Evidence for a Young Earth (page 7)

Vidiot

Anders - "Perry, are you being intellectually dishonest on purpose, or are you really clueless?"

The line between the two is kinda fuzzy. :smirk:

Vidiot

Challenges and evidence are really academic, IMO.

Creationists like Perry reject evolution for ideological reasons.

His core worldview requires the Eden narrative in Genesis to be literal history, period.

Evolution simply cannot be reconciled with that.

Simon

How is the average person supposed to know which half is true and which half isn't ?

Because some people are genuinely looking for explanations and answers to the questions, some are desperately looking for anything that might confirm their pre-existing belief or provide them with some nonsense argument to at least cast doubt on the best explanations based on the known facts by those who are honest.

Motive matters and tells us a lot.

People interpret those facts differently, plain and simple.

You are trying to imply that the facts can change or that different interpretations are equally valid. Facts are facts. They are interpreted either honestly with a view to coming up with the best explanation that fits the facts or through the lens of religious desperation to confirm a fairy story (and often ignoring a mass of other facts).

What you are trying to do is to use the dishonest logic of claiming that "some things may be incorrect or incomplete, therefore everything could be wrong".

None of your links try to give any answers based on the facts, just cast doubt about whether current explanations are 100% complete and because some may not be, suggest that they should all be thrown out. But of course you have a different, completely lax standard when it comes to verification of the bumper book of bible bullshit stories.

Basically Perry, you are just trying to spread your absolutely idiotic and baseless pseudo-science bullshit but we know you are not trying to convince anyone, you know you can't - what you are trying to do is convince yourself because deep down, if you could be honest, you know your bible stories are bullshit and as science advances they get torn into tinier pieces. For whatever reason, you think you need the opiate of religion to live your life and want to justify it to yourself.

Here's an idea: say it all to the mirror. We don't want this clap-trap anymore. It's nothing but spam trying to sell a scam.

Heaven

cofty said: Perry do you accept the challenge?

The "Perry Pattern" suggests a 'No' answer to your question cofty. But I suspect you already know that.

cofty

aww!

Maybe I will start a new thread and throw the challenge out there to any creationist who wants to accept it.

With god on their side what is there to fear?

Finkelstein

Perry says .....

Could the Watchtower have been wrong about earths' age along with all the other things they got wrong??

Its not only the JW religion that says the earth was created in seven days or seven thousands years , there is a lot of other Christian and non-Christian religions who assert this as well.

Right Perry ?

That Dam Scientifically acquired knowledge !

That Dam education !

Perry

Anyway, the article you linked to is research into the field of medicine. Do you have similar research that actually applies to the fields of biology, genetics, archeology and geology?

Anders Anderson,

Scientific American calls the problem"epidemic" and "rampant" in the "natural sciences" - Quote:

"False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences"

Simon,

Relevant reports from Scientific American isn't spam. Results oriented reporting (aka confirmation bias) is a problem with humans of every background and ideology.... evolutionists, creationists, bicyclists, drama students as well as politicians and engineers. I work closely with engineers at times and am licensed to perform certain field tests. They then can apply their stamp to my data collection reports because of my training.

My forensic evidence doesn't change, but the interpretation sure does. When you know the client, you can peg about 80% of the time how the analysis will lean. I am amused to see the reports when engineers face off. Same data, opposite conclusions. And, the attorneys have a field day with it.

No one is exempt from this phenomenon.

More (Search for - Bogus Peer Reviewed Articles)

kaik

People interpret those facts differently, plain and simple. The tendency is to attack anothers interpretation of the facts and call that interpretation not science

I am not sure if you ever presented a scientific research paper and had to defend it either in a peer journal or in the faculty. I had and I am actually in the process getting a manuscript published in the peer journal. It is an extremely rigorous process and I had to present my study twice because at the suggestion of my faculty, I had to present more thorough finding. It is not the process you describing.

Look at one simple example, stalagmite. Its growth rate can be measured like in the tree ring, and the process does not require extremely complicated scientific tools and apparatus. Some of the stalagmites can be several million years old, because the yearly deposit can be measured. Within one cave system the samples can determine the age of the cave formation and growth rate.

Over the weekend I saw a stalagmite that was about 2 million years old, and it is still alive and growing. The science currently will not give you exact year the first deposit was made, but through statistical measure they can present with a degree of confidence that the stalagmite is old 2 million years. In some point in the future, when better and more accurate measures are developed, the science will give a better accuracy. This is what science does.

Anders Andersen

@Perry,

Why not also quote from that very same article this part:

The crisis should not shake confidence in the scientific method. The ability to prove something false continues to be a hallmark of science. But scientists need to improve the way they do their research and how they disseminate evidence.

The article also proposes a solution: when new findings are presented, mutiple peer reviewed studies are needed to confirm the finding.

So, where are all the peer reviewed studies that confirm a young earth?

Or does your criticism and scrutiny only apply to ideas and conclusions that contradict your beliefs, while your own ideas can be confirmed by whatever?

cofty

Still ignoring the challenge Perry?

Evidence for a Young Earth

Share this