Young Earth Creation. Does it matter what you believe?

[valiant]

Or is it full of distortions and misrepresentations and erroneous information?

Like Darwinism? LOL

 

[JackH]

Re: Study up...

Yes, you're quite perceptive. You two do offer the same arguments, insult biblical creationists and act like junior high schoolers. Grow up!

We don't call people absolute morons and trolls just because they do not agree with us.

We don't need to insult YECs.

They humiliate themselves with their nonsensical arguments.

Now, what about this ICR article on Dinosaur DNA?

Prove to us that you are a big critical thinker as you have bragged on numerous occasions.

 

[p_rehbein]

.............

 

[popeye]

Re: Study up...

Originally Posted by JackH
This is the YEC predicament.

They get their talking points from websites like AIG and ICR.

But their argument ultimately falls apart because they are relying almost exclusively on faulty information.

And then, in a hissy fit, they resort to calling people names like absolute morons and trolls and try to get people banned or go off in a huff back to hide under their 6,000-year-old rock.

And then another thread is started and the YECs post the same talking points, link to the same YEC websites, and say the same things no matter how many times they have been refuted effectively.

Agreed....!

You'd think they were still in junior high school...

You basically agreed with childish juvenile behavior and that the bible is FAULTY INFORMATION

 

[popeye]

[video=youtube;DWrPUhosfv4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWrPUhosfv4[/video]

Surprise,surprise @ 3;11 of the vid, the famous court trial hero says evolution is a religion.

Remember,the hero's workmanship ,according to jack, is infallable.

 

[popeye]

Re: Study up...

And how is it used differently than in Gen 1..?

I already explained this to you, don't ignore it.

But...you can't answer that because 'answers-in-genesis' makes your same remark without ever elaborating, either...thus, this likewise will be a dead-end on your assertion as well, no doubt.

If the teleprompter is not in front of you...well, you just don't know what to say...

@ 7;45 of the vid,the presence/curse of death at Adam's fall is discussed.
(you,by your insistence of the "millions of years" baseless theory,put death before Adam.) HHHMMMMM.

[video=youtube;uOHMKexLpxU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOHMKexLpxU[/video]

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Like what...?

Its not like he is wrong about the age of the Universe, or of mankind....which is the heart of your 'denial'....lol...

for some reason i seem to have to remind the old earth creationists how science works on a regular basis...

scientific models distinguish themselves by making testable predictions... when one of those predictions fails...that particular model is discarded... when a testable prediction is confirmed...a theory is strengthened...

hugh ross made testable predictions on neanderthals...one of the few occasions when an old earth creationist has -ever- openly made a testable prediction... his predictions failed...so the hugh ross 'reasons to believe' model can be safely discarded in favor of others that have not failed on this point...

while there are other old earth creationist models...they are all self endangered in the same basic way as ross' model... what ross did was to use secular scientific opinions on neanderthals as the basis for part of his pseudo exegetical scenario development...all other old earth models have done virtually the same thing only with different secular scientific opinions... this is simply -bad hermeneutic- as well as -bad science-

 

[Bowman]

Re: Study up...

@ 7;45 of the vid,the presence/curse of death at Adam's fall is discussed.
(you,by your insistence of the "millions of years" baseless theory,put death before Adam.) HHHMMMMM.

[video=youtube;uOHMKexLpxU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOHMKexLpxU[/video]

Death existed before Adam and Eve.

 

[Bowman]

for some reason i seem to have to remind the old earth creationists how science works on a regular basis...

scientific models distinguish themselves by making testable predictions... when one of those predictions fails...that particular model is discarded... when a testable prediction is confirmed...a theory is strengthened...

hugh ross made testable predictions on neanderthals...one of the few occasions when an old earth creationist has -ever- openly made a testable prediction... his predictions failed...so the hugh ross 'reasons to believe' model can be safely discarded in favor of others that have not failed on this point...

while there are other old earth creationist models...they are all self endangered in the same basic way as ross' model... what ross did was to use secular scientific opinions on neanderthals as the basis for part of his pseudo exegetical scenario development...all other old earth models have done virtually the same thing only with different secular scientific opinions... this is simply -bad hermeneutic- as well as -bad science-

State the prediction that 'failed', if you can, that is...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Schweitzer's paper does not say she found DNA.

There is a big difference between "might be" and "is."

Here's another article of interest on the subject:

Mysteriously Intact T. Rex Tissue Finally Explained : Discovery News

Please note the following statement in the article:

"They've even found proteins that are chemically consistent with being DNA, though Schweitzer is quick to note that she hasn't proven they are really DNA."

She is quick to note what?

Nobody has found DNA in dinosaur bones.

here is part of the abstract of the paper in question...

"Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4',6'-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals."

this is exactly what i described it as...

and i wouldn't rely on that article too much...i don't know much about 'discovery news' in general...but the quotation you just posted has a major factual error...as any middle schooler these days knows proteins are not DNA...so the phrase 'proteins that are chemically consistent with being DNA' is gobbledygook...

anyway the bottom line is this...if the dinosaur bones are 70 million years old then either schweitzer is wrong or allentoft et al are wrong...your model is at most able to incorporate only one of these two pieces of data... young earth creationist models on the other hand are able to accommodate -both- pieces of data in this case...in science the theory that can make sense of more data is the better theory...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Who is a time-wasting nuisance?

How about popeye?

Remember what he did recently?

Like four pages of posts of just him quoting from some Dr. Dino propaganda.

Back to Neanderthals, my favorite subject.

(I recognize the danger that one of you YECs is going to suggest that I am one.)

It seems to me that the first question to answer is: When did Neanderthals walk the Earth?

Here is a recent research paper in a journal where the oldest Neanderthal fossil from which DNA has been extracted is dated at 130,000 to 170,000 years old:

The Neanderthal in the karst: First dating, morphometric, and paleogenetic data on the fossil skeleton from Altamura (Italy)

in case you didn't notice i called him out more than once for flooding that thread...

oh and regarding the 'danger' of being called a neanderthal...young earth creationists accept the scientific evidence that establishes that most modern humans are part neanderthal...

regarding that paper...they did not date the fossils...instead they dated the calcite growths around it...i would question the suitability of calcite growths for radiometric dating regardless of the dates they produced...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Re: Study up...

You keep on shoplifting your material from answers-in-genesis.

Stop this....it really makes you look silly.

You are merely regurgitating what is said at their website without any comprehension of the implication or effort on your part.

If 'bara' and 'asah', two entirely separate terms, are used in close proximity to one another, it means two entirely different events. It does not Mean that they are synonyms of one another.

You are putting forth the very same argument as 'answers-in-genesis'.....and their clip was about 'asah' referring to an ancient earth....that is NOT my argument at all....remember, the verb used on 'Day 4' to represent that the sun and moon were created BEFORE 'day 4'.....

But....you lost control of your train of thought and are now fighting an 'old age' strawman....

actually i haven't referred to answers in genesis all through this entire debate...i didn't even know they -had- an article on the use of 'bara' versus 'asah'...

but if you want to add -flagrant lying- to the list of other tactics that indicate that you are not participating in good faith...it is only yourself you will be discrediting...

your insistence that two different terms used in close proximity -must- indicate two entirely different events is absolutely ridiculous...no sane literary critic would ever demand such a thing...-especially- not one versed in hebrew literature...use of different terms and phrasings in synonymous parallelism to express the same meaning is a -key feature- of hebrew style...

 

[Bowman]

in case you didn't notice i called him out more than once for flooding that thread...

oh and regarding the 'danger' of being called a neanderthal...young earth creationists accept the scientific evidence that establishes that most modern humans are part neanderthal...

regarding that paper...they did not date the fossils...instead they dated the calcite growths around it...i would question the suitability of calcite growths for radiometric dating regardless of the dates they produced...

Hey Tintin…..did you know that you are part Neanderthal…?

Moreover, you like it, Rachel said so!



Hey Angela…..did you know that you are part Neanderthal…?

Moreover, you like it, Rachel said so!

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Re: Study up...

And how is it used differently than in Gen 1..?

I already explained this to you, don't ignore it.

But...you can't answer that because 'answers-in-genesis' makes your same remark without ever elaborating, either...thus, this likewise will be a dead-end on your assertion as well, no doubt.

If the teleprompter is not in front of you...well, you just don't know what to say...

you insist that 'bara' is used to refer to the creation of something brand new...
genesis 5:2 uses 'bara' to refer to the male and female creation of humans...
by the time humans were created male and female are not something brand new...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Re: Study up...

What about Exo 20.11...?

How does it support your assertion in the first place?

Need to consult 'answers-in-genesis' yet again for a reply...?







Repeated character defamation and name calling is not necessary.

Your position fails regardless...

exodus 20:11..."For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

this verse uses the term 'asah' to refer to the making of...
the heavens...
the earth...
the sea...
all that is in them...

however in genesis 1:1 it says the heavens and earth were 'bara' created...the sea creatures which would be included in the 'all that is in them' of exodus 20:11 were also said to be 'bara' created in genesis 1...and as we already know the humans are said to have been 'bara' created in genesis 1:27...

so several things that were reported to have been 'bara' created in genesis 1 are now said to have been 'asah' made in exodus 20:11...proving that the two terms can mean the same thing...

which shows that your artificial distinction you insist on between 'bara' and 'asah' is refuted by scripture's own usage of these two words...


...and to defame your character you would need to have had character to begin with!

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Re: Study up...

And...?





And...?







And...?






You already agree that Gen 2.4 makes all the creation days 1, 24hr day....is this what you really want?

you keep saying 'and?' as if you have forgotten your own claim that was being systematically refuted...

you insisted that i cannot use genesis 2:4 without making all of the creation days of genesis 1 into a single day...which i -disagree- with...contrary to your knowingly false claims otherwise...

i pointed out that genesis 2:4 uses the phrase 'in the day' which is a hebrew idiom that only conveys general 'around that time' information... i also pointed out that this is different from numbered days which indicate a specific time...

then you demanded references...although you probably already knew the scripture references that support what i was saying and i suspect you were just once again stalling...

in any case i -gave- you those references...

and all you have to say in reply to the references is to say 'and?' three times and then repeat your lie that i 'agree' with something i never agreed with...


yet again this is an obvious indicator that you are not participating in good faith...honestly if you are unwilling to contribute anything other than dead weight then you need to just excuse yourself from this discussion and let the adults talk...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Give another YEC a try.....you've failed at every attempt thus far...

if i have failed at anything...it would be at getting any kind of good faith participation out of you...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

What's your source?

Pat Robertson says Ken Ham is an idiot:

Even Pat Robertson Thinks Ken Ham Is an Idiot

well pat robertson also says God tells him who is going to win presidential elections in the united states...and i think he also was the one that said the earthquake in haiti was because the haitian people had made a deal with the devil to practice voodoo or something like that...

so he isn't exactly in a position to challenge anyone's beliefs...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Since you have everything at ICR memorized for your YEC talking points, which you never can defend effectively, what is your critique of this article entitled "DNA in Dinosaur Bones" at ICR.

DNA in Dinosaur Bones? | The Institute for Creation Research

If it sounds familiar it should be, because this is where RachelBibleStudent got her spiel on the subject.

um actually it isn't...in fact i didn't know the institute for creation research even had an article mentioning the allentoft study...i found that study by looking up 'dna degradation rate' on google because i knew i would need a empirical data if i was going to do anything other than say 'there is no way DNA can last that long' over and over...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

State the prediction that 'failed', if you can, that is...

are you -kidding- me?

is isn't like this hasn't already been stated over and over and over in this thread or anything...