Manganese Nodules: Young or Old?
- Thread starter Bob Enyart
- Start date
This is a common creationist tactic. It gives the false appearance that the debater has made some progress, when he has completely side-stepped the issue at hand is not focusing attacks on character. This should be increasingly clear to anyone reading this thread. Bob completely ignored what I felt were the two most important points in my post. I even italicized them so they would not go unnoticed. 1) Bob claims it was a reckless claim, but he is in no position to judge this. 2) Wrong claims are not always reckless claims.
I always find it interesting when creationists introduce bias into their arguments. Because if you were to be correct (which you are not), at best you bring me down to your level of reasoning. It is a blatant admission on your part that bias can create truly absurd distortions of reality. Yet your foundation for reason is inherently biased. You openly state "that all claims of millions of years, which are used against our worldview, are false." and your reasoning for this is that "The Bible teaches that the earth is young, so we know that they must form quickly."
I am not confusing the two words. Young earth creationism is defined by one simple idea: the earth is young. m-w.com defines help as: "to give assistance or support to". Young mangnese nodules to not give assistance or support the idea that the earth is young. It's really that simple.
fabricate a jolt out of this stat
fabricate a jolt out of this stat
Regarding bias, commonly I find that those who argue against some literal biblical position pretend themselves to be absolutely neutral, and they view the fundamentalist Christian position as the only biased side.
Both sides obviously bring their preconceived notions to manganese nodules (and most other substantive discussions).
Johnny and Fool, let me offer a definition for the word “bias” in our situation which perhaps even you both may agree with.
Bias: a belief that leads to a false judgment.
Agreed? No? Yes?
-Bob
fabricate a jolt out of this stat
Regarding bias, commonly I find that those who argue against some literal biblical position pretend themselves to be absolutely neutral, and they view the fundamentalist Christian position as the only biased side.
Both sides obviously bring their preconceived notions to manganese nodules (and most other substantive discussions).
Johnny and Fool, let me offer a definition for the word “bias” in our situation which perhaps even you both may agree with.
Bias: a belief that leads to a false judgment.
Agreed? No? Yes?
-Bob
fool said:
I would have never guessed.
And now... HERE's Johnny...
Johnny?
I do not wish to draw attention away from the issues I have raised in previous posts, but I will answer your question. I do not agree with that defintion. I prefer the dictionary's definition which states that bias inhibits impartial judgement. That doesn't mean it always leads to the wrong conclusion.
truthteller86
New member
My observation, without contribution, to this thread is similar to that made to the discovery of T-Rex Soft Tissue, as reported by AiG in March of this year.
Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out,5 what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.
That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”6 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific).
The response by Johnny seems to be a common occurrence in this and many other examples used by young Earth Creationists to suggest old Earthers reconsider their position.
One can only be convinced otherwise if they truly want convincing. See BR VII. This is a great precursor to BR IX. Thanks Bob !
PS: Since Christmas time is upon us…just remember: “Don’t buy your kids toy guns for Christmas, buy them real ones”
Unfortunately, the long-age paradigm is so dominant that facts alone will not readily overturn it. As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out,5 what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.
That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”6 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific).
The response by Johnny seems to be a common occurrence in this and many other examples used by young Earth Creationists to suggest old Earthers reconsider their position.
One can only be convinced otherwise if they truly want convincing. See BR VII. This is a great precursor to BR IX. Thanks Bob !
PS: Since Christmas time is upon us…just remember: “Don’t buy your kids toy guns for Christmas, buy them real ones”
truthteller86
New member
You must not be a CSI fan huh?Johnny said:
"The thing is, Jack, I tend not to believe people. They lie. The evidence doesn't lie."
-Grissom to Chip
(Crate and Burial, Season 1, Episode #002)
truthteller86
New member
I prefer the New King James, but since you made an offer, I likewise recommend:Johnny said:
The Soul of Science Pearcey & Thaxton
At least browse the Table of Contents...
Let's wait and see how BR IX goes... I'm reserving my brain cells for that clash.
Michael
ApologeticJedi
New member
truthteller86 said:
I actually thought it was funny.
As I understand it, Johnny suggests:
1) The video doesn't really exist, and if that is proved wrong....
2) The video is incorrect because I can't find the scientific publishing, and if someone produces that ...
3) I don't think Yates is a real scientist, and if someone can show that he is....
4) Enyart isn't smart enough to understand science anyway so doubt anything he says based on my word.
Clearly Johnny can be found at home sucking his thumb hoping this thread would just go away.
Johnny, I think by rejecting my definition of bias: a belief that leads to a false judgment, that actually, you are admitting that which I earlier stated, that old-earthers, et. al, often refuse to admit that they are biased.
[Edit from post 54: Fool is right (post 43). That is a non-sequitur. What WAS I thinking? I recant the part about this being an admission from Johnny. That sentence came together wrongly. Sorry. Original post continues... -Bob]
And previously:
You should try this kind of thinking. It's liberating.
Now it's your turn. You should be able to say, "Regardless of the age of the earth, when discoveries undermine specific claims of old age, those discoveries do help those who argue for a young earth."
But your bias (and likely other factors) prevents you from saying so.
I say that scientists commonly make reckless claims of old age. Here's an example: for decades Yellowstone had a sign claiming that the petrified trees at the park in various strata recorded the passage of millions of years, since the first forest evolved, died out, left a few trees which petrified, and that layer was covered up, and then a second strata and forest formed, died out, left a few trees which petrified, and so on, repeatedly, over millions of years.
That sign was there for decades (I first saw it in 1978), and later, I played an indirect role in getting the sign removed. Those petrified trees did not grow in situ on those hillsides in successive forests, as known because they have no root systems, but instead, their roots are all abruptly broken off within a couple feet of their trunks, for these trees were knocked over cataclysmically, and deposited in flood waters which laid down the strata. I presented this evidence to a national park ranger in his home over dinner; and he began a dialogue with his counterpart at Yellowstone, and his urging, along with that of others, succeeded in finally bringing down that sign.
Johnny, wouldn't you call that an example of a reckless claim of old age, when that information was known for decades, and withheld, which directly mislead the public into believing they were looking at hard proof for millions of years, when they were not.
No?
[Edit from post 54: Fool is right (post 43). That is a non-sequitur. What WAS I thinking? I recant the part about this being an admission from Johnny. That sentence came together wrongly. Sorry. Original post continues... -Bob]
With the dictionary definition, then the term bias also applies to a true belief that leads to a correct judgment, and that just seems to make the term useless. A scientist who is partial to truth that he has knowledge of, and who instantly rejects flat-earth or geo-centric arguments, would thereby be called biased. And then the term bias would apply to all sides of every debate, and therefore it becomes useless, and might as well be abandoned. And Fool/Johnny, then it is strange for your side to use bias as a perjorative against my side. And if we're going to neuter the use of the word bias just because the dictionary insufficiently defines it, then we'd have to coin a new word, something like... foolohnny: a belief that leads to a false judment. You guys can use that if you'd like; I'll stick with the common use of the word bias, even though the dictionary insufficiently defines it.Johnny said:
And previously:
Talk about bias! Johnny, here's an example of an unbiased statement: "If nodules require millions of years to form, and some have so formed, then my young-earth belief is false."Johnny said:
You should try this kind of thinking. It's liberating.
Now it's your turn. You should be able to say, "Regardless of the age of the earth, when discoveries undermine specific claims of old age, those discoveries do help those who argue for a young earth."
But your bias (and likely other factors) prevents you from saying so.
I say that scientists commonly make reckless claims of old age. Here's an example: for decades Yellowstone had a sign claiming that the petrified trees at the park in various strata recorded the passage of millions of years, since the first forest evolved, died out, left a few trees which petrified, and that layer was covered up, and then a second strata and forest formed, died out, left a few trees which petrified, and so on, repeatedly, over millions of years.
That sign was there for decades (I first saw it in 1978), and later, I played an indirect role in getting the sign removed. Those petrified trees did not grow in situ on those hillsides in successive forests, as known because they have no root systems, but instead, their roots are all abruptly broken off within a couple feet of their trunks, for these trees were knocked over cataclysmically, and deposited in flood waters which laid down the strata. I presented this evidence to a national park ranger in his home over dinner; and he began a dialogue with his counterpart at Yellowstone, and his urging, along with that of others, succeeded in finally bringing down that sign.
Johnny, wouldn't you call that an example of a reckless claim of old age, when that information was known for decades, and withheld, which directly mislead the public into believing they were looking at hard proof for millions of years, when they were not.
No?
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
Bob Enyart said:
That's the problem with evolutionists. They're not taught how to think -- they're taught what to think.
Considering the latest shabby arguments from evolutionists, I can agree to that. They've even redefined the term "evolution" itself to mean "change over time." Everyone knows that things "change" over time. So, now, even aging becomes a quasi-"proof" of evolution. (I thought I was just getting older, when I've really been "evolving." :chuckle: )One Eyed Jack said:
Honestly, being an "old-earther", I fail to understand how the age of the earth would support evolution or not. Evolution had to abandon it's cosmological claims some time ago rendering the age of the earth or manganese nodules moot in regards to evolution.
"bias: a belief that leads to a false judgment"Bob Enyart said:
Ah, I see my problem, I am using the wrong dictionary. Well, at least now I understand how we wound up in this war in Iraq. And no, that is not meant to highjack this thread, just to show the improper definition. W and the Vulcans had a bias leading them to war. They went to war. Given Pastor Enyart's definition, the judgment to go to war was wrong.
Do I have a bias? Sure, the bias is that I tend to look at the scientific facts with respect to the age of the earth. Those facts overwhelmingly support an old earth. Give me enough facts to overcome that bias and I will believe otherwise, but metal concretions around beer cans in isolated cases is not enough. C'mon YEC'ers, find Yates for us and lets review his evidence. You are not satisfied with statements made on a video from someone who follows the accepted sceintific line why should anyone who does then take as gospel a statement which questions it without seeing the evidence? Find Yates, what is his position, what is his evidence? Thanks so much.
And my offer to supply the empty cans for AiG experiments still stands. I am sure that my kids would also contribute (although they tend toward PBR in bottles, but bottles should work just as well).