Tuesday, July 8, 2014

YEC creationism, here you can find it!

(This post is still subject to editing as my time allows)

This entry owes its existence to a certain "Cowboy", a YEC creationist of the most obnoxious kind.
He runs a blog loaded with arguments for creationism. His source? Answers in Genesis. So what's the use when anyone in need of creationist crap can get it directly from the horse's ass, AiG? More further down this page.

Before diving into the cesspool of YEC creationism gone wild, a wise word at Pandas Thumb:

“... neither of you understand the theory of evolution well enough to explain it coherently. The way to prove you understand something is that you can articulate it and explain the arguments in favor in a way that proponents of the idea you disagree with will say "Yes, that's our argument." I can do that for ID, YEC, and Christianity (though not Hinduism). So when I disagree with those points of view it is not simply because I do not understand them. You and Eddie, on the other hand, do not understand evolutionary science. Call it a bromide if you like, but it's simply true. If you want to prove me wrong, just lay out, in some moderate detail, the main ideas of the theory of evolution and the evidence that is offered in its support. If evolutionists read your summary and say "Yeah, that's what we're saying," then I'm wrong, and you do, in fact understand the theory you reject.”

I have many times urged creationists to learn enough of the theory of evolution that they will be in a position to debate and rejcct from a position of knowledge but they have turned a deaf ear to that. They insist on parroting creationist lies and distortions like they were revelations from a higher authority.

A creationist unable to present a credible summary of  how science itself actually present the theory is in no position to make a reasonable argument. We immediately recognize him as just another ignorant creationist.

The theory of evolution is not easy to understand. While the most basic, fundamental principles easily enough may be listed, each of them rest on a huge body of  evidence and research over more than a century, and borrows support from many more fields of science than the general public is aware of.

An important point is that evidence from all the sciences comes together to build a very strong case for evolution. Can the ToE be falsified, can it be wrong? Like any otgher scientific theory, yes, it can be falsified, it may be wrong. But for the time being, it is the only player on the field. No competing, no alternative theory exist. But like all scientific theories it is tentative, open to new facts and evidence and subject to revision and updating - but the past 160 years have not brought any serious threat to the ToE.

One of my observations regarding the creationist attack on science is that if creationism should be true, the implication is that almost the entire world of scientists are, well, idiots. So many qualified  scientists, but with only a small minority of creationists, and the rest, idiots?

Please note that there is only one body of science. The same body is responsible not only for the ToE but for most of the marvels of the 21st century. Space travel and research, geology, medicine,  biology - of course - and mcuh, much more - they all contribute to the body of evidence that comes together in support of the  ToE.

Reading creationists claims about how unreliable how the data from all the various sciences supporting the ToE, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn if they were true  wuld have to be almost all scientists in the world are idiots! Because most of the worlds scientists have no problem with the ToE.

Let me ask you creationists: You would be treated for a serious disease by a doctor, a surgeon unless he was a creationist, woud you? You wouldn't trust your life to an evilutionist, would you? You wouldn't want to take your child with a genetic disorder to a evilutionist doctor, would you? Evilutionary genetics are the work of  Satan, right? Evilutionist science/scientists should be banned from medical research, right?

With all the religious healers around, what do we need evilutionist medicine for?


After writing the above I have to take a long break. The implications of what I wrote are so heavy that if I were a creationist I'd have to take off the tinfoil hat he always wears.

So I better take a looong break, I need air!
break - break - break. Om, om, om.


I recently discovered several YEC creationist sites and I don’t mind “recommending” them. If people are ignorant enough to fall for the crap I can only say Bon appétit.

The first one looks like is is run by a super-genius, Charlie. He make the merits of  Maxwell, Newton or Einstein pale. And he does it at his desk, in just a cople of hours he’s able to prove beyond any doubt that mainstream scientists are morons. Why hasn’t he already been nominated for the Nobel prize?  Not only is he the world’s  #! Bible and scripture scholar, he’s also on top of all science, without any competition. He knows all about radiometric dating methods, knowledge that science have yet to discover.

Charlie wrote:
Actually, it's not. I've done some personal extensive research on these methods from an angle that I've not seen anyone do yet. With basic Algebra (nothing more complex than logarithms), I've examined half-lives to their estimated ranges, to their error ranges, to the observation times, and I can't trace the results through a systematic, methodical, scientific process. With the ranges alone, they demonstrate the methods do not depend on the ability to measure amounts of isotopes because each method has a different limit and such limits do not show the same ability to measure what we have. I am in the process of reviewing my work, finding a better way to present it, and getting it checked out with some top notch scientists. The RATE project did a lot of impressive stuff with what they discovered, but I've had some people think I may be onto something with my own research.
…research? More like an inflated ego about to blow up.

In “Assessing the Rate project” at ASA's assesment of the RATE project,
the conclusion is

     “ The ASA (American Scientific Affiliation)  does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science.  Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position.  However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science.  Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems.  The ASA can and does oppose such deception.”

BTW, Charlie seems to be ignorant about Bible scholarship. He may believe everything he writes but if there’s one thing Bible scholars agree on, it is that there are a lot of problems with it.


At another YEC site,  REVOLUTION AGAINST EVOLUTION,  www.rae.org
All stops have been pulled to paint their enemy as the devil himself.  For instance

One of the most common myths spread by evolutionists is that Creationists  can’t  be “true” scientists.

They have created a document to defend that claim, but the fact is that science has a pretty good knowledge about “who’s who in science”. For instance who’s hidden their creationism and managed to secure a degree for use in the war on science and others, even a character like Andrew Snelling of AiG appearing like two separate identities, one a YEC, the other a bona fide geologist.


Science (Smithsonian Magazine):

Interesting debate about understanding creationists:

Links about stratigraphy, the geologic column. A subject creationists can’t live with so it’s gotta be wrong.

http://www.stratigraphy.org/  (Why would Shell want to donate 10.000  Euro to the stratigraphy organization, ICS?) Let me see, could it be because YEC geology is useless I you want to find oil? That’a what I hear geologists going to work for big oil have discovered.


Then there is this absurd document by one of YEC’s most bizarre spokesmen, Robert Byers:
It says a lot about RAE thet they have accepted a ridiculous document on their site:

Post - Flood Marsupial Migration Explained


Clueless about issues with YEC...

I also discovered a site closed to comments so the cowboy  Piltdown Superman, Cowboy Robert. http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/
I emailed him at the address provided:
Hi Bob,
I just learned about your(?) grand project of spreading truth as you see it, with the aid of dedicated creationist sites AIG or CMI, and people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Jonathan Sarfati and many others.
Now it so happens that there is one problem with creationism that stands out: Creationists on a regular basis distort science to make it fit their faith. You may think that science is not being distorted by creationist organizations but I beg to disagree with that.
There are several examples, I just pick at random dendrochronology. It is perfectly legitimate and sound response to question the scientific claims made, but it is not sound incvestigation of a subject to go first to for instance AIG to find out what is true. AIG is not in the business of spreading scientific news; AIG is there for fundamentalist Christians to preserve their faith.
I understand the fundie problem: To keep their faith in a world where science has revealed so much about nature that looks like it undermine their faith. But let's keep that aspect out of the discussion for the time being and look at the facts as they are.
Since your website is closed for comments from anyone who's not a fundamentalist and YEC, haven't you in effect isolated yourself from any opinion that you don't like - even if it might be true?
In case you are unaware of it - science is open to debate. All scientists - Christian, creationist, atheis or whatever are free to publish and criticize, and there is no suppression or censorship. How is that in your pond?
Science cannot function without freedom to think, publish and criticize. How else can science progress without appending new knowledge? Or to modify existing theories as new knowledge comes to light?
The creationist has a problem there if the only source he is willing to consider is a particular interpretation (and there are thousands of them) of the Bible, bolstered by heavy support from creationist organizations run by people whose livelihood depend on contributions from the faithful, captive audience.
So far just as an introduction.

I did not get all the way to tree rings but if you don't mind, we might have an interesting discussion on that subject. Are you game?
Regards,  Rolf Aalberg.


And got this reply:

With your biases, loaded terminology, fase assertions and logical fallacies, I see no point in even beginning a discussion with you.

Biases?? It is hard to find people more biased than YEC’s! (I know there are others but they better not be mentioned!

And that was that. I really don’t think he would last long in any discussion about his very prejudiced assumptions. I wrote a reply without expecting a response, inviting him to nothing else than just a little talk about tree rings. I think he knows he is wrong. Getting all his information from AIG, he’s lost even before he’s begun.

Now for a little more rational talk:

At Pandas Thumb, “Harold" wrote:

Point out that their presuppositionalism undermines their own position:

Step 1. Point out that their presuppositionalism undermines their own position. If Darwinism is just the result of Darwinists’ religious presuppositions, then so is creationism a result of creationists’ religious presuppositions.
Believe it or not, they love this. Remember, 1) they’re emotional, not rational, and 2) anything that casts any doubt on the scientific case is precious hope for them that their ideology is valid. They often offer a post-modern “all presuppositions are equal so I choose the ones I like” argument on their own. Consistent? Clearly not. One minute the Word of God is absolute, and the next minute, it’s all about choosing arbitrary presuppositions. But they don’t care about consistency, they care about dancing as fast as they can, firing out anything that attacks “Darwinism”.
What I have done, which made creationists uncomfortable, is to list the assumptions that I actually need to make to accept science, and ask them which they disagree with, for example -
1) When not compromised, my senses give me accurate information about the physical universe.
2) The type of thinking we call “logical”, which can be formalized, gives correct answers.
3) Other people exist, experience the same universe with their senses, can think logically, and can provide me with valuable feedback.
4) Humans have a lot of biases but if we make an effort to study the physical universe as objectively as possible, people of different backgrounds can agree.
And so on.
However, I’m not trying to argue creationists out of creationism anyway. It’s their right to be creationists if they want. I’m trying to prevent them from teaching sectarian science denial as “science” in public schools. I’d also like to minimize their impact on public policy altogether, and to try to prevent them from misleading the general lay public about science.
So I’m often satisfied merely to demonstrate that creationism is based on religious presuppositions. Ken Ham is not a big issue for me, except that Kentucky is giving him tax breaks. John Freshwater is a bigger issue for me.
So I often ask them this set of questions, which, incidentally, they often refuse to answer. Ken Ham is an eccentric outsider. Most creationists got the message that they have to deny that “ID” is religious. Again, inconsistent, yes, but they don’t care about consistency. However, their refusal to answer sufficiently destroys their credibility. If they do answer, I just say “fine, so we both agree that the designer is the Christian God, and therefore, we both agree that this can’t be taught as science in public schools.”

No comments:

Post a Comment