Creationists

[Underhill]

Like I said where is your proof ? your views are based on opinions.

Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.

This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.

Opinions are like you know what and everybody has one. Zero evcidence ? I can infer just like others who disagree my views. Proving an opinion is a different story.

We can date objects very accurately. We can date events that happened near those objects almost as accurately. Yes it may be off in some cases, but looking at the assemblage of thousands of objects tied to dozens of events in history, you can get a very clear timeline.

This is not opinion. This is fact. It is repeatable, testable and observable. If you don't believe me, look into it yourself.

But sitting there saying 'nu uh', like a 6 year old told Santa isn't real, does not help your position in the least.

 

[Underhill]

Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.

This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.

Geologic studies are based on observed facts. You have nothing. Go back to bed.

Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?

Radiometric Dating

 

[ima]

Like I said where is your proof ? your views are based on opinions.

Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.

This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.

Opinions are like you know what and everybody has one. Zero evcidence ? I can infer just like others who disagree my views. Proving an opinion is a different story.

Is that why you're having so much trouble proving your opinion about ID?

 

[daws101]

Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.

This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.

Opinions are like you know what and everybody has one. Zero evcidence ? I can infer just like others who disagree my views. Proving an opinion is a different story.

We can date objects very accurately. We can date events that happened near those objects almost as accurately. Yes it may be off in some cases, but looking at the assemblage of thousands of objects tied to dozens of events in history, you can get a very clear timeline.

This is not opinion. This is fact. It is repeatable, testable and observable. If you don't believe me, look into it yourself.

But sitting there saying 'nu uh', like a 6 year old told Santa isn't real, does not help your position in the least.

actually the dating method you are referring to is highly inaccurate: example amphora : Prehistoric origins

Ceramics of shapes and uses falling within the range of amphorae, with or without handles, are of prehistoric heritage across Eurasia, from the Caucasus to China. For example, the qvevri, common in Russia and the Caucasus, can be traced back to about 6000 BC. Amphorae dated to around 4800 BC have been found in Banpo, a Neolithic site of the Yangshao culture in China. Amphorae first appeared on the Phoenician coast around 3500 BC.

In the Bronze and Iron Ages amphorae spread around the ancient Mediterranean world, being used by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the principal means for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities.[1] They were produced on an industrial scale until about the 7th century AD. Wooden and skin containers seem to have supplanted amphorae thereafter.
the point is lots of objects used in that method design did not change very much over time.

 

[newpolitics]

They (dinosaurs) are found in sediment that is dated older using uniformitarian logic. God created a fully complete universe and earth with a finished ecological system. The Flood buried these large creatures under mud etc. If I bury a body in what appears to be very ancient sediment, the body doesn't become millions of years old simply because its been there only 5000. God chose the animals to be on the ark. I'm sure He picked tame ones and dinosaur eggs are not that large. We have no idea how fast or even how big dinosaurs could grow. It is very possible that some dinosaurs scientists say were different kinds, actually were one in the same only very old. I have no idea what a 1000 year old dinosaur might look like. And you cannot say that dinosaurs couldn't have lived to be very old...

Uniformitarian logic? You mean like yesterday being the same as today?That's not a contestable notion unless you introduce a demonstrable mechanism that would cause things to be non-uniformitarian. Considering your reason for needing a non-uniformitarian universe is as an ad hoc theory to have your young universe theory make sense, I am certain you will never find any evidence to support this, especially since evidence already confirms and supports uniformity, such as the speed of light being constant everywhere, and there being no known model that would explain it slowing down ever, or being non-uniformitarian.

Charles Lyell created a new paradigm for geology in 1830 by emphasizing a radical uniformity in nature. Though remarkably successful for over 150 years, his system has fallen into disfavor, partly because as Gould (1987) noted, he conjoined distinct concepts into what was soon dubbed “uniformitarianism” by William Whewell. Though Whewell did not mean it favorably, the term became a symbol of pride and for 150 years geologists trumpeted it as “the fundamental principle of geology” (Challinor 1968, p. 331).

But things have changed. By the late twentieth century, many geologists rejected uniformitarianism and some were calling for eliminating the term (Austin 1979; Shea 1982). Much of the clamor can be traced back to the semantic confusion begun by Lyell. Thanks to historians of science, that confusion has been lessened by a rigorous examination of the multiple concepts subsumed for many years under “uniformitarianism,” although many appear to believe that the conflicts are resolved by the mere explication of these definitions.

If this were not enough, another layer of complexity is added by the often-unstated metaphysical battle between Christianity and Naturalism. An early manifestation of this conflict was the mythology—also begun by Lyell—that recast the origin of the science of geology as a simplistic saga. Even today, the public is told that geology began when “scientific” uniformitarians (the good guys) finally triumphed over “religious” catastrophists (the bad guys) and claimed the soul of geology. This cartoonish distortion can be traced to the propaganda of Enlightenment apologists, and is, amazingly, echoed today (for example, Repcheck 2003). Though the polemic trick of pitting “religion” against “science” proved helpful to non-theistic elements in both the earth and life sciences during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the logic of that position fails under scrutiny, and its propaganda is more widely recognized as such (for example, Stark 2003).

Continue

Untangling Uniformitarianism - Answers in Genesis

Answers in genesis? Are you kidding??? Is this where you get your inspiration for your beliefs? How utterly sad. That website is nothing but an editorial.

Here's the problem: you start with the presupposition, based purely on the bible, that the earth is ten thousand years old. Then you try to fit the evidence to your beliefs. You cant actually do this because the evidence doesn't exist to support your theory, so you are forced to insert doubt about such concepts as uniformitarianism, as an ad hoc explanation for why modern science doesn't bear out your version on the universe. Put differently, You don't follow the evidence to their desired conclusions, you lead them presuppositions formed when you took the bible to be literally true. Yet, you have no reason to believe the bible other than your faith, which by definition requires no evidence, just conviction. So, the only basis for your conviction, is a lack of evidence. What you imply, is that real evidence is bad- possibly the work of the devil to deceive all of us, or the work of god to test our faith? Either scenario challenges the idea that god is who it claims to be. This is all plainly visible to everyone who isn't a YEC. Is it possible you are right? Yes. Does the evidence indicate that this is likely? Not even remotely. You have to start with the evidence, not your own preformed beliefs. Ever heard of Bayes Theorem? If not, I suggest taking a gander.

 

[Underhill]

Opinions are like you know what and everybody has one. Zero evcidence ? I can infer just like others who disagree my views. Proving an opinion is a different story.

We can date objects very accurately. We can date events that happened near those objects almost as accurately. Yes it may be off in some cases, but looking at the assemblage of thousands of objects tied to dozens of events in history, you can get a very clear timeline.

This is not opinion. This is fact. It is repeatable, testable and observable. If you don't believe me, look into it yourself.

But sitting there saying 'nu uh', like a 6 year old told Santa isn't real, does not help your position in the least.

actually the dating method you are referring to is highly inaccurate: example amphora : Prehistoric origins

Ceramics of shapes and uses falling within the range of amphorae, with or without handles, are of prehistoric heritage across Eurasia, from the Caucasus to China. For example, the qvevri, common in Russia and the Caucasus, can be traced back to about 6000 BC. Amphorae dated to around 4800 BC have been found in Banpo, a Neolithic site of the Yangshao culture in China. Amphorae first appeared on the Phoenician coast around 3500 BC.

In the Bronze and Iron Ages amphorae spread around the ancient Mediterranean world, being used by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the principal means for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities.[1] They were produced on an industrial scale until about the 7th century AD. Wooden and skin containers seem to have supplanted amphorae thereafter.
the point is lots of objects used in that method design did not change very much over time.

Then you need to keep reading.

I'm not talking about dating objects by their type or design. I specifically mentioned radiometric dating which is very accurate.

 

[daws101]

We can date objects very accurately. We can date events that happened near those objects almost as accurately. Yes it may be off in some cases, but looking at the assemblage of thousands of objects tied to dozens of events in history, you can get a very clear timeline.

This is not opinion. This is fact. It is repeatable, testable and observable. If you don't believe me, look into it yourself.

But sitting there saying 'nu uh', like a 6 year old told Santa isn't real, does not help your position in the least.

actually the dating method you are referring to is highly inaccurate: example amphora : Prehistoric origins

Ceramics of shapes and uses falling within the range of amphorae, with or without handles, are of prehistoric heritage across Eurasia, from the Caucasus to China. For example, the qvevri, common in Russia and the Caucasus, can be traced back to about 6000 BC. Amphorae dated to around 4800 BC have been found in Banpo, a Neolithic site of the Yangshao culture in China. Amphorae first appeared on the Phoenician coast around 3500 BC.

In the Bronze and Iron Ages amphorae spread around the ancient Mediterranean world, being used by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the principal means for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities.[1] They were produced on an industrial scale until about the 7th century AD. Wooden and skin containers seem to have supplanted amphorae thereafter.
the point is lots of objects used in that method design did not change very much over time.

Then you need to keep reading.

I'm not talking about dating objects by their type or design. I specifically mentioned radiometric dating which is very accurate.

I agree.. it's ywc that has major difficulties understanding any dating system that doesn't fit in his 6000 year fantasy time frame..

 

[ima]

Yes, the opinions of a great many smart men who have looked at the evidence.

This as apposed to a guy reading an old book and making claims based upon zero evidence whatsoever.

Geologic studies are based on observed facts. You have nothing. Go back to bed.

Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?

I'm not a geologist, but the deeper the excavation the further back in time it's from. So I guess you can figure out from that how fast the accumulation is.

 

[UltimateReality]

Uniformitarian logic? You mean like yesterday being the same as today?That's not a contestable notion unless you introduce a demonstrable mechanism that would cause things to be non-uniformitarian. Considering your reason for needing a non-uniformitarian universe is as an ad hoc theory to have your young universe theory make sense, I am certain you will never find any evidence to support this, especially since evidence already confirms and supports uniformity, such as the speed of light being constant everywhere, and there being no known model that would explain it slowing down ever, or being non-uniformitarian.

Charles Lyell created a new paradigm for geology in 1830 by emphasizing a radical uniformity in nature. Though remarkably successful for over 150 years, his system has fallen into disfavor, partly because as Gould (1987) noted, he conjoined distinct concepts into what was soon dubbed “uniformitarianism” by William Whewell. Though Whewell did not mean it favorably, the term became a symbol of pride and for 150 years geologists trumpeted it as “the fundamental principle of geology” (Challinor 1968, p. 331).

But things have changed. By the late twentieth century, many geologists rejected uniformitarianism and some were calling for eliminating the term (Austin 1979; Shea 1982). Much of the clamor can be traced back to the semantic confusion begun by Lyell. Thanks to historians of science, that confusion has been lessened by a rigorous examination of the multiple concepts subsumed for many years under “uniformitarianism,” although many appear to believe that the conflicts are resolved by the mere explication of these definitions.

If this were not enough, another layer of complexity is added by the often-unstated metaphysical battle between Christianity and Naturalism. An early manifestation of this conflict was the mythology—also begun by Lyell—that recast the origin of the science of geology as a simplistic saga. Even today, the public is told that geology began when “scientific” uniformitarians (the good guys) finally triumphed over “religious” catastrophists (the bad guys) and claimed the soul of geology. This cartoonish distortion can be traced to the propaganda of Enlightenment apologists, and is, amazingly, echoed today (for example, Repcheck 2003). Though the polemic trick of pitting “religion” against “science” proved helpful to non-theistic elements in both the earth and life sciences during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the logic of that position fails under scrutiny, and its propaganda is more widely recognized as such (for example, Stark 2003).

Continue

Untangling Uniformitarianism - Answers in Genesis

Answers in genesis? Are you kidding??? Is this where you get your inspiration for your beliefs? How utterly sad. That website is nothing but an editorial...

Here's the problem: you start with the presupposition, based purely on pseudoscience about magical events that happened in the very distant past, that evolution is true. Then you try to fit the evidence to suport your beliefs. ...

Physician heal thyself!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Geologic studies are based on observed facts. You have nothing. Go back to bed.

Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?

I'm not a geologist, but the deeper the excavation the further back in time it's from. So I guess you can figure out from that how fast the accumulation is.

Wow, you guys are so smart and YWC is so clueless. Except for the fact that you are totally ignorant to the effects of extrapolation. In the brainwashed world of the pseudoscience of evolution, they like to pretend that extrapolation produces as meaningful results as interpolation.

From Wiki: ...Extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.

 

[UltimateReality]

We can date objects very accurately. We can date events that happened near those objects almost as accurately. Yes it may be off in some cases, but looking at the assemblage of thousands of objects tied to dozens of events in history, you can get a very clear timeline.

This is not opinion. This is fact. It is repeatable, testable and observable. If you don't believe me, look into it yourself.

But sitting there saying 'nu uh', like a 6 year old told Santa isn't real, does not help your position in the least.

actually the dating method you are referring to is highly inaccurate: example amphora : Prehistoric origins

Ceramics of shapes and uses falling within the range of amphorae, with or without handles, are of prehistoric heritage across Eurasia, from the Caucasus to China. For example, the qvevri, common in Russia and the Caucasus, can be traced back to about 6000 BC. Amphorae dated to around 4800 BC have been found in Banpo, a Neolithic site of the Yangshao culture in China. Amphorae first appeared on the Phoenician coast around 3500 BC.

In the Bronze and Iron Ages amphorae spread around the ancient Mediterranean world, being used by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the principal means for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities.[1] They were produced on an industrial scale until about the 7th century AD. Wooden and skin containers seem to have supplanted amphorae thereafter.
the point is lots of objects used in that method design did not change very much over time.

Then you need to keep reading.

I'm not talking about dating objects by their type or design. I specifically mentioned radiometric dating which is very accurate.

...Within the miniscule time line of dated events. If we laid out the history of the earth time line on a straight road and let known human history be represented by one foot, the rest of earth's history would stretch out behind that foot for 150 miles!!!!! So in theory, you are examining phenomenon inside the one foot and claiming it continues for 100 miles. See the definition for extrapolation above. Only the blinded Darwinists aren't aware of the limitations of dating methods. Of course I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe the earth is 3.5 to 4 Billion years old. Nevertheless, I do realize the scientific limitations of radiometric dating, as well as other dating methods.

 

[newpolitics]

Charles Lyell created a new paradigm for geology in 1830 by emphasizing a radical uniformity in nature. Though remarkably successful for over 150 years, his system has fallen into disfavor, partly because as Gould (1987) noted, he conjoined distinct concepts into what was soon dubbed “uniformitarianism” by William Whewell. Though Whewell did not mean it favorably, the term became a symbol of pride and for 150 years geologists trumpeted it as “the fundamental principle of geology” (Challinor 1968, p. 331).

But things have changed. By the late twentieth century, many geologists rejected uniformitarianism and some were calling for eliminating the term (Austin 1979; Shea 1982). Much of the clamor can be traced back to the semantic confusion begun by Lyell. Thanks to historians of science, that confusion has been lessened by a rigorous examination of the multiple concepts subsumed for many years under “uniformitarianism,” although many appear to believe that the conflicts are resolved by the mere explication of these definitions.

If this were not enough, another layer of complexity is added by the often-unstated metaphysical battle between Christianity and Naturalism. An early manifestation of this conflict was the mythology—also begun by Lyell—that recast the origin of the science of geology as a simplistic saga. Even today, the public is told that geology began when “scientific” uniformitarians (the good guys) finally triumphed over “religious” catastrophists (the bad guys) and claimed the soul of geology. This cartoonish distortion can be traced to the propaganda of Enlightenment apologists, and is, amazingly, echoed today (for example, Repcheck 2003). Though the polemic trick of pitting “religion” against “science” proved helpful to non-theistic elements in both the earth and life sciences during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the logic of that position fails under scrutiny, and its propaganda is more widely recognized as such (for example, Stark 2003).

Continue

Untangling Uniformitarianism - Answers in Genesis

Answers in genesis? Are you kidding??? Is this where you get your inspiration for your beliefs? How utterly sad. That website is nothing but an editorial...

Here's the problem: you start with the presupposition, based purely on pseudoscience about magical events that happened in the very distant past, that evolution is true. Then you try to fit the evidence to suport your beliefs. ...

Physician heal thyself!!!

I'm not starting with the presupposition that the Judeo-Christian god doesn't exist. Here you are trying to switch the burden of proof, again. I am simply unconvinced by the evidence that a god does exist. In this case, it is a complete lack of evidence.

 

[ima]

Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?

I'm not a geologist, but the deeper the excavation the further back in time it's from. So I guess you can figure out from that how fast the accumulation is.

Wow, you guys are so smart and YWC is so clueless. Except for the fact that you are totally ignorant to the effects of extrapolation. In the brainwashed world of the pseudoscience of evolution, they like to pretend that extrapolation produces as meaningful results as interpolation.

From Wiki: ...Extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.

Like I said, I'm not a geologist. And I'm not a fool. Which is more than you can say. You think Noah was 900 years old had a big boat with dinosaurs on it. 'Nuff said.

 

[Hollie]

Really ? how do they know how long a layer of strata took to form ?

I'm not a geologist, but the deeper the excavation the further back in time it's from. So I guess you can figure out from that how fast the accumulation is.

Wow, you guys are so smart and YWC is so clueless. Except for the fact that you are totally ignorant to the effects of extrapolation. In the brainwashed world of the pseudoscience of evolution, they like to pretend that extrapolation produces as meaningful results as interpolation.

From Wiki: ...Extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.

Extrapolation is precisely the process employed by fundies in terms of adding human based attributes in the formulation of their gawds.

Posting in gargantuan fonts makes my statements true!

 

[daws101]

I'm not a geologist, but the deeper the excavation the further back in time it's from. So I guess you can figure out from that how fast the accumulation is.

Wow, you guys are so smart and YWC is so clueless. Except for the fact that you are totally ignorant to the effects of extrapolation. In the brainwashed world of the pseudoscience of evolution, they like to pretend that extrapolation produces as meaningful results as interpolation.

From Wiki: ...Extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.

Extrapolation is precisely the process employed by fundies in terms of adding human based attributes in the formulation of their gawds.

Posting in gargantuan fonts makes my statements true!

must have been a slow day at creation museum ....

 

[UltimateReality]

Wow, you guys are so smart and YWC is so clueless. Except for the fact that you are totally ignorant to the effects of extrapolation. In the brainwashed world of the pseudoscience of evolution, they like to pretend that extrapolation produces as meaningful results as interpolation.

From Wiki: ...Extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation interval, the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results.

Extrapolation is precisely the process employed by fundies in terms of adding human based attributes in the formulation of their gawds.

Posting in gargantuan fonts makes my statements true!

must have been a slow day at creation museum ....

Negative. I have just realized that arguing with fools is an exercise in futility and a huge time waster which basically accomplishes nothing. Only an idiot would continue to argue with idiots so I have chosen not to argue with you and Hawly anymore.


Psalm 14:1 (NIV)
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

 

[Hollie]

Extrapolation is precisely the process employed by fundies in terms of adding human based attributes in the formulation of their gawds.

Posting in gargantuan fonts makes my statements true!

must have been a slow day at creation museum ....

Negative. I have just realized that arguing with fools is an exercise in futility and a huge time waster which basically accomplishes nothing. Only an idiot would continue to argue with idiots so I have chosen not to argue with you and Hawly anymore.


Psalm 14:1 (NIV)
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

So... it seems attendance is down at the creation museum.

A wise man once said of the fundie christians:

"A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism".

 

[LittleNipper]

300 million year old coal --- 500 million year old coal. Such "odd" artifacts make complete sense if they are 6000 years old and Uniformitarians are wrong about the dates. Please watch the fpllowing:

MSN Entertainment -

 

[Underhill]

actually the dating method you are referring to is highly inaccurate: example amphora : Prehistoric origins

Ceramics of shapes and uses falling within the range of amphorae, with or without handles, are of prehistoric heritage across Eurasia, from the Caucasus to China. For example, the qvevri, common in Russia and the Caucasus, can be traced back to about 6000 BC. Amphorae dated to around 4800 BC have been found in Banpo, a Neolithic site of the Yangshao culture in China. Amphorae first appeared on the Phoenician coast around 3500 BC.

In the Bronze and Iron Ages amphorae spread around the ancient Mediterranean world, being used by the ancient Greeks and Romans as the principal means for transporting and storing grapes, olive oil, wine, oil, olives, grain, fish, and other commodities.[1] They were produced on an industrial scale until about the 7th century AD. Wooden and skin containers seem to have supplanted amphorae thereafter.
the point is lots of objects used in that method design did not change very much over time.

Then you need to keep reading.

I'm not talking about dating objects by their type or design. I specifically mentioned radiometric dating which is very accurate.

...Within the miniscule time line of dated events. If we laid out the history of the earth time line on a straight road and let known human history be represented by one foot, the rest of earth's history would stretch out behind that foot for 150 miles!!!!! So in theory, you are examining phenomenon inside the one foot and claiming it continues for 100 miles. See the definition for extrapolation above. Only the blinded Darwinists aren't aware of the limitations of dating methods. Of course I am not a young earth Creationist. I believe the earth is 3.5 to 4 Billion years old. Nevertheless, I do realize the scientific limitations of radiometric dating, as well as other dating methods.

As do I. And if you were talking about dating one object I might agree that the evidence is not conclusive. Even 10 objects has some margin of error.

But when you are talking about dating hundreds, or thousands or even tens of thousands of objects, which has been done, the argument becomes shit.

 

[ima]

So WHY did god create the universe and the world? IDers must have a theory.