Parallel thinking: Flat Earth and Young Earth Creationists

[The Barbarian]

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.

FE and YEC both deny evidence in favor of a literal reading of scripture. That doesn't seem rational.

Common descentist arguments are a mix of rational and irrational arguments

Common descent is based on evidence (at least some of which is admitted by a YEC scientist familiar with it, as "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Radiometric dating is inconsistent.

That's a testable claim...

Here, the Fen Complex in Norway was tested by various methods and by different researchers and the spread of dates was between 588 million years and 565 million years. So about 4% error at most. That seems pretty good. That kind of error gives YECs no comfort at all. And we know it works because (for example), the flow that buried Pompeii was accurately dated by argon/argon testing.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/EO078i036p00382-02

That should cause you to be at least skeptical of creationists claims.

And then, one finds out to get something tested you can't be a creationist

No,that's wrong. Would you like me to show you some examples?

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

It's instructive that the results merely peg the needle the oldest possible age for that equipment. So if a method finds essentially no C-14, the result is set at the oldest possible date. Further, C14 is formed from nitrogen by ionizing radiation. So any nitrogen in a diamond could be changed to C14 if there was a source of radiation. Turns out the pipes in which diamonds are formed contain uranium and thorium. So there's that.

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

See above. Moreover, the geologic column typically includes deserts, forests, ocean environments and others for the same area. It's clearly not consistent with a few thousand years.

As to information theory, Shannon ruins the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection helping common descent.

As you learned, Shannon's equation is used by population geneticists to measure evolution. Seems to me that it would be a bit odd for "evolutionists" to use something that "ruins the mechanism." You were going to show us which process, required for evolution, is ruled out by "information." You forgot to do that. Would you show us now? Be specific.

Barbarian's argument that noise increases information in a signal is irrational.

As you learned, that was Shannon's finding, not mine. Noise increases information in a signal.

So a couple of things to note, I'm not saying YEC is the correct position, I'm saying common descent is irrational.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, disagrees with you.

That being said, common descentists make good points too. And I mean "good" as in rational/logical, not strong.

Wise disagrees with you on that, too.

But then, Wise actually knows what the evidence is.

So when are you going to show us any process, required for common descent, that is ruled out by information?

 

[6days]

YEC ..deny evidence in favor of a literal reading of scripture. That doesn't seem rational.

Jesus "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me" John 5:46

Common descent is based on evidence

Biblical creation is based on God's Word and evidence.

Common descent is a false belief system that has resulted in shoddy conclusions about fossils, pseudogenes, non-coding DNA, the appendix, retroviruses, coccyx, scientific racism, Neandertals etc.

And we know it works because (for example), the flow that buried Pompeii was accurately dated by argon/argon testing.

Then you also believe sandpipers (birds) existed 212 million years ago since their footprints in rock was dated with argon/argon. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature00818 OOPS... but that is inconsistent with the belief system, so other scientists used lead /uranium dating to change the date by 175 million years. https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/abs/nature11931.html

One dating method we can trust is God's Word. Using the genealogies from when God created first Adam "at the beginning of the creation" to 'Last Adam', we have approximately 4,000 years.

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise, disagrees with you.(that common descent is irrational)

What Kurt Wise says is "The evidence from Scripture is by far the best evidence for creation. No better evidence can be imagined than that provided from Him who is not only the only eyewitness observer, but who also is the embodiment of all truth. All Christians should be content in His claims for creation. There are those, however, who reject the authority of the Scriptures."

 

[way 2 go]

Jesus "If you really believed Moses, you would believe me" John 5:46
Biblical creation is based on God's Word and evidence.

Common descent is a false belief system that has resulted in shoddy conclusions about fossils, pseudogenes, non-coding DNA, the appendix, retroviruses, coccyx, scientific racism, Neandertals etc.
Then you also believe sandpipers (birds) existed 212 million years ago since their footprints in rock was dated with argon/argon. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature00818 OOPS... but that is inconsistent with the belief system, so other scientists used lead /uranium dating to change the date by 175 million years. https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v495/n7441/abs/nature11931.html

the more fake science that piles up the more it is going to trip over itself and make "retractions"


Rodhocetus admitted fake
https://youtu.be/R7e6C6yUqck

 

[Yorzhik]

A Flat Earth seems more intuitive from day to day life than a global one.

I often take a long time between posts. For me, it's just life getting in the way. I would have been interested to continue this conversation with Chair not to prove him wrong, but to show him that YEC are rational to be skeptical of common descent.

 

[6days]

Some of those who attack the FE idea are Young Earth Creationists,

Some of those who attack veganism are atheists.

IOW... Your argument is based on false equivalency. There are no PhD scientists that I am aware of who believe in a flat Earth. Worldwide, there are likely tens of thousands of PhD scientists who believe the evidence best fits the young earth model..

BTW... The president of the flat earth society, Daniel Shenton is an evolutionist.

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

I don't think you know what a fact is, Chair. What does an evolutionist do when a human skull is phone in volcanic cash dated at over 200 million years? Are you interested in the FACTS?(even if a causes a problem to your belief?)

..examples of errors or inaccuracy in C14 dating.

There are some problems with C14 dating but it does help confirm the biblical account

Or a change of topic- a favorite one is the mechanism of evolution.

Are you referring to observeable / testable processes such as genetic thrift, adaptation, natural selection etc? Or, are you referring to the unobservable / non falsifiable common ancestry belief system.

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

Uh.... No. The fossil record shows that many magnificent life forms of the past have gone extinct. The fossil record helps to confirm the biblical account.

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

Barbarian may have gone to great effort but his understanding of genetics is poor. He repeats stuff that he has learned in the l60's that science has proven to be false. Did you want to discuss genetics?

 

[The Barbarian]

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

(6Days writes)

Barbarian may have gone to great effort but his understanding of genetics is poor. He repeats stuff that he has learned in the l60's that science has proven to be false. Did you want to discuss genetics?

I showed 6Days how Shannon's information equation demonstrates how mutations increase information in a population, but he doesn't know enough about math and genetics to figure it out.

So he reads what other creationists tell him about genetics and believes it, when they know no more than he does. Which is why he never answers the questions given to him; if you show him actual work by population geneticists, it might as well be in Urdu as far as he can see.

 

[6days]

I showed 6Days how Shannon's information equation demonstrates how mutations increase information ...

Perhaps that is what people thought in 1948 with Shannon theory. (Perhaps even in the 1960s). Geneticists now understand biological information it's something very different from Shannon information.

... it might as well be in Urdu as far as he can see.

شرمندہ لوگوں جیسے @ چیئر کو سمجھانے کی کوشش کرنے پر آپ کو شرم آتی ہے کہ آپ کو کچھ پتہ ہے۔ (@chair)

 

[Gary K]

I have to chuckle at some of the reasoning displayed here.

The reasoning basically says that if you have a different paradigm of the world than evolutionists do you are not rational. Huh? Everyone has their basic paradigm through which we view the world and everything in it. That paradigm helps delineate our choices for what we find authoritative and what we find suspect. For someone who claims to be a Christian to say that those who accept the word of God, as written, as authoritative are irrational I would point out that it is completely irrational to claim to follow God and then claim His word is non-authoritative. That is one of the most irrational bits of thinking I've run across in a long time. It's strongly indicative of holding two mutually exclusive positions at the same time.