Parallel thinking: Flat Earth and Young Earth Creationists

[chair]

Nearly everybody is happy to jump on the few flat-earthers that we have here (Dave is the prime example). Some of those who attack the FE idea are Young Earth Creationists, who somehow miss that they are behaving in similar way.

For example, how to deal with facts.

Let's say you present Dave with a fact. Like how the sun looks when it rises and sets. How the observed stars move. How one can see further from the top of a mountain. How does a Flat Earther deal with such things? First of all, by denying them. By pretending that they just aren't facts. Photos of a sunset are faked. The distance you see from a mountain top is due to some atmospheric effect. Or you Globe Earthers are interpreting things wrong. Any excuse at all will work. If that doesn't work- change the topic, link to some video, or bring up something that isn't relevant.

Let's say you present a YEC with a fact. Like radiometric dating of rocks to billions of years ago. You'll get denial- the radiometric dating is wrong (some Anti Bible Conspiracy of Scientists might be to blame). Irrelevant facts or pseudo-facts, for example, examples of errors or inaccuracy in C14 dating. "You are interpreting the radiometric measurements wrong". Or a change of topic- a favorite one is the mechanism of evolution.

Likewise for the fossil record. There is a fossil record, and it shows that there are different creatures today than there were millions of years ago. We have denial: "There are no transition fossils." (there are) "You are just interpreting the record wrong" . "You are making the wrong assumptions" (again, some Anti Bible Conspiracy of Scientists might be to blame). Taking a YEC to a quarry to see some fossils with his own eyes would be as effective as taking a FE to see a sunset. The facts don't make any difference. Or a change of topic- a favorite one, as always, is the mechanism of evolution- even though it makes no difference at all what the mechanism is, if evolution in fact happens and happened.

Speaking of the mechanism of Evolution, the Barbarian has gone to great effort to explain how mutations can in fact increase information. The usual response is denial: "Entropy / Information theory doesn't allow for the increase of information." Yet it does, and The Barbarian has shown this both mathematically and experimentally. The most absurd responses sound like this "Darwinists always try to avoid dealing with the facts"- when in truth YECs, are the ones doing that.

Admittedly, Flat Earth is more obviously wrong. Anybody can go see a sunset or watch the stars and know this. Seeing that YEC is wrong requires a tad more effort. But the basic thinking is the same. My guess is that believing in a FE or YEC is such an important part of some people's belief system , that they simply can't admit that they are wrong.

 

[Stripe]

Let's say you present a YEC with a fact. Like radiometric dating of rocks to billions of years ago.

Nope.

We tell you that is not a fact. It is an idea based on assumptions.

We have different assumptions than you. We present those assumptions and open our ideas up for analysis.

Darwinists, on the other hand, pretend that their ideas are set in stone. They are the religious fanatics.

For example, our assumption is that the radioactive material on Earth was produced pretty much where it is.

That's the start of a discussion. When have we ever seen a Darwinist get more than a few pages into a discussion like that before veering off into the weeds or even a few posts before committing the most egregious of logical fallacies and pretending that has settled things?

Never. Heck, OP is nothing but question-begging nonsense, a Darwinist pretending that his ideas are facts.

Likewise for the fossil record. There is a fossil record, and it shows that there are different creatures today than there were millions of years ago.

Likewise, the assumption of deep time is not a fact.

There are a few significant facts about the rock record that would put such a discussion on extremely uncomfortable ground for Darwinists:

1. The things are needed to make rocks, sediment, water and cement.
2. There are three processes in rock-making, sediment supply, cement supply and removal of the water.

And that's before you try to bury a trillion living organisms from every habitat the globe over.

Speaking of the mechanism of Evolution, the Barbarian has gone to great effort to explain how mutations can in fact increase information. The usual response is denial: "Entropy / Information theory doesn't allow for the increase of information." Yet it does, and The Barbarian has shown this both mathematically and experimentally. The most absurd responses sound like this "Darwinists always try to avoid dealing with the facts"- when in truth YECs, are the ones doing that.

Equivocation does not count as a rebuttal.

Darwinism is obviously wrong. Anybody can go see a sunset or watch the stars and know this. Seeing that this religion is false requires a tad more effort. But the basic thinking is the same. My guess is that believing in a FE or Darwinism is such an important part of some people's belief system that they simply can't admit that they are wrong.

 

[chair]

For example, our assumption is that the radioactive material on Earth was produced pretty much where it is.

Here's your chance to explain how that works. Let's focus on this one single item.

Why do scientists think that radiometric dating shows the earth is very old, and how do you explain the same facts differently?

 

[Stripe]

Why do scientists think that radiometric dating shows the earth is very old, and how do you explain the same facts differently?

"Think."

"Facts."

Be precise. What facts are you talking about? The fact that they believe something?

If it is true that the Earth is young, the field of radioactive decay would have to be radically overhauled. That would begin by figuring out how and where it was all created.

Old-Earthers say it formed in stars.

The Hydroplate theory has it forming in the Earth's crust.

When we look at its distribution, the facts support the challenger's idea. Radioactive material is found in the crust and almost exclusively in continental crust. If it were from the stars, we would expect to find it distributed fairly uniformly throughout the planet.

 

[Yorzhik]

Nearly everybody is happy to jump on the few flat-earthers that we have here (Dave is the prime example). Some of those who attack the FE idea are Young Earth Creationists, who somehow miss that they are behaving in similar way.

For example, how to deal with facts.

Let's say you present Dave with a fact. Like how the sun looks when it rises and sets. How the observed stars move. How one can see further from the top of a mountain. How does a Flat Earther deal with such things? First of all, by denying them. By pretending that they just aren't facts. Photos of a sunset are faked. The distance you see from a mountain top is due to some atmospheric effect. Or you Globe Earthers are interpreting things wrong. Any excuse at all will work. If that doesn't work- change the topic, link to some video, or bring up something that isn't relevant.

Let's say you present a YEC with a fact. Like radiometric dating of rocks to billions of years ago. You'll get denial- the radiometric dating is wrong (some Anti Bible Conspiracy of Scientists might be to blame). Irrelevant facts or pseudo-facts, for example, examples of errors or inaccuracy in C14 dating. "You are interpreting the radiometric measurements wrong". Or a change of topic- a favorite one is the mechanism of evolution.

Likewise for the fossil record. There is a fossil record, and it shows that there are different creatures today than there were millions of years ago. We have denial: "There are no transition fossils." (there are) "You are just interpreting the record wrong" . "You are making the wrong assumptions" (again, some Anti Bible Conspiracy of Scientists might be to blame). Taking a YEC to a quarry to see some fossils with his own eyes would be as effective as taking a FE to see a sunset. The facts don't make any difference. Or a change of topic- a favorite one, as always, is the mechanism of evolution- even though it makes no difference at all what the mechanism is, if evolution in fact happens and happened.

Speaking of the mechanism of Evolution, the Barbarian has gone to great effort to explain how mutations can in fact increase information. The usual response is denial: "Entropy / Information theory doesn't allow for the increase of information." Yet it does, and The Barbarian has shown this both mathematically and experimentally. The most absurd responses sound like this "Darwinists always try to avoid dealing with the facts"- when in truth YECs, are the ones doing that.

Admittedly, Flat Earth is more obviously wrong. Anybody can go see a sunset or watch the stars and know this. Seeing that YEC is wrong requires a tad more effort. But the basic thinking is the same. My guess is that believing in a FE or YEC is such an important part of some people's belief system , that they simply can't admit that they are wrong.

I'm glad to see I'm wrong about you starting a thread. I haven't read all you've posted, but this is the longest and most substantive post I've seen from you. We'll see about how well you engage in a discussion.

The difference between YEC arguments and FE arguments in their respective contexts is that the YEC arguments are rational. Common descentist arguments are a mix of rational and irrational arguments - which is what I'll be attempting to show if this thread holds up.

Radiometric dating is inconsistent. That should cause you to be at least skeptical. And then, one finds out to get something tested you can't be a creationist which shouldn't ever matter. Then you find out you have to guide the lab as to the expected results. That should also make you skeptical.

As to C14 dating, common descentists give a FE-like-answer when C14 is found in things like diamonds and dinosaur bones.

As to the fossil record, the question is millions of years, not that there were different animals before.

As to information theory, Shannon ruins the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection helping common descent. Barbarian's argument that noise increases information in a signal is irrational.

So a couple of things to note, I'm not saying YEC is the correct position, I'm saying common descent is irrational. That being said, common descentists make good points too. And I mean "good" as in rational/logical, not strong.

 

[chair]

"Think."

"Facts."

Be precise. What facts are you talking about? The fact that they believe something?

If it is true that the Earth is young, the field of radioactive decay would have to be radically overhauled. That would begin by figuring out how and where it was all created.

Old-Earthers say it formed in stars.

The Hydroplate theory has it forming in the Earth's crust.

When we look at its distribution, the facts support the challenger's idea. Radioactive material is found in the crust and almost exclusively in continental crust. If it were from the stars, we would expect to find it distributed fairly uniformly throughout the planet.

Stripe, please start from the beginning.

1. What is radiometric dating, as you understand it?
2. What assumptions underlie it?
3. What is wrong with those assumptions?
4. What are your assumptions?
5. And why are your assumptions better?

I am asking you to explain, so we can avoid some of the pitfalls of other discussions. Please try to be specific. Don't assume I know much about Hydroplate Theory for example.

My list of questions can serve as a guideline. You can add what you like.

Chair

 

[Stripe]

What assumptions underlie it?
What are your assumptions?

These are exactly the same question.

I am asking you to explain, so we can avoid some of the pitfalls of other discussions.

No, you're just being a troll.

:wave2:

 

[chair]

These are exactly the same question.



No, you're just being a troll.

:wave2:

No, I'm exactly not doing that. I am trying to get to the heart of this disagreement.
Here are my questions again:

1. What is radiometric dating, as you understand it?
2. What assumptions underlie it?
3. What is wrong with those assumptions?
4. What are your assumptions?
5. And why are your assumptions better?

I can help you a little with #1, to get started. We can use the wikipedia definition:

"Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay."​

You may comment on this, or go on to the other questions. Please recall that the point of this thread is my expectation that you will make excuses and denials of the same sort that flat earthers do. So please prove me wrong, and deal with the facts (A term you used earlier).

 

[chair]

I'm glad to see I'm wrong about you starting a thread. I haven't read all you've posted, but this is the longest and most substantive post I've seen from you. We'll see about how well you engage in a discussion.
...

Please be patient. I will get to your post as well.

 

[Right Divider]

I can help you a little with #1, to get started. We can use the wikipedia definition:

"Radiometric dating, radioactive dating or radioisotope dating is a technique used to date materials such as rocks or carbon, in which trace radioactive impurities were selectively incorporated when they were formed. The method compares the abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope within the material to the abundance of its decay products, which form at a known constant rate of decay."​

There are two assumptions right there.

The original ratio is unknown (assumed).
The constant rate of decay is assumed.

Another assumption is that the system is closed to any other outside influences.

 

[chair]

There are two assumptions right there.

The original ratio is unknown (assumed).
The constant rate of decay is assumed.

Another assumption is that the system is closed to any other outside influences.

These aren't blind assumptions.

For example, in Potassium Argon dating, The Ar can escape before the rock solidifies, so we know what the starting point is.

We know that most nuclear decay is not influenced by outside forces. This is not an assumption. There are particular, known types that have some dependence on outside conditions.
So most radioactive decay systems are known to be closed to outside influences.

There is a possibility of outside contamination. This is well known and understood.

 

[Right Divider]

These aren't blind assumptions.

Ah... here come the caveats to this "absolute dating method".

 

[chair]

Ah... here come the caveats to this "absolute dating method".

Yep, sounds like a Flat Earther. Blank denial. Ignoring facts.

QED

 

[Right Divider]

Yep, sounds like a Flat Earther. Blank denial. Ignoring facts.

QED

False accusations.

 

[chair]

Ah... here come the caveats to this "absolute dating method".

After my giving a giving a detailed explanation of why your claim of "bad assumptions" was incorrect, you stopped dealing with facts, and hide behind the above. I am glad that you think the Earth is a globe.

 

[Right Divider]

After my giving a giving a detailed explanation of why your claim of "bad assumptions" was incorrect, you stopped dealing with facts, and hide behind the above. I am glad that you think the Earth is a globe.

I explained to you what some of the assumptions are. You have given no way to overcome those assumptions.

 

[chair]

...

The difference between YEC arguments and FE arguments in their respective contexts is that the YEC arguments are rational. Common descentist arguments are a mix of rational and irrational arguments - which is what I'll be attempting to show if this thread holds up.

Many of the FE arguments are based on wrong facts, not just poor logic.

Radiometric dating is inconsistent. That should cause you to be at least skeptical. And then, one finds out to get something tested you can't be a creationist which shouldn't ever matter. Then you find out you have to guide the lab as to the expected results. That should also make you skeptical.

As to C14 dating, common descentists give a FE-like-answer when C14 is found in things like diamonds and dinosaur bones.

The fact that there are some inaccurate readings doesn't make the entire field suspect. I don't know anything about creationists being denied access to this kind of testing, or having to guide the lab. Do you have sources for this?

As to the fossil record, the question is millions of years, not that there were different animals before.

Yes, that takes care of the "Young" part of YEC.

As to information theory, Shannon ruins the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection helping common descent. Barbarian's argument that noise increases information in a signal is irrational.

Why? Because its not intuitive? That isn't a solid reason. Much of science and math doesn't seem intuitive to us. A Flat Earth seems more intuitive from day to day life than a global one.

 

[Yorzhik]

Many of the FE arguments are based on wrong facts, not just poor logic.

Sure. What's your point?

My point is that YEC has good reasons, rational reasons based on facts we agree on, to believe what it does. You might find YEC that get things wrong, but the case for YEC gets stronger over time despite that.

The fact that there are some inaccurate readings doesn't make the entire field suspect.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that you should realize we are being rational for being skeptical because anytime we get a look at raw radiometric dating data, the results are inconsistent. Every time. It happens so often that getting raw data is almost impossible.

I don't know anything about creationists being denied access to this kind of testing, or having to guide the lab. Do you have sources for this?

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-paleon...er-was-offered-20-000-00-and-he-still-refused

Notice the answers are not "we've tested dino soft tissue and it doesn't have any carbon14", they are all that Bob is a bad man and OBVIOUSLY the bones are over 65 million years. And then, to top it all off, many of these people that should know better thought there was no soft tissue ever found in dino bones.

Given that, and especially the last reason, you have to consider that anyone questioning darwinism is at least acting rationally to believe they are locked out of radiometric dating labs. "Slaughter of the Dissidents" provides the mountain of anecdotes that couldn't exist without a widespread world view that questioning darwinism will get you fired.

So you might think Richard Sternberg should have been fired, or that any of the hundreds of others already in academia like Sternberg that advise anyone coming into academia to never reveal their anti-darwin thought for fear of getting fired are giving superfluous advice, but at least admit we have a rational basis for our fear.

Yes, that takes care of the "Young" part of YEC.

You said animals being different were evidence that we ignore and I'm pointing out it isn't.

Why? Because its not intuitive? That isn't a solid reason. Much of science and math doesn't seem intuitive to us. A Flat Earth seems more intuitive from day to day life than a global one.

No, because Shannon's work rests on dealing with bad information in a signal. Or, more specifically Shannon provides a means to determine if the message received was the message that was sent. So not only is the intuition correct, but Shannon supports our view.

Barbarian doesn't take into account that the receiver has to be able to decode the message as it was sent for the most part. Noise adds information as a measure, but it degrades the information of the message because any deviation from what was sent is considered degraded information in Shannon.

 

[6days]

Let's say you present a YEC with a fact. Like radiometric dating of rocks to billions of years ago.

Lets say you present an evolutionist with a 'fact'... radiometric dating (Potassium /argon) dates rocks at 212 to 230 million years old, but later a human skull is found there... What do you think the evolutionists did with the 'fact'?

...for example, examples of errors or inaccuracy in C14 dating.

Evolutionists call it 'error' when the results are inconsistent with their beliefs.

There is a fossil record, and it shows that there are different creatures today than there were millions of years ago.

The fossil record shows many magnificent creatures and even vegetation of the past have gone extinct.

Speaking of the mechanism of Evolution, the Barbarian has gone to great effort to explain how mutations can in fact increase information.

Funny, you think Barbarian is an authority on genetics.. a topic he obviously lacks knowledge in. Neither he, nor you...nor any evolutionist can explain how natural selection can reverse increasing genetic load in all mammal populations. Modern genetics shows the common ancestry beliefs are impossible. Secularists attempt to explain away the evidence with hypothetical rescue devices such as quasi-truncation, antagonistic epistasis, the multiplicative model etc.

Chair... why not just accept the science... The data is consistent with a perfect genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption / mutations

It is exciting times for Bible believing Christians as science helps confirm the truth of Scripture... and provides an additional avenue of worship.

 

[6days]

I don't know anything about creationists being denied access to this kind of testing, or having to guide the lab. Do you have sources for this?

Sure... Here is an example I posted here previously. (Also Yorzhik provided an example)

Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).

Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning - and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors. When the authors inquired, they received this letter:....View attachment 26810

."I have instructed the Radiocarbon Laboratory to return your recent samples to you and to not accept any future samples for analysis."

"Notice that he did not say the radiocarbon reports of the dinosaur bone samples were inaccurate. No, his objection was that the Paleochronology group was using the reports as evidence that dinosaurs lived thousands, not millions, of years ago." http://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html