the past are guesses and tales of fiction.
If I can't reproduce the event myself, then I can't test the authors fiction about what happened.
If I can't test a theory, it's not scientifically verifiable. If it's not verifiable, it's not science.

The reason I know fact from fiction is I read the entire science fiction category in JR.high, then
in high school. If an authors story cannot be tested, it belongs here:

Isaac Asimov
Arthur C. Clarke
Frank Herbert
Ray Bradbury
William Gibson
Robert Heinlein
Dan Simmons

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this thread about YECs in particular?

I came here to post, but your OP doesn't match your title.

 

[Aman777]

Thank you for the absolutely irrelevant post.

I made no argument about the height of the flood waters.

Dear 46AND2, That is probably because you don't know the depth of the Flood waters. According to Scripture, the Flood covered the FIRST Earth with just 22 1/2 feet of water. Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Fifteen cubits or 22 1/2 feet was all that was necessary to "clean dissolve" Isaiah 24:19 Adam's Earth. Does that sound like the present Earth? Of course not. I live on a small Ridge which is higher than that. IOW, Adam's Earth was NOT the same as today's Earth. Was it? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[46AND2]

Is this thread about YECs in particular?

I came here to post, but your OP doesn't match your title.

Mostly YEC, but basically any theist who uses apologists' claims to try and refute science, be it deep time or evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mostly YEC, but basically any theist who uses apologists' claims to try and refute science, be it deep time or evolution.

I think the key phrase in your OP that is ... well ... misleading is: "shown wrong."

I've been "shown wrong" when I mentioned the Virgin Birth.

I've been "shown wrong" when I mentioned Matthew writing Matthew.

Had I ... in grade school ... said Pluto wasn't our 9th planet, I would have been "shown wrong."

If I had been asked on a science test how many elements there are, and said 120, I would have "missed it."

"Shown wrong" is often a term from the writer's perspective.

 

[46AND2]

I think the key phrase in your OP that is ... well ... misleading is: "shown wrong."

I've been "shown wrong" when I mentioned the Virgin Birth.

I've been "shown wrong" when I mentioned Matthew writing Matthew.

Had I ... in grade school ... said Pluto wasn't our 9th planet, I would have been "shown wrong."

If I had been asked on a science test how many elements there are, and said 120, I would have "missed it."

"Shown wrong" is often a term from the writer's perspective.

And yet, the examples I gave were the present day observed correction to a factually incorrect argument.

And I also added a qualifier to "shown wrong," in that I also stated that the person who was corrected was also forced to admit they were wrong:

Does it bother YEC when they are shown, and have to admit, that a certain claim by YEC apologists is flat out wrong, and yet rarely, if ever, corrected in YEC literature?

 

[Aman777]

And yet, the examples I gave were the present day observed correction to a factually incorrect argument.

And I also added a qualifier to "shown wrong," in that I also stated that the person who was corrected was also forced to admit they were wrong:

Does it bother YEC when they are shown, and have to admit, that a certain claim by YEC apologists is flat out wrong, and yet rarely, if ever, corrected in YEC literature?

Dear Readers, Does it bother Evols when they are shown that their claims are flat out wrong, and yet NEVER are they corrected as they constantly Claim to do when "shown wrong"? A good example is the False teaching that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes.

Evols continue to teach this unsupported Falsehood to innocent children in the Public Schools in spite of the Fact that they CANNOT refute God's Truth which tells us that Humans were made long BEFORE the first Stars of our Cosmos. Genesis 2:4-7

Evol apologists find it easier to force their UnTrue views upon little children than to answer the rejection of Jesus for their false teaching. Can we believe anything they say? NO. Soon, Jesus will correct their unsupported ideas and then we should pity the poor Evols who will receive their just reward for offending these little ones. Jesus tells us:

Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in Me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Woe comes upon those who ignore the words of Jesus. May God have mercy on these poor, lost, Evol worshippers.

In Love,
Aman

 

[46AND2]

Dear Readers, Does it bother Evols when they are shown that their claims are flat out wrong, and yet NEVER are they corrected as they constantly Claim to do when "shown wrong"? A good example is the False teaching that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes.

Evols continue to teach this unsupported Falsehood to innocent children in the Public Schools in spite of the Fact that they CANNOT refute God's Truth which tells us that Humans were made long BEFORE the first Stars of our Cosmos. Genesis 2:4-7

Evol apologists find it easier to force their UnTrue views upon little children than to answer the rejection of Jesus for their false teaching. Can we believe anything they say? NO. Soon, Jesus will correct their unsupported ideas and then we should pity the poor Evols who will receive their just reward for offending these little ones. Jesus tells us:

Mark 9:42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in Me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Woe comes upon those who ignore the words of Jesus. May God have mercy on these poor, lost, Evol worshippers.

In Love,
Aman

How did I know this parody post was coming from someone? Yawn.

Why do you think I added the qualifier "and have to admit?"


I gave two recent examples in my discussions, where the person who made the mistake ADMITTED to the mistake, and agreed that it was indeed wrong.

I'm not speaking about differences in interpretations of past events, I'm talking about FACTUAL errors, that we can replicate today, to which YEC become enlightened about.