Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Shad]

Yes Ockham's Razor is applied, of course.

I was hoping to smoke out this poster's views on that, so we could clarify that denial of the science relies on departing from this principle, and then see where that might lead.

But it looks as if this post was just a drive-by in any case, in which case we'll never know what this person thinks.

Large Ops of this nature tend to be copy/paste jobs so I tend to assume nothing productive is to be seen anyways.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I realize CMBR indicates the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, but how does CMBR demonstrate the Earth's age?

My understanding is: because the 'accuracy of microwaves' is very reliable.

 

[ecco]

Have you ever read Behe...?

Michael Behe?

He of the debunked irreducible complexity theory?

Perhaps you are referring to the Michael Behe who gave poor testimony during Kitzmiller v Dover?

Oh. wait. It's the same guy.

Yep, I've read him.


ETA: What's your point?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Michael Behe?

He of the debunked irreducible complexity theory?

Perhaps you are referring to the Michael Behe who gave poor testimony during Kitzmiller v Dover?

Oh. wait. It's the same guy.

Yep, I've read him.


ETA: What's your point?

Debunked? No. Sorry

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Debunked? No. Sorry

Can you provide an example of a demonstrably irreducibly complex system?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Michael Behe?

He of the debunked irreducible complexity theory?

Perhaps you are referring to the Michael Behe who gave poor testimony during Kitzmiller v Dover?

Oh. wait. It's the same guy.

Yep, I've read him.


ETA: What's your point?

That's the guy who can't demonstrate his claims, right?

 

[Looncall]

Thanks!

I agree with you on that subject. I'm an OEC, though; not a YEC.

Have you ever read Behe, Meyer, or Axe?

Why would one read their books? They work for outfits that require them to lie. The statement of faith they have to subscribe to clearly shows that.

 

[ecco]

Debunked? No. Sorry

Debunked? Yes. Not Sorry.

Or, if you actually want to try to read ...
Skeptoid: Is the human eye irreducibly complex?

Or just a synopsis...

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."

​

I do realize that facts will never change your mind.

 

[ecco]

RE: Behe

That's the guy who can't demonstrate his claims, right?

Sorta. He tried to demonstrate his claims and got raked over the coals.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Debunked? Yes. Not Sorry.

Or, if you actually want to try to read ...
Skeptoid: Is the human eye irreducibly complex?

Or just a synopsis...

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that, "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."

​

I do realize that facts will never change your mind.

Facts always determine my beliefs, suppositions rarely.
Facts one day will change yours. I hope it won't be to your detriment.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why would one read their books? They work for outfits that require them to lie. The statement of faith they have to subscribe to clearly shows that.

What "statement of faith"? What lies from Behe, Meyer, and Axe?

They're not Hovind.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What "statement of faith"?

I think they might be referring to the AiG Statement of Faith, which includes, amongst other things, this statement:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
SOURCE: Statement of Faith

 

[Polymath257]

I realize CMBR indicates the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old, but how does CMBR demonstrate the Earth's age?

It doesn't. The age of the Earth has to be determined by other means. it is only about 1/3 the age of the larger universe.

 

[Audie]

Large Ops of this nature tend to be copy/paste jobs so I tend to assume nothing productive is to be seen anyways.

Of course cut and paste. People who know the
subject matter are not so inclined to post nonsense.

 

[Audie]

I think they might be referring to the AiG Statement of Faith, which includes, amongst other things, this statement:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
SOURCE: Statement of Faith

Statement of faith? Appears to be a commitment to intellectual dishonesty. I hope the two are not synonymous.

 

[Audie]

Facts always determine my beliefs, suppositions rarely.

You must have the most peculiar notions
about what constitutes a fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Statement of faith? Appears to be a commitment to intellectual dishonesty. I hope the two are not
synonymous.

Another good read is the NCSE's "wedge document", which basically outlines how the organization specifically planned to promote the teaching of creationism in schools for the explicit purposes of spreading Christianity:

The Wedge Document

 

[Shad]

Of course cut and paste. People who know the
subject matter are not so inclined to post nonsense.

My point was more of an observation of the forums, religious forums that is, than anything else. (Politics as well). After being here for years certain arguments are easy to spot and identify. Some posting habits are just as easy to identify due to the repetitive use of the same arguments. So it has become very easy for me to assess and conclude if a poster is worth entertaining or not. If the poster is the type of person that can engage in a discussion or is vastly out of their scope thus just a parrot.

 

[Audie]

My point was more of an observation of the forums, religious forums that is, than anything else. (Politics as well). After being here for years certain arguments are easy to spot and identify. Some posting habits are just as easy to identify due to the repetitive use of the same arguments. So it has become very easy for me to assess and conclude if a poster is worth entertaining or not. If the poster is the type of person that can engage in a discussion or is vastly out of their scope thus just a parrot.

Of course among those are the creatures
who simply make up "facts" to suit, and blandly
or heatedly deny that they make them up.

Do you have a chart?

 

[Shad]

Of course among those are the creatures
who simply make up "facts" to suit, and blandly
or heatedly deny that they make them up.

Do you have a chart?

No chart. Just memory and experience. For example the dinosaur soft tissue criticism is one I have heard for over a decade. Religious apologists in general use common arguments.