Jump to content


Photo

Effects Of Continued Belief Of "evolution" On The Brain

INSANITY FAIRY TALE ABIODARWINISM MENTAL ILLNESS FANTASY DELUSION

  • Please log in to reply
240 replies to this topic

#141 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 29 June 2016 - 10:23 AM

Is it that there is no "fudge-factor", and the numbers are integers?

The issues are:

- it is a bar graph trying to represent a spread. (both)

- the "updated" graph no longer has confidence bands, meaning he deliberately removed information in order to make the difference seems insignificant

- the "updated" graph no longer is centered around the 100 (which is the average IQ of the entire human population)

 

Note that the author of the article says the original author made a misleading graph, while in effect he did it himself. 

 

 

Your link makes a good point Fjuri:

Fjuri's link: This is where we have to think about effect size vs. statistical significance. The most religious adults had an average IQ of 97.14, whereas the atheist adults had an average IQ of 103.09. That may seem like a wide gap — 6 whole IQ points — until we remember that anyone in the IQ range of 90-109 is classified as having “average intelligence.” Thinking about this in practical terms: Would you be able to tell the difference between someone with a 97 IQ and someone with a 103 IQ? It’s highly unlikely.

The author is making the sweeping generalization fallacy you previously mentioned. Its ironic that you didn't spot it here.

 

What your judgement, is the author incompetent or dishonest?



#142 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 June 2016 - 11:46 AM

 

Fjuri: The author is making the sweeping generalization fallacy you previously mentioned. Its ironic that you didn't spot it here.

 

What your judgement, is the author incompetent or dishonest?

 

You haven't quite understood the sweeping generalisation fallacy, yet, though.  Since the people he refers to (individuals) WOULD all be in the, "average intelligence" group it is actually correct reasoning to say that you wouldn't notice the difference between them, as he refers to those who definitely DO have average intelligence.

 

The sweeping-generalisation would be to say that if the mean-average was about 100 that a particular person with an average intelligence would have the mean number of 100 IQ.

 

 

 

Fjuri: What your judgement, is the author incompetent or dishonest?

 

Neither. I suggest you offer a limited choice where there might not be one. Why be so cynical? The author is only trying to dispell the myth that atheists are smarter BECAUSE atheists use such statistics to argue a generalisation. No, certainly not all atheists, but look at the atheist that left a comment, who is called, "Arch", he makes the exact mistake I mentioned, he suggests that because the group, "religious" have a lower IQ that this perhaps makes the individual author, "uncomfortable", which shows that that atheist-poster doesn't understand that the graph does not say that "no individual religious person has a high IQ". That is the sweeping-generalisation I warned about. As you can see, I was right to mention it, because a lot of atheists do use those statistics to imply that such a statistic makes them personally, smart as atheists, and the other guy a stupid religious person.  

 

But that does not follow. In a group of people that are on average 5'8" tall it does not follow that there is nobody in that group that is 6' tall.

 

That guy named, "Arch" made a mistake in deductive reasoning. In your earlier link, it said that a good grasp of deductive and inductive reasoning is one of the factors of higher intelligence.

 

Can I propose something to you in a friendly manner Fjuri, as I do respect you much more than anti-theists. Can I just ask you an honest question? Why do you want atheists as a group to be smarter than religious people. Is it really because you think that this will favour atheism being true?

 

One thing both graphs fail to show is the true difference in 6 points. The size of the bar-chart don't represent a true logical difference. For example, if I am 5'8" tall (which I am) and you are 6 foot tall, if I only shown a diagram showing our heads from the neck upwards, it would look like a HUGE difference, but if I shown a diagram showing the whole of our bodies, the difference would seem a lot smaller. 6 points out of 100 scored IS a small difference. $ inches out of 6 foot IS a small difference, because there MANY inches. 

 

Everest and K2 are close in height but they are both exceedingly large mountains.

 

Human intelligence is the greatest on the planet, 6 points difference just wouldn't count for much in reality, IMHO.



#143 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 June 2016 - 09:17 PM

These are the 5 stages of grief:

1. DENIAL

2. Anger

3. Bargaining

4. Depression

5. Acceptance

 

Guess where you're at. ;)

 

None of those apply to me, I am happy to be in my savior's care,

I don't need to worry about my destiny, It is all taken care of by

the same God that created the universe and Man just like he said

he did in Genesis. In SIX DAYS.. I believe him. He was there, I WASNT,

 

 

How about YOU? Is the Best you can hope for complete annihilation?

Hoping against hope that your spirit is snuffed out and nothingness ensues?

Now THAT would be very depressing.. lets just say your chart would be accurate in such a

case..  you still have time to receive the gift of eternal life by repenting and accepting

Gods Son and his truth.. Reject Satan's Lie of Abiogenesis / Darwinism.. It leads straight

to hell..

 

These are the 5 stages of grief:

1. DENIAL

2. Anger

3. Bargaining

4. Depression

5. Acceptance



#144 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 29 June 2016 - 09:28 PM

Please remember that this was a reply to the original post that questions the effect on intelligence of abioatheoevolutionists. I took a 5 minute search via google to find this paper. I actually ended up here:

http://www.randalols...marter-atheist/

showing this picture:

iq_vs_religiosity_ind.png

 

I have a lot of problems with this picture (less then with the orignal I posted). Anyone care to guess the 3 main issues I have with this picture? I'll give a hint, the picture I posted only solves 1 of them (although almost solves another as well).

 

I would say that the second link is better than the paper you first presented. He doesn't claim to say something scientific. But rather he is trying to point out flaws with a certain kind of reasoning. The paper on the other hand tries to make scientific claims, but seems to be mostly a biased attempt to support a favorite theory. But the main punch in the second link I think is this sentence:
 
"Indeed, if we look at income per capita instead of religiosity, we already see a much better correlation with average IQ. The correlation between religiosity and IQ is too weak to suggest that religiosity predicts intelligence on the national level. Anyone who claims otherwise is grasping at straws."
 
And here one has to understand the concept of correlation. I discussed this recently with my son that is studying at the university. And you could state that anything is correlated, for example that IQ has a correlation with the number of trees in your backyard. But if the correlation is measured and the correlation numbers are low (as in the case of IQ and religiosity) there are no correlation and you have to look for other reason why some have higher IQ than others.
 
For example. Atheist might be more keen of making money than theists, and the slightly higher IQ score measured for atheist could be a side effect that is really due to the income per capita correlation. 

  • mike the wiz likes this

#145 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 June 2016 - 11:04 PM

Thank you for the much improved tone of your comments.

Correct.   I'm Catholic, and attended Catholic schools thru the first 3 years of university.

 

Because YEC would make over 99.9999999% of God's creation a deception.

 

For example, the supernova event by which the star Sanduleak 69-202 became redesignated as supernova SN1987a never took place and the star itself never existed.

 

Yeah.... we've learned a lot in the last 200+ years..... and we're still learning at an accelerating pace.  Science makes no claim to be all knowing.

 

My rejection of a literal Genesis has very little to do with Darwin and much more to do with Newton (and St. Augustine).  In a YEC universe we should be able to see nothing beyond 6,000 light years.  Virtually the entire universe, including the center of our own galaxy is much more distant than that.  To me, the choice was that God's creation is a deception or we are misunderstanding the messages of the creation account.  More on that later.....

 

OOPS ! ! !   Slipped back to the old Blitz.....  with a series of factually inaccurate statements.

 

1)  Multiple Gallup polls over the last 30+ years show consistently that about 80% of those who accept evolution believe it to be a process of creation used by God.  (IIRC, the most recent poll was only 67%, but it's still a substantial majority.)

2)  With the understanding that when we are talking about people, there are lots of exceptions.... in general, those with higher IQ's tend to have more education and those with more education are more likely to accept evolution.

3)  I'm not sure what is meant by "indifferent."

4)  What's an "Oval Earther?"  As opposed to ????  Flat Earth?  We just had that discussion....

 

The only documentation I can think of to use for comparison is Discovery Institutes "Dissent from Darwinism" and NCSE's "Project Steve" and that is more an indicator than a measurement.... I'm not going to count signatures, but the last time I checked, it worked out that "Steve" had about 99 times the support of "Dissent."  Every single scientific organization I can think of has a formal statement opposing ID.  In other words, even if ID is "gaining traction," it has a long way to go before it becomes accepted science.

 

You are aware we call them "physical" and "natural" sciences for a reason, aren't you?  What do you think that reason would be?  Is it possible that the metaphysical and supernatural are outside the limitations of scientific methodologies available?  I can list the total number of metaphysical and supernatural tests available to science on the left thumbs of my right foot.

 

IIRC, when you began posting, you commented this isn't your "first rodeo."  Well, it isn't mine either.

 

Newtonian physics clearly establishes the universe is billions of years old based on direct trigonometry (parallax) and standard candles (inverse square law). 

 

Basically, St. Augustine said that even a pagan knows about how many things work with certainty based on study and experience.  He points out it is very dangerous to the faith for a believer to declare false that which a non-believer knows to be true based on their own observation and experience then use scripture to justify the claim.

 

When I was 19-20, and an engineering student at the Jesuit operated University of San Francisco.  All students were automatic philosophy minors and all Catholics were required to take theology classes.  As I had attended Catholic schools from first grade, I was well aware of the Genesis genealogy and the 6,000 year calculation by Bishop Ussher.  This was about the time the discovery of the CMB was announced.  I began to realize that, regardless of it's origin, the universe is truly ancient .... billions of years old, not thousands.... based on the travel time of light from distant objects.  This led to a crisis of faith.

 

Time = distance / velocity isn't "indoctrination" or "brainwashing" ... it's simple math.  The light travel time problem, not Darwin, nearly caused me to abandon my faith.  For that reason, I'm sure you can understand it's the one that would need to be addressed for me to reconsider my position on Genesis literalism. 

 

Fortunately, my religious mentors, who were philosophers and theologians, suggested I review Genesis with a view toward finding the deeper spiritual messages, rather looking at it as a literal account.  Had they told me what the YEC ministries say: (paraphrasing) "anything that contradicts a literal Genesis is invalid by definition,"

 

In the 50 years since then, the attempts by creation scientists to deal with the light travel time of YEC have become increasingly bizarre.  It's gone from challenging the distance measurement; to questioning the speed of light; to claiming a "gravitational well" making time stop on Earth; to the speed of light being direction dependent.

 

Thank you.  I will accept it in that spirit.

 

Be assured, when my time comes, rejection of Genesis literalism won't even be in the list of the top 100 things I'll have to answer for.....

 

Some other (related) points....

1)  My position is that, from a scientific perspective, all proposed explanations for the origin of life are speculative.

2)  Rejection of a global flood came decades after Genesis literalism was rejected by me.

 

This particular part of the discussion seems a bit off topic.  There have been a couple threads on theistic evolution since I've been here, you might want to look into them..... but you are the author of the OP, so you make the call.....

 

Thank you for the much improved tone of your comments.

Blitzking, on 26 Jun 2016 - 7:22 PM, said:snapback.png

It says in your handle that you consider yourself to be a "Christian" 

Correct.   I'm Catholic, and attended Catholic schools thru the first 3 years of university.

 

I COULD QUIBBLE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ROMAN CATHOLICISM AND BIBLICALLY BASED CHRISTIANITY , BUT WILL GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT..

THERE ARE BIGGER FISH TO FRY..

 

Blitzking, on 26 Jun 2016 - 7:22 PM, said:snapback.png

Why don't you trust the very God that you supposedly believe in who told us Exactly how and how long it took him to create the universe and ultimately Man?

Because YEC would make over 99.9999999% of God's creation a deception.

 

SO 99.9999999% OF GOD'S CREATION IS A DECEPTION IF CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THE GENESIS ACCOUNT? WASNT GOD THE ONE WHO WAS THERE? WHO IS MAN TO TRY TO SAY THAT HE IS WRONG AND THEY ARE RIGHT? SO NO ADAM? NO EVE? NO CAIN? ABEL? BABEL? NO FALL? NO FLOOD? NO MIRACLES? WHERE DOES THE APOSTASY STOP?   WHO GETS TO DECIDE? DARWINISTS? (BTW, THEIR TRACK RECORD IS NOT VERY GOOD.. LOL

 

For example, the supernova event by which the star Sanduleak 69-202 became redesignated as supernova SN1987a never took place and the star itself never existed.

 

IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE OVER 14 TIMES THAT GOD "STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS"  IT MUST BE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO BE

PUT IN THERE THAT MANY TIMES! I THINK IT IS OBVIOUS WHAT THAT MEANS.. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT MEANS??

 

http://creationists....ble-verses.html

 

http://creationscien...ng-the-heavens/

 

http://www.creationm...ing-out-heavens

 

 

Blitzking, on 26 Jun 2016 - 7:22 PM, said:snapback.png

Listen, Trusting Man Made "Psuedo Science" can be Deadly (Ask George Washington)

Yeah.... we've learned a lot in the last 200+ years..... and we're still learning at an accelerating pace.  Science makes no claim to be all knowing.

YES BUT WILL WE LEARN NOT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES OF INSERTING WISHFUL THINKING AND UNVERIFIED ASSUMPTIONS IN WITH THE REALM OF "SCIENCE" (THAT WHICH IS KNOWN) WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG!!!

 

Blitzking, on 26 Jun 2016 - 7:22 PM, said:snapback.png

....  and cost you your soul for calling God a Liar just to try to please Darwin, WHY?

My rejection of a literal Genesis has very little to do with Darwin and much more to do with Newton (and St. Augustine).  In a YEC universe we should be able to see nothing beyond 6,000 light years.  Virtually the entire universe, including the center of our own galaxy is much more distant than that.  To me, the choice was that God's creation is a deception or we are misunderstanding the messages of the creation account.  More on that later.....

 

WHO SAYS THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE NOTHING BEYOND 6000 LIGHT YEARS???  NOT BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS, (OR AS YOU SAY.. YEC) THATS FOR SURE!!!

AGAIN.. GOD SAID MANY TIMES.. HE STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS!!!!!! I BELIEVE HIM!!

 

Blitzking, on 26 Jun 2016 - 7:22 PM, said:snapback.png

Darwinism is a dead dog's carcass that is only being propped up by militant atheists, God haters. Low IQ / indifferent people and Brainwashed / Indoctrinated "Oval Earthers"

OOPS ! ! !   Slipped back to the old Blitz.....  with a series of factually inaccurate statements.

 

1)  Multiple Gallup polls over the last 30+ years show consistently that about 80% of those who accept evolution believe it to be a process of creation used by God.  (IIRC, the most recent poll was only 67%, but it's still a substantial majority.)

2)  With the understanding that when we are talking about people, there are lots of exceptions.... in general, those with higher IQ's tend to have more education and those with more education are more likely to accept evolution.

3)  I'm not sure what is meant by "indifferent."

4)  What's an "Oval Earther?"  As opposed to ????  Flat Earth?  We just had that discussion....

 

(1) POLLS ARE WORTHLESS AND YOU KNOW IT... IT DOESNT MATTER IF 99.999% OF THE PEOPLE BELIEVE SOMETHING, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE..

(2) WELL MAYBE THOSE "EDUCATED" PEOPLE ARE "LEARNING" MANY THINGS THAT ARENT SO!! DID YOU EVER THINK OF THAT?

(3) ME NEITHER

(4) AN "OVAL EARTHER IS SOMEONE WHO TAKES TWO OPPOSING BELIEFS AND TRIES TO MORPH THEM INTO THE SAME SINGLE BELIEF..

ONE GOOD EXAMPLE IS SOMEONE WHO TRIES TO MARRY JUDEO CHRISTIANITY WITH ABIOGENESIS/DARWINISM OR SOMEONE WHO TRIES TO BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT AND ROUND AT THE SAME TIME.. HENCE THE TERM "OVAL-EARTHER"

 

Blitzking, on 26 Jun 2016 - 7:22 PM, said:snapback.png

BTW the "Compromise" ID is gaining traction in the scientific community..

The only documentation I can think of to use for comparison is Discovery Institutes "Dissent from Darwinism" and NCSE's "Project Steve" and that is more an indicator than a measurement.... I'm not going to count signatures, but the last time I checked, it worked out that "Steve" had about 99 times the support of "Dissent."  Every single scientific organization I can think of has a formal statement opposing ID.  In other words, even if ID is "gaining traction," it has a long way to go before it becomes accepted science.

 

AND JUST WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT IS "ACCEPTED SCIENCE"  I KNOW!!  DARWINISTS!!  YOU DO KNOW THAT DONT YOU?

 

Blitzking, on 26 Jun 2016 - 7:22 PM, said:snapback.png

They are willing to go against their A Priori position of Metaphysical Methodical Naturalism because they are getting CRUSHED under the weight of the preponderance of evidence against them..

You are aware we call them "physical" and "natural" sciences for a reason, aren't you?  What do you think that reason would be?  Is it possible that the metaphysical and supernatural are outside the limitations of scientific methodologies available?  I can list the total number of metaphysical and supernatural tests available to science on the left thumbs of my right foot.

 

BUT IF YOU READ MY CLAIM, THE HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHESIS OF ABIOGENESIS / DARWINISM IS THE ESSENCE OF THE BELIEF IN METAPHYSICAL METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM!!!  THAT WAS MY POINT!! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EMPIRICAL SCIENCE... I DONT HAVE TO GO OVER WHAT CONSTITUTES FOR EMPIRICAL SCIENCE  AGAIN HERE IM SURE..

 

LIKE I SAID..

They are willing to go against their A Priori position of Metaphysical Methodical Naturalism because they are getting CRUSHED under the weight of the preponderance of evidence against them..

 

Blitzking, on 26 Jun 2016 - 7:22 PM, said:snapback.png

Come on back to the Truth and the light and Escape the chains of the Dark Side while you still have breath in your lungs...

IIRC, when you began posting, you commented this isn't your "first rodeo."  Well, it isn't mine either.

 

Newtonian physics clearly establishes the universe is billions of years old based on direct trigonometry (parallax) and standard candles (inverse square law). 

 

Basically, St. Augustine said that even a pagan knows about how many things work with certainty based on study and experience.  He points out it is very dangerous to the faith for a believer to declare false that which a non-believer knows to be true based on their own observation and experience then use scripture to justify the claim.

 

WHO IS ST AUGUSTINE? AND WHAT DOES HE KNOW ABOUT THE HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHESIS OF ABIODARWINISM?

 

When I was 19-20, and an engineering student at the Jesuit operated University of San Francisco.  All students were automatic philosophy minors and all Catholics were required to take theology classes.  As I had attended Catholic schools from first grade, I was well aware of the Genesis genealogy and the 6,000 year calculation by Bishop Ussher.  This was about the time the discovery of the CMB was announced.  I began to realize that, regardless of it's origin, the universe is truly ancient .... billions of years old, not thousands.... based on the travel time of light from distant objects.  This led to a crisis of faith.

 

ANOTHER SUCESS STORY FOR SATAN.... "DID GOD REALLY SAY...."

 

IN OTHER WORDS, DARWINISTS (LIKE THEY WILL DO EVERY TIME THEY CAN BECAUSE THEY CONTROL ACADEMIA) GOT AHOLD OF A YOUNG GULLIBLE MIND AND THROUGH BRAINWASHING AND INDOCTRINATION CONVINCED YOU THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG AND THEY ARE RIGHT... ITS A STORY AS OLD AS TIME..

 

Time = distance / velocity isn't "indoctrination" or "brainwashing" ... it's simple math.  The light travel time problem, not Darwin, nearly caused me to abandon my faith.  For that reason, I'm sure you can understand it's the one that would need to be addressed for me to reconsider my position on Genesis literalism. 

 

I WILL ADDRESS IT HERE AND NOW...

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
 

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

 

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

 

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

 

And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?

 

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.

 

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

 

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?
 

 

Fortunately, my religious mentors, who were philosophers and theologians, suggested I review Genesis with a view toward finding the deeper spiritual messages, rather looking at it as a literal account.  Had they told me what the YEC ministries say: (paraphrasing) "anything that contradicts a literal Genesis is invalid by definition,"

 

FORTUNATELY??? I WOULD SAY "BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.. "There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death" PROVERBS 14:12

 

In the 50 years since then, the attempts by creation scientists to deal with the light travel time of YEC have become increasingly bizarre.  It's gone from challenging the distance measurement; to questioning the speed of light; to claiming a "gravitational well" making time stop on Earth; to the speed of light being direction dependent.

 

WHY ALL OF THE NEED FOR WORTHLESS SPECULATION??  HERE.. LETS MAKE IT SIMPLE..

 

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

 

Blitzking, on 26 Jun 2016 - 7:22 PM, said:snapback.png

I tell you this in love.. I am NOT your enemy, Darwin / Satan is..

Thank you.  I will accept it in that spirit.

 

Be assured, when my time comes, rejection of Genesis literalism won't even be in the list of the top 100 things I'll have to answer for.....

 

Some other (related) points....

1)  My position is that, from a scientific perspective, all proposed explanations for the origin of life are speculative.

2)  Rejection of a global flood came decades after Genesis literalism was rejected by me.

 

HOW ABOUT JESUS MIRACLES? PARTING THE RED SEA? THE PLAGUES OF EGYPT? THE SUN STOPPING FOR A DAY? SODOM RAIN OF FIRE? ETC ETC ETC?? WHO GETS TO DECIDE??   THAT IS ALL PART OF THE DEVILS PLAN..JUST LIKE A BUILDING,  TEAR DOWN THE FOUNDATION, AND THE REST GOES EVENTUALLY AS WELL...   YOU DO BELIEVE IN THE EXISTANCE OF THE DEVIL DONT YOU? I'M SORRY, I HAVE TO AKS,  I CANT BE SURE NOW...

 

 

This particular part of the discussion seems a bit off topic.  There have been a couple threads on theistic evolution since I've been here, you might want to look into them..... but you are the author of the OP, so you make the call.....

 

I'M VERY FAMILAIR WITH ALL OF THE TE THEMES.. BELIEVE IT!



#146 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 29 June 2016 - 11:56 PM

So did Al Capone and Ted bundy. ;)

 

If you think attending catholic school makes you a Christian then this comment definitely disturbs me. I was raised catholic and did not become genuinely born-again as Christ describes, until I was a number of years away from any catholic influence. I can tell you that my catholic upbringing had very, very little to do with being Christian. When I was classed as a catholic, I was not born again. I suggest to you think you have a head-theism you call, "Christianity".

 

I don't say that in a mean-spirited way Piasan, I just find it very hard to believe you really know the Lord, because of the type of indicators you give that strongly suggest you don't.

 

But I will also say, I would be very happy to be wrong on this. So I am not judging you, I am simply believe that there are many, many, "theistic evolutionists" that display very strong evidence that they are not really Christian. They will usually sound like atheists, and it can be very hard for them to support anything biblical or agree with genuine Christians. Also had you not known they named themselves as, "theistic evolutionist" it would be very difficult to see any actual difference in their arguments, from that of atheist arguments. They tend to concentrate on arguing points with Christians, even in topics that have nothing to do with evolution, and will very seldom argue with an atheist.

 

:gotcha: 

I have noticed that to be the case as well.. I have also come to believe that MANY of them (I am NOT implying that Piasan is one of them) that are merely proverbial "Wolves in sheep's clothing" IOWs  Hardened, Militant, God Hating Atheists that merely pretend to be "theists" for nefarious reasons..  a Very tricky bunch are they...



#147 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2016 - 02:58 AM

Yeah it's also the compromisers, Blitzking. I remember that when I had a year-of-doubt in about 2006, I accepted evolution for personal reasons. For about 6 months I talked like an evolutionist. But the cause was DOUBT. It can sometimes be a good indication of how much someone really believes in God. If you compromise to the point where you 100% doubt everything in the bible, even the resurrection, believe it or not the world will still employ you as some type of priest and call you a "Christian".

 

I know one pastor that thought a literal resurrection was absurd, and hell was absurd, yet he was some sort of "Churchianity-Christian". It really is a bit absurd, it shows how DUMB people are, that they would employ people like that and diverge from the bible so much yet still think themselves as having a link to Christianity. It is like a bear wearing a man's suit and then being classed as a man. :D ;)



#148 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2016 - 03:45 AM

I would say that the second link is better than the paper you first presented. He doesn't claim to say something scientific. But rather he is trying to point out flaws with a certain kind of reasoning. The paper on the other hand tries to make scientific claims, but seems to be mostly a biased attempt to support a favorite theory. But the main punch in the second link I think is this sentence:

So you would prefer to read toilet paper because it doesn't claim to say something scientific?

The second link only uses the basis of statistical analysis (a linear regression), which isn't applicable. It removed data in order to paint a specific picture. 

I have provided above the dishonest method he used in creating the graph.

 

There are 3 ways to make an error:

- dishonesty

- incompetence

- carelessness

 

We can discuss if there are errors in the paper I posted and whether they are dishonest, incompetent or careless errors.

We are certain the second link contains errors and the type of mistakes that were made were either incompetent or dishonest.

 

"Indeed, if we look at income per capita instead of religiosity, we already see a much better correlation with average IQ. The correlation between religiosity and IQ is too weak to suggest that religiosity predicts intelligence on the national level. Anyone who claims otherwise is grasping at straws."

 
And here one has to understand the concept of correlation. I discussed this recently with my son that is studying at the university. And you could state that anything is correlated, for example that IQ has a correlation with the number of trees in your backyard. But if the correlation is measured and the correlation numbers are low (as in the case of IQ and religiosity) there are no correlation and you have to look for other reason why some have higher IQ than others.
 
For example. Atheist might be more keen of making money than theists, and the slightly higher IQ score measured for atheist could be a side effect that is really due to the income per capita correlation. 

 

Yes, you have to understand the concept of correlation. What makes you think the author of the second link understands the concept?



#149 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 June 2016 - 06:53 AM

Lud to man? That's your story, brother.
Genesis 2
7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


Where do you think the elements / minerals / compounds for abiogenesis came from?.....

Rock.... So you do believe in mud becoming people.

#150 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 30 June 2016 - 07:21 AM

Where do you think the elements / minerals / compounds for abiogenesis came from?.....

Rock.... So you do believe in mud becoming people.

We all belief the same thing, nice :)



#151 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 June 2016 - 10:38 AM

I think it mght be a good idea to identify what a religion is. It is a conphrehesive set of beliefs we use to interface with ourselves, beings extenral to us and our environment. A religion becomes a set of phiosophical concepts only when that belief system excludes the possible existene of God. But that's only one being out of the 107 bellion beings believed to have existed. That leaves all of us with a phisophy of life. So even evo's have a belief system (relgion) which is eclectic as all of us have. Some of our beiefs are the same. Some are different.

 

We don't know what others believe until they tell us or they act on their beliefs. So, when alleged atheist say they don't have religion they are distorting realty. One can easily surmise they don't have a belief system (religion) when they do!



#152 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 01 July 2016 - 12:15 AM

We all belief the same thing, nice :)

 

NOPE!!! lets try this again.. all the way from post #3... (Again) Again? Yes!!  AGAIN!! lol...

 

Lud to man? That's your story, brother.

Genesis 2

Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his

nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

Nice try, but unfortunately.  Failed....

IF you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I Did NOT say Lud (mud) to man..

I Said "The Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth..  I assume that you know what Mindless AND MYO implies don't you?

What you did is a PERFECT example of a Darwinian quote mine,,,   That's OK.. I hold no grudges.. Cheers! Blitzking



#153 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 01 July 2016 - 01:21 AM

So you would prefer to read toilet paper because it doesn't claim to say something scientific?

The second link only uses the basis of statistical analysis (a linear regression), which isn't applicable. It removed data in order to paint a specific picture. 

 

...

 

We can discuss if there are errors in the paper I posted and whether they are dishonest, incompetent or careless errors.

We are certain the second link contains errors and the type of mistakes that were made were either incompetent or dishonest.

 

Yes, you have to understand the concept of correlation. What makes you think the author of the second link understands the concept?

 

I never said that reading toilet paper is better than reading scientific papers. But when you write toilet paper grade material it's better not to label it as scientific, like your first link did. 
 
And in the second link the graph is totally uncalled for. So even if he got the graph part wrong it's still some sensible things said by him in the link. Like that if we look at income per capita instead of religiosity we see a much better correlation with average IQ. In the first paper it's hard to see what the correlation value is. It might be in the range of 0.012 to 0.182, which (if the numbers are correct) really means hardly any correlation at all. Perhaps the number of trees in your backyard has a higher correlation value, does that mean that your IQ is related to the number of trees you have in your backyard? 
 
And the big thing missing in the first paper is the parents influence, that's not even taken into account. There could be simple explanations to why the numbers look like they do, but the first papers is not interested in explanations but rather in telling us that his pet theory is correct.


#154 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 July 2016 - 11:08 AM

 

I never said that reading toilet paper is better than reading scientific papers. But when you write toilet paper grade material it's better not to label it as scientific, like your first link did. 
 
And in the second link the graph is totally uncalled for. So even if he got the graph part wrong it's still some sensible things said by him in the link. Like that if we look at income per capita instead of religiosity we see a much better correlation with average IQ. In the first paper it's hard to see what the correlation value is. It might be in the range of 0.012 to 0.182, which (if the numbers are correct) really means hardly any correlation at all. Perhaps the number of trees in your backyard has a higher correlation value, does that mean that your IQ is related to the number of trees you have in your backyard? 
 
And the big thing missing in the first paper is the parents influence, that's not even taken into account. There could be simple explanations to why the numbers look like they do, but the first papers is not interested in explanations but rather in telling us that his pet theory is correct.

 

The paper claims to be scientific, which means it is scrutinized by the people in the field. Scientists love to tell each other the other is wrong and they are right.

 

The second link pretends to know what it is talking about, which is worse then toilet paper if that's wrong.

examples:

He mentions the R² of a linear regression.

Why use a linear regression?

Why use only single predictor variable?

Why not discuss the AIC or BIC scores when comparing models, those say a lot more about model fit?

 

Just for the record, I'm finishing my Master of Statistics Degree in august. That might be why I abhor people lying with graphs and wannabe statistics.



#155 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 July 2016 - 08:51 PM

I'm Catholic, and attended Catholic schools thru the first 3 years of university.

If you think attending catholic school makes you a Christian then this comment definitely disturbs me.

The statement was "I'm Catholic, AND ..." not "because."  There is a difference.  Having attended Catholic schools has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a Christian. 

 

 

... I can tell you that my catholic upbringing had very, very little to do with being Christian. When I was classed as a catholic, I was not born again. I suggest to you think you have a head-theism you call, "Christianity".

 

I don't say that in a mean-spirited way Piasan, I just find it very hard to believe you really know the Lord, because of the type of indicators you give that strongly suggest you don't.

Well, it's more than fair to suggest we have a very different understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

 

 

.... I am simply believe that there are many, many, "theistic evolutionists" that display very strong evidence that they are not really Christian. They will usually sound like atheists, and it can be very hard for them to support anything biblical or agree with genuine Christians. Also had you not known they named themselves as, "theistic evolutionist" it would be very difficult to see any actual difference in their arguments, from that of atheist arguments. They tend to concentrate on arguing points with Christians, even in topics that have nothing to do with evolution, and will very seldom argue with an atheist.

TEs probably don't argue with the atheists much because we discuss mostly matters of science and, in that regard we're on pretty much the same page.

 

When I mentioned my Catholic education, it was to make two points... 1)  I'm not a product of public school "Godless" education and 2) religious study was a daily thing, not just once-a-week in Sunday school.  Further, as I pointed out at university I had ready access to theologians and philosophers... not just your "average" priest or minister.  In fact, I often went to debates between and among them.  It's not like I arrived at TE lightly.  There was a lot of study, consultation, thought, and prayer over an extended period before I reached the conclusion that God had used the processes described by science as his tools of creation.

 

Of course, I can speak for myself only, but in my case, it gets back to what St. Augustine said.

 

Pi:

Basically, St. Augustine said that even a pagan knows about how many things work with certainty based on study and experience.  He points out it is very dangerous to the faith for a believer to declare false that which a non-believer knows to be true based on their own observation and experience then use scripture to justify the claim.

 

WHO IS ST AUGUSTINE? AND WHAT DOES HE KNOW ABOUT THE HYPOTHETICAL HYPOTHESIS OF ABIODARWINISM?

 

Saint Augustine; 354-430 AD; Bishop of Hippo; philosopher and theologian who wrote (on the reading of Genesis literally):

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
 
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
 
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

The point is that how Genesis should be interpreted is not a new dispute in Christianity.  Augustine was debating it some 1600 years ago and the dispute is far from settled.

 

Truth cannot contradict truth.  If Genesis literalists are right, then anything we see that is more than 6,000 light years from Earth is a deception. (More about "stretching the heavens" in a post to follow.)  For example, the star catalogued as Sanduleak 69-202 never existed and the supernova event observed in 1987 (Sn1987a) never took place.  This means more than 99.9999999% of the universe is not what it appears to be.  While His word is true, His creation is a falsehood.  To me, this creates serious theological and philosophical issues about the very nature of God.

 

Genesis has a lengthy oral tradition before being written then it was hand copied for millennia and has been translated multiple times.  One thing we all know is that translations are never exact.  Then there is the problem of interpretation and the fact that many, if not most, of the spiritual lessons of the Bible are stated in symbolic form of one kind or another.

 

So, we have two conflicting lines of evidence.... Genesis, which has been subject to 3,000 or so years of (fallible) handling by man and God's creation which is observed directly.  My position is that God is true in both His creation and His word.  Messages given by allegory and metaphor are still true messages.    In this case, I will go with His creation as being more likely to be correct as it is far less subject to human error.

 

I'M VERY FAMILAIR WITH ALL OF THE TE THEMES.. BELIEVE IT!

Good.... then we won't have to go thru all that.....

 

(Pi edits... in response to Mike the W comments about TE above.)

I have noticed that to be the case as well.. I have also come to believe that MANY of them (I am NOT implying that Piasan is one of them) that are merely proverbial "Wolves in sheep's clothing" IOWs  Hardened, Militant, God Hating Atheists that merely pretend to be "theists" for nefarious reasons..  a Very tricky bunch are they...

Again, speaking only for myself.....

 

I've been participating in these forums for a couple decades now and my observation has been that virtually all of those who have said something about the matter changed from "Bible believing Christian" to atheist because of a crisis of faith similar to mine.  Without exception, their religious mentors had told them basically: "Literal Genesis or atheist."  Without exception, they chose atheist.  Until recently, with the exception of one or two members of this forum, I had never met anyone who had converted from atheism to Genesis literalism or had a crisis like mine and gone back to YEC.  Now, I realize my experience is purely anecdotal, and therefore of little value to anyone else.  However as it is my own experience,  I'm allowed to give it considerable weight.

 

It is my position that Genesis literalism tends to drive more from the faith than it attracts because it requires that one reject "knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience."  In the winter, I can go outside and in the northern sky I will see the galaxy Andromeda with my unaided eye.  That galaxy is 2.4 million light years from Earth.  Simple arithmetic tells me it took 2.4 million years for that light to reach Earth.  How do you convince a non-believer it only took 6,000 years for that light to reach us?

 

Call me a "compromiser" if you like, that's fine.

 

Now.... back to matters more relevant to the OP.....



#156 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 July 2016 - 04:08 AM

 

OK. lets take a peek under the hood.. Mindless MYO Mud to man Myth does NOT address the age of the universe but DOES indeed imply "Million Year Old" when it comes to the supposed "Evolution of Man" from "Mud" (Or if you prefer, the primordial ooze, the atheist's "Garden of Eden" or "undersea vents" or you can fill in the blanks yourself.)

 

So you are being a little dishonest with your conflation between the "Evolution of man" or "Age of the dinosaurs" and the "Age of the Earth" Got it?

You're the one who mentioned millions of years.  If we're on the same page with regard to "MYO" then we probably don't have a serious problem.  However, based on a number of your other comments, the age is a significant issue to you (and I).

 

 

The age of the Earth is based on radioisotope measurements.  While those techniques have considerable difficulties, multiple methods converge on an age of 4.5 billion years for the Earth.

Now you are being more honest.. with your phrase "those techniques have considerable difficulties"..   BTW.. THAT IS THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR!!

 

But lets look even closer shall we?

 

Maybe you should stop just making assumptions based on what you have been indoctrinated to believe and SEE OUT THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELF!!

Maybe you should stop just making assumptions that I'm just making assumptions.

 

As I pointed out radioisotope dating has lots of difficulties.  The measurements are often in the order of parts (or fractions of parts) per trillion.  For that reason, contamination is a major problem so sample selection and handling becomes critical.  Due to the extremely small proportions, even miniscule variations translate to wide swings in the result.  As a result not too much weight should be placed on a single measurement.  However, the process, when properly applied to an appropriate sample, does yield statistically valid results.

 

In his book, The Science of Evolution, on page 84, William D. Stansfield, a devout and prestigious EVOLUTIONIST, lists multiple techniques and evidences for dating the age of the earth, all of which, Stansfield admits, indicate a much younger earth than the 4 billion or so years typically advocated by evolutionists.

Stansfield says these lines of evidence include 1) water (quantity) from volcanoes, 2) lava from volcanoes, 3) underground oil pressure which lessens over time, 4) uranium accumulation in the oceans, 5) Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, 6) helium in the atmosphere produced from uranium decay which ought to be about 10,000 times higher than it actually is if, in fact, the earth is 4 billion years old, 7) meteoric dust accumulation-which currently accumulates at the rate of somewhat over 14 ½ billion tons per year, 8) meteorites and meteoric dust in strata (which is for all practical purposes non-existent, and 9) population dynamics.

1-3)  Need more validation.

4)  Dissolved minerals in the ocean depend on which mineral.  I've seen numbers from 150 years (for iron or aluminum, I forget which) to 100 million.  When I see wide variations like this, the first thing that comes to mind is that I'm looking at equilibrium systems where inflow equals outflow.

5)  Definitely an equilibrium situation as shown by dendrochronological calibrations going back 30,000 or so years.

6)  Archimedes solves this one.  Helium has an atomic mass of 4.  The average atomic mass of the atmosphere is about 29.  Helium is simply less dense than the nitrogen (mass 28) and oxygen (mass 32).  Since helium is non-reactive, it will not combine with other elements to form heavier compounds and will "float" to the top of the atmosphere where it is "blown" to space by the solar wind.

7) Stansfield's book was published in 1977.  At that time, all the estimates of meteoric dust accumulation were based on earth bound samples.  Even then, they were known to be wrong as a result of lunar exploration that had already taken place.  The first actual measurement of dust input from space was NASA's LDEF experiment which wasn't launched until 1984.  According to NASA  meteoroid input is on the order of 100 tons per day (36500 tons per year).

8)  See (7).  Also, how would you differentiate meteoric dust in strata from terrestrial dust?

9)  Population both increases and decreases.  What it tends to follow is food supply.

 

The only one of those that has actually been used to estimate the age of the Earth is minerals in the ocean.

 

Curiously enough, only ONE dating method is known by the general public and only ONE dating method is routinely used by the faithful devotees of evolution, that of radiometric dating from radioactive decay,.... This method of dating assumes that we are dealing with closed systems in the rock of the ground (no leaching in or out of minerals and elements), an assumption that no one believes to be true.

That's likely because the other methods you mentioned have even more problems than radioisotopes.

 

There is an agenda on the part of evolutionists for this preference for radiometric dating over other methods of dating: namely, of all of the methods for dating the age of the earth, the radiometric technique yields the oldest results. Never mind that the other methods yield dating results at variance with radiometric dating–something which should be a red flag to any objective inquirer. Ancient ages to the tune of billions of years are deemed NECESSARY by evolutionists to prop up faltering evolutionary dogma. Therefore, no other justification for relying on radiometric dating and ignoring other dating methods is deemed necessary or required.

You do realize that physics, geology, and astronomy are completely independent of either evolution or Darwin and have no stake in that game, don't you?

 

You are aware radioisotope dating methods were based on carbon dating and objects of known age in a series of controlled experiments aren't you?  Initial measurements were limited to hundreds (or a few thousands) of years.  Longer ages were possible only after more sensitive technology was developed.

 

Most of the other methods you mention are equilibrium systems which are impossible to use for dating anything.... except that the maximum age predicted is the minimum age of the system. 

 

Consider me the prosecuting attorney here. I am hereby bringing charges against radiometric dating. I accuse radiometric dating (more accurately the assumptions which are utilized in connection with radiometric dating) of fraud. In a court of law there are two legal kinds of fraud: “actual fraud” and “constructive fraud,” the distinction being the first is deliberate and the latter is inadvertent. I will let you, the reader, decide whether we have been the victims of actual or constructive fraud on the part of evolutionists.

I assert that radiometric dating is completely unreliable. I have some witnesses to summon, both friendly and hostile, to solidly back up this claim.

WITNESS #1

My first witness is ROGER LEWIN, hard-core evolutionist and atheist, Ph. D. in biochemistry, was editor of research news at the prestigious “Science” magazine in Washington D.C., and was editor at “New Science” magazine in London. ....

Lewin is saying scientists see what they WANT to see. The belief comes first, then the endeavor to fit the data into the belief system and the dismissal of contrary evidence. They project their own mental constructs and superimpose them like a veneer onto the raw data. The actual raw data, unfortunately, cuts an enormously wide path for personalities given over to subjectivism to play around with. Lewin notes on page 23 that there are “a limited number of fossil sites to work, and a still pitifully small inventory of fossils to analyze,” and on page 194 (regarding the famous skull 1470) and directly pertinent to radiometric dating:

 

“The anonymous aphorism ‘I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it’ is a continuing truth in science.”

Don’t just hurry by that. Note well: 41 separate and discordant age determinations using radiometric dating ranging from 900,000 years to 223 million years! Leakey picked the result he liked and discarded the other forty results, the general public being none the wiser. This kind of smorgasbord approach to dating of rocks and fossils is unfortunately routine. It is the rule rather than the exception. Why not pick the 223 million year result?

“At a conference in Nairobi held in September 1973 they presented 41 SEPARATE AGE DETERMINATIONS on the KBS Tuff [where the skull was found], WHICH VARIED BETWEEN 223 MILLION AND 0.91 MILLION” years of age using radiometric dating !!! (emph. supp.)

Unfortunately, Lewin does NOT inform his readers that such variations of radiometric dating results are the RULE across ALL of the scientific disciplines which use radiometric dating. The scientists pick the dates they like and DISCARD (upon what criterion?) the rest of the dates that don’t conform to their pet theories, in this case 40(!!!) total other dating results discarded based upon wholly subjective considerations. The discarded results are arbitrarily labeled as “aberrations,” or “contaminated,” or the result of careless testing procedures.  The trade secret of modern “science” is that radiometric dating is entirely useless and based on layer upon layer of assumptions.

 

Did you read that last part?   Radiometric Dating is ENTIRELY USELESS!!!!!!

 

So Much for Your "Independent Highly Stable Processes" LOL

 

You see, you don't get to decide what's true Just Because You WANT SOMETHING TO BE TRUE..

We need to Look at the EMPIRICAL SCIENTIDIC EVIDENCE..

OK, Mr. "Prosecuting Attorney"....

 

Lewin's expertise in paleoanthropology is stipulated.  The dispute between the Leakeys and Johanson is irrelevant.

 

The compliant about "fit(ting) data into the belief system and the dismissal of contrary evidence" is amusing from one whose side often requires a formal statement of faith stating evidence contrary to their belief system is invalid by definition. (CMI, AIG, ICR among others)  but enough of that.....

 

Let's look at the "EMPIRICAL SCIENTIDIC <sic> EVIDENCE."   Wait ! ! ! !   The prosecution hasn't presented the evidence... only a superficial summary stating there were 41 age measurements that varied from 0.91-223 million years old.

 

The relevant missing evidence includes:

1)  The age selected.

2)  The average age.

3)  The standard deviation (necessary to determine the statistical validity of the selected age).

4)  Any excluded outliers and an explanation for the exclusion.

 

Without that empirical evidence, the validity of the age claimed cannot be determined.  Further, the time frame listed is 1973.... 43 years ago.  Radioisotope capabilities have improved by orders of magnitude since then due to technological advances alone.

 

Notice, my original claim was that radioisotope decay rates are stable and that biological decay rates are known to be dramatically impacted by at least a half dozen external factors.  Those claims have not been challenged.

 

Now, here is the empirical evidence by which radioisotope dating was demonstrated to be a statistically valid method for establishing age.  Pay particular attention to the data presented on pages 599 and 601.  The specifics and empirical evidence used to calibrate/verify/validate the method can be made available, if necessary.

 

The fact is that if Blitz were given a sample of biological material, he couldn't tell from its state of decay if it were 1 year old or 3,000.  The ratio of the ages cited by Blitz (0.91 to 223) is a factor of  245x, biological decay is a factor over 3,000x.

 

So, if the radioisotope decay is unusable at a factor of 245x, is it REASONABLE to say a "dating method" that is 12x LESS "accurate" is more reliable?

 

Next! :kaffeetrinker:

Direct, observational, empirical evidence the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old.  We'll start with supernova Sn1987a at a mere 167,000+ year light travel time established by direct trigonometry and verification of the speed of light at the time and place of the supernova event.

 

Next post.....



#157 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 July 2016 - 12:55 PM

The statement was "I'm Catholic, AND ..." not "because."  There is a difference.  Having attended Catholic schools has nothing to do with whether or not I'm a Christian. 

 

 

Well, it's more than fair to suggest we have a very different understanding of what it means to be a Christian.

 

 

TEs probably don't argue with the atheists much because we discuss mostly matters of science and, in that regard we're on pretty much the same page.

 

When I mentioned my Catholic education, it was to make two points... 1)  I'm not a product of public school "Godless" education and 2) religious study was a daily thing, not just once-a-week in Sunday school.  Further, as I pointed out at university I had ready access to theologians and philosophers... not just your "average" priest or minister.  In fact, I often went to debates between and among them.  It's not like I arrived at TE lightly.  There was a lot of study, consultation, thought, and prayer over an extended period before I reached the conclusion that God had used the processes described by science as his tools of creation.

 

Of course, I can speak for myself only, but in my case, it gets back to what St. Augustine said.

 

 

Saint Augustine; 354-430 AD; Bishop of Hippo; philosopher and theologian who wrote (on the reading of Genesis literally):

 

The point is that how Genesis should be interpreted is not a new dispute in Christianity.  Augustine was debating it some 1600 years ago and the dispute is far from settled.

 

Truth cannot contradict truth.  If Genesis literalists are right, then anything we see that is more than 6,000 light years from Earth is a deception. (More about "stretching the heavens" in a post to follow.)  For example, the star catalogued as Sanduleak 69-202 never existed and the supernova event observed in 1987 (Sn1987a) never took place.  This means more than 99.9999999% of the universe is not what it appears to be.  While His word is true, His creation is a falsehood.  To me, this creates serious theological and philosophical issues about the very nature of God.

 

Genesis has a lengthy oral tradition before being written then it was hand copied for millennia and has been translated multiple times.  One thing we all know is that translations are never exact.  Then there is the problem of interpretation and the fact that many, if not most, of the spiritual lessons of the Bible are stated in symbolic form of one kind or another.

 

So, we have two conflicting lines of evidence.... Genesis, which has been subject to 3,000 or so years of (fallible) handling by man and God's creation which is observed directly.  My position is that God is true in both His creation and His word.  Messages given by allegory and metaphor are still true messages.    In this case, I will go with His creation as being more likely to be correct as it is far less subject to human error.

 

Good.... then we won't have to go thru all that.....

 

Again, speaking only for myself.....

 

I've been participating in these forums for a couple decades now and my observation has been that virtually all of those who have said something about the matter changed from "Bible believing Christian" to atheist because of a crisis of faith similar to mine.  Without exception, their religious mentors had told them basically: "Literal Genesis or atheist."  Without exception, they chose atheist.  Until recently, with the exception of one or two members of this forum, I had never met anyone who had converted from atheism to Genesis literalism or had a crisis like mine and gone back to YEC.  Now, I realize my experience is purely anecdotal, and therefore of little value to anyone else.  However as it is my own experience,  I'm allowed to give it considerable weight.

 

It is my position that Genesis literalism tends to drive more from the faith than it attracts because it requires that one reject "knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience."  In the winter, I can go outside and in the northern sky I will see the galaxy Andromeda with my unaided eye.  That galaxy is 2.4 million light years from Earth.  Simple arithmetic tells me it took 2.4 million years for that light to reach Earth.  How do you convince a non-believer it only took 6,000 years for that light to reach us?

 

Call me a "compromiser" if you like, that's fine.

 

Now.... back to matters more relevant to the OP.....

 

"How do you convince a non-believer it only took 6,000 years for that light to reach us?"

 

HOW DO YOU CONVINCE A NON-BELIEVER THAT A HUMAN CORPSE ROTTING IN THE GRAVE FOR THREE DAYS CAN RAISE ITSELF UP FROM THE DEAD? (Just like he predicted he would..

 

Oh, I forgot to ask if YOU believe that happened... Well.. DO YOU?

 

"Direct, observational, empirical evidence the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old.  We'll start with supernova Sn1987a at a mere 167,000+ year light travel time established by direct trigonometry and verification of the speed of light at the time and place of the supernova event."

 

OH WELL.. :cry: . LETS TRY THIS AGAIN SHALL WE?   GOD SAID HE "STRETCHED OR STRECHES OUT THE HEAVENS" 14 TIMES!!!!!

 

 

 

 

17 verses in the Bible state that God expanded
the size of the Universe from its original size.
What affect did that have on time, and on red and blue shift?

 

 

 

Seven books of the Bible reference this event starting from about 1000 BC in the book of Psalms, to about 518 BC in the book of Zechariah (a span of almost 500 years).  This "stretching" of the universe was done during the creation week described in Genesis.  Dr. Russell Humphreys suggests in his book Starlight and Time that it may have given the universe an older look the farther you move away from Earth into the outermost reaches of the universe.  From Earth's perspective, the universe would be about 6,000 - 10,000 years old.  However, in the outermost reaches of the universe, this rapid expansion may have given those galaxies the appearance of being billions of years old, even though they aged that much in what is most likely less than 24 hours.

Current evolutionary thinking suggests that the universe is still expanding.  This is based in large part of the belief that 'red shift' indicates that the stars and galaxies are moving away from each other.  However, Isaiah 40:22 seems to suggest that this expanding of the galaxies was a one time event that occurred in a very short amount of time (probably in less than 24 hours), and that the expansion may no longer be occurring.  Tents and curtains don't keep expanding once they're fully opened up. They are finite in size. 

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22

Furthermore, none of these Bible verses appear to suggest that this expansion is still going on.  

Do scientists really know what the impact would be of having the universe expanded at what was most likely millions or even billions of times faster than the speed of light?  How would such a rapid expansion affect the visible red and blue shift we see today in space?  How would that affect time, especially at the outer edges of the universe?  Could the red shift that evolutionists believe indicates an expanding universe actually be the result of this rapid stretching of the universe that started and ended about 6,000 years ago?

Quotes below are from the King James Bible (KJV), and are listed in alphabetical order.

 

Ezekiel
Author(s): Ezekiel
Date: 592-570 B.C.

And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature [was] as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.
Ezekiel 1:22

Isaiah
Author(s): Isaiah
Date: 746-680 B.C.

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
- Isaiah 40:22

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isaiah 42:5

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Isaiah 44:24

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 45:12

Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isaiah 48:13

And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?
Isaiah 51:13

Jeremiah
Author(s): Jeremiah
Date: 627-585 B.C.

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Jeremiah 10:12

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Jeremiah 51:15

Job
Author(s): Possibly Job, Elihu,
Moses or Solomon; not sure
Date: 950 B.C. or earlier

Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.
Job 9:8

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Job 26:7

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18

Psalms
Author(s): Several
Date: Varied, about 1000 B.C.

He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness [was] under his feet.
Psalms 18:9

Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
Psalms 104:2

Bow thy heavens, O LORD, and come down: touch the mountains, and they shall smoke.
Psalms 144:5

2 Samuel
Author(s): Samuel, Nathan, Gad
Date: About 930 BC

He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness [was] under his feet.
2 Samuel 22:10

 

Zechariah
Author(s): Zechariah
Date: 520-518 B.C.

The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Zechariah 12:1



#158 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 04 July 2016 - 02:33 PM

"How do you convince a non-believer it only took 6,000 years for that light to reach us?"

 

HOW DO YOU CONVINCE A NON-BELIEVER THAT A HUMAN CORPSE ROTTING IN THE GRAVE FOR THREE DAYS CAN RAISE ITSELF UP FROM THE DEAD? (Just like he predicted he would..

 

Oh, I forgot to ask if YOU believe that happened... Well.. DO YOU?

 

"Direct, observational, empirical evidence the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old.  We'll start with supernova Sn1987a at a mere 167,000+ year light travel time established by direct trigonometry and verification of the speed of light at the time and place of the supernova event."

 

OH WELL.. :cry: . LETS TRY THIS AGAIN SHALL WE?   GOD SAID HE "STRETCHED OR STRECHES OUT THE HEAVENS" 14 TIMES!!!!!

I prefer how Calypsis quotes other people. Different colors are much more agreeable then CAPSLOCK and normal.

 

If the bible says something and you can see for yourself that's wrong. What kind of mental back-flip are you making to make it work in your mind? Aren't you afraid of brain damage?



#159 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 July 2016 - 07:57 PM

 

HOW DO YOU CONVINCE A NON-BELIEVER THAT A HUMAN CORPSE ROTTING IN THE GRAVE FOR THREE DAYS CAN RAISE ITSELF UP FROM THE DEAD? (Just like he predicted he would..

 

Oh, I forgot to ask if YOU believe that happened... Well.. DO YOU?

Yes.



#160 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 July 2016 - 10:13 PM

Yes.

OK,

Then why do you think that the SAME Jesus, whom YOU BELIEVE Raised himself from the Dead, (GOD INCARNATE!)

Wasn't as knowledgeable about the Flood of Noah as your religious mentors, (who were philosophers and theologians, And DONT believe him when he said the following?

 

37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will be the coming of the Son of Man.…

 

Now, I have to ask you.. Whom DO YOU Believe???  your "philosophers and Theologians? OR The Same Jesus that You Yourself just admitted Raised himself from the Dead JUST AS HE PREDICTED HE WOULD!

 

Or how about Jesus words about Creation?  Who are YOU going to Believe Jesus? Or Darwinian Influenced "Philosophers and Theologians"?

 

3Then some Pharisees came and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” 4Jesus answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ 

 

It REALLY sounds like Jesus does NOT believe in Darwin, But I can GUARANTEE YOU Darwin NOW believes in Jesus... (Every Knee Shall Bow, Every tongue confess..)

 

BTW

 

What do you think those Verses in the Bible that state "and GOD STRETCHED OUT the heavens" mean? 14 TIMES!!!

I think it is clear....







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: INSANITY, FAIRY TALE, ABIODARWINISM, MENTAL ILLNESS, FANTASY, DELUSION

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users