Questions about/problems with YEC

Dannager · Mar 3, 2006

Gwenyfur said:
After reading and posting and reading and researching and posting I have come to one conclusion...

Creationists (YEC and OEC) and evolutionists (Theistic & Athiestic) are so busy calling each other's sources fraudulent, corrupt, and manipulative that it's no wonder no one ever really gets to the point.

Too busy playing semantics with verbage....chasing rabbit trails or just plain coming out of left field to change the subject.

It's a wonder anyone can even agree that the sky is blue and dirt is brown

The difference being, of course, that we can identify problems with YEC propagandist websites, and have done so on many occasions.

Just because blame lies patently on the YEC websites for promoting and spreading false information doesn't mean that you need to lower other sources to the same level.

EDIT: Point-in-case; a couple of pages ago RightWingGirl accused TalkOrigins of being a "notorious prevaricator" which she proceeded to support with a mathematical error on her part. It turns out the TalkOrigins reference was accurate and that she was mistaken (and apparently a little rusty when it comes to scientific notation). While I don't have a problem with a simple mistake like that, I do take issue with her being so cocksure of her accusation that she felt she could call TalkOrigins a "notorious prevaricator" because of it.

The Lady Kate · Mar 3, 2006

Lion of God said:
I don't have the link any more but I've seen some evidence of proven manipulation by the Talk.Origins site.

Then your claim is unsubstantiated. Find the link and post it.

Maddi777 · Mar 3, 2006

ok, I know I'm gettin' in over my head in this thread, but.....

don't you guy's know most sciencetist are atheist's..... why ya think they tried for year's to disprove the Bible! They don't belive a word of it. The Adam and Eve Creation happened.... the flood happened..... I for one, belive EVERY word of it !!

PaladinValer · Mar 3, 2006

And where in Talk.Origins do they have a problem?

PaladinValer · Mar 3, 2006

Maddi777 said:
ok, I know I'm gettin' in over my head in this thread, but.....

don't you guy's know most sciencetist are atheist's..... why ya think they tried for year's to disprove the Bible! They don't belive a word of it. The Adam and Eve Creation happened.... the flood happened..... I for one, belive EVERY word of it !!

1. Most scientists are not Atheists actually. That's a lie.
2. Just because someone doesn't take the Bible as literally as you seem to do doesn't mean they don't believe anything in it.
3. Scientists don't exist to disprove the Bible but to answer questions about the universe and how things work. If by chance some literalist interpretation of the Bible is shot down in the process, oh well.
4. Fallacy of Appealing to Authority. Just because you say it happened doesn't mean it happened.

LoG · Mar 3, 2006

The Lady Kate said:
Then your claim is unsubstantiated. Find the link and post it.

Three sites with a number of articles each:

http://www.1729.com/lists/ErrorsInRefutationsOfCreationism.html
http://www.alternativescience.com/faq_or_fiction.htm
http://www.trueorigin.org/

This link is informative also: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number6/number6.htm#Hunt

Maddi777 · Mar 3, 2006

4. Fallacy of Appealing to Authority. Just because you say it happened doesn't mean it happened.

so you don't think the flood happened.... you don't think Noah had the ark..... you don't think Jesus came, taught and die for you.

of course I belive these things !! of course the Bible is open to each his own interputation. And no... I don't take everything in the Bible literally. But at least I belive in these things.

Maddi777 · Mar 3, 2006

I've had some to time to think .... I apologize for my last post.... I'll not come to this thread again.

I still belive the Creation ... Adam and Eve story did happen, no sceientifc proof will make me belive it didn't.

The Lady Kate · Mar 3, 2006

Maddi777 said:
ok, I know I'm gettin' in over my head in this thread, but.....

I'm not sure how to politely but clearly put this to you, but this is the only thing you said accurately in your entire post. It's all downhill from here.

don't you guy's know most sciencetist are atheist's..... why ya think they tried for year's to disprove the Bible! They don't belive a word of it. The Adam and Eve Creation happened.... the flood happened.....

Click to expand...

Not a word of this is true.

I for one, belive EVERY word of it !!

I stand corrected... this is true.

KerrMetric · Mar 3, 2006

Maddi777 said:
I still belive the Creation ... Adam and Eve story did happen, no sceientifc proof will make me belive it didn't.

There is a word for this but I'm not sure what it is.

The Lady Kate · Mar 3, 2006

Lion of God said:
Three sites with a number of articles each:

http://www.1729.com/lists/ErrorsInRefutationsOfCreationism.html

The errors on this site are too numerous to list in the short time I have. With your patience, I'll revisit it later.

http://www.alternativescience.com/faq_or_fiction.htm

A good deal of complaints, but I see nothing seriously refuting TO. Again, I shall revisit it, time permitting.

http://www.trueorigin.org/

Ah.... Trueorigin... not even an original title.
For every TalkOrigin essay, TrueOrigin attempts a rebuttal. Then TalkOrigin completely disassembles it. TrueOrigin then falls strangely silent.

Sense a pattern?

This link is informative also: http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number6/number6.htm#Hunt

Perusing this, I couldn't help but notice that most of these sites focus on the same single essay in the TO archive... Kathleen Hunt's Transitional Essay.

Having not read that particular work yet, I cannot at the moment make any claims to it's value. But is criticism of a single scientific paper grounds to dismiss the entire archive as "unreliable"?

PaladinValer · Mar 3, 2006

Maddi777 said:
so you don't think the flood happened.... you don't think Noah had the ark..... you don't think Jesus came, taught and die for you.

Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. What I said isn't enough for you to draw your third conclusion. That is royally dishonest of you and absolutely outrageous. Apologies are in order.

Fallacy of False Analogy. Science deals with things that are of purely secular orientation. What Jesus did has nothing to do with science at all; science cannot deal with it because it is purely theological.

of course I belive these things !! of course the Bible is open to each his own interputation. And no... I don't take everything in the Bible literally. But at least I belive in these things.

Science shows that the Flood and Creation are mythical. The Bible is literally wrong about those things. Mythically, however, it is right.

Where's the worldwide flood ring? It doesn't exist. Therefore, no worldwide Deluge.

Where's the evidence of Creation as depicted literally in the Bible according to YECs? It doesn't exist. However, there is overwhelming evidence pointing to current scientific theories. I'll side with the evidence, since it shows how God did everything.

Willtor · Mar 3, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
Over a period of millions (billions?) of years there have been many worldwide floods similiar to but not exactly like the Noah flood. The strata laid down by those similiar floods are what geologists study today. Why is it so hard to concede that just one more great flood occurred recently? Ask a geologist just what kind of flood must have occurred to lay down the various ancient strata that he studies.

As promised:

Willtor's Brother said:
> Over a period of millions (billions?) of years there have been many
> worldwide floods similiar to but not exactly like the Noah flood. The
> strata laid down by those similiar floods are what geologists study
> today. Why is it so hard to concede that just one more great flood
> occurred recently? Ask a geologist just what kind of flood must have
> occurred to lay down the various ancient strata that he studies.

The problem with this is that his premise isn't true. There are plenty of areas where the strata were formed by volcanic action or metamorphic pressure, or are simply non-existant. In fact, most of the strata I study was formed this way. The soil of top of these areas was laid down by erosional runoff from mountains, or in the form of volcanic ash (which later broke down into rich soil).

Even sedimentary strata can be laid down by rivers. Most fossils of land animals are found in riverbeds, not floodbeds. By analysing the grains found in sedimentary strata and their patterns, we can determine how they were laid down.

It is true that for a brief period (in geologic terms) the interior of North America was flooded from the Rockies to the Appalachians. Most of the surface strata found in the continental US was laid down at this time, and we find fossils of sea creatures in very unlikely places. But there are still large parts of the continent that were untouched by this-- most of the Canadian Shield, for example.

My response to his question on what kind of flood must have occured to lay down the strata that I study would be, "a very small (relatively speaking) flood of molten rock."

And in a follow-up, 2 minutes later:

Willtor's Brother said:
Oh, and it would have taken direct divine intervention to fit two of each species of land animal on a boat of that size. It would, however, be possible to take two of each species unique to the area occupied by humans at that time.

Willtor · Mar 3, 2006

Wow. Lots of activity on this thread since yesterday afternoon.

LoG · Mar 3, 2006

PaladinValer said:
Science shows that the Flood and Creation are mythical. The Bible is literally wrong about those things. Mythically, however, it is right.

Where's the worldwide flood ring? It doesn't exist. Therefore, no worldwide Deluge.

Here is a page listing scientifically verifiable evidence of a worlwide flood.

http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-5.htm

KerrMetric · Mar 3, 2006

Lion of God said:
Here is a page listing scientifically verifiable evidence of a worlwide flood.

http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-5.htm

From that page:

From Goofy web page said:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]When the carbon-14 dating method is "correctly" calibrated, and 25-thousand radiocarbon dates are graphed, the result shows evidence of a great peak of deaths about 4-thousand years ago.

I thought C14 was "unreliable" and not subject to belief or "proper calibration".

Do I see yet another example of wanting the penny and the cake?

[/FONT]

LoG · Mar 3, 2006

KerrMetric said:
Do I see yet another example of wanting the penny and the cake?
[/size][/font]

Is that the best you can do?

Willtor · Mar 3, 2006

Lion of God said:
Is that the best you can do?

Here's the thing: Even if that is all he can do, it's pretty good. A person can't say that method "x" is a bad method, and then use method "x" to support his point of view.

RightWingGirl · Mar 3, 2006

Willtor's Brother

Click to expand...

Oh, and it would have taken direct divine intervention to fit two of each species of land animal on a boat of that size. It would, however, be possible to take two of each species unique to the area occupied by humans at that time

Please remember that the total known species of vertebrae on planet earth is only 50,000.
What we need is the number of animals the Ark had the capacity to house, and the number required to house every kind of land animal on the earth. First, only two representatives from each kind was required. The easiest example of a kind would be the dog kind, which would only need two representatives to account for all of the dog/wolf breeds. A biblical "kind" would have been a "genus" or maybe even a "family". (Since the flood, each "kind" has undergone variation through both natural selection and artificial selection into various species. This is Micro-Evolution, where no new information appears, but the old information is sorted or lost) All of which to say, not all of the animals we see today would need to be represented on the ark, only as possible variants in the genes of the animals on the ark..
Various studies have placed the number of animals that needed to be housed on the ark as between 16,000 and 18,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. Let us, however, calculate 32,000 animals. A generous average size for a land animal is the size of a sheep. Most animals are smaller than the sheep, but it is a good medium. Therefore, we need housing for 32,000 animals the size of sheep. (The animals chosen were probably juvenile pairs)
Most scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high with three stories.The floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet--that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.
The average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, caculating living space also, 288 cars would have ample space to carry the 32,000 animals. Even a million insect species had to be on board as well, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of four inches per side, or 1,000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1,000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave 269 cars each for food, Noahs family and range for the animals, for leeway, and for air space.

random_guy · Mar 3, 2006

Lion of God said:
Is that the best you can do?

I thought that was an excellent point. If I said evolution was impossible, then, let's say, used evolution to explain how Noah's 8000 kinds hyperevolved into the millions of species we have today, then I would be making a huge fallacy.

Of course, who actually does do that?

Questions about/problems with YEC

Back in Town

The Lady Kate

Guest

Senior Member

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Member

The Lady Kate

Guest

Well-Known Member

The Lady Kate

Guest

Traditional Orthodox Anglican

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency