... on Young Earth

Series on Discovering Religion:

... on Autumn's why she is an atheist video and some commenters

It is through above that I know the channel Discovering Religion.


... on Apocalyptic fears of Atheists and some more
(on Ep 01)
... on Young Earth
(on Ep 02)
... on Redemption, Flood and Paradise
(on Ep 03, 04 1/2, 04 2/2)
... on Copy Right issues, Scientific Theories and Adam's children's sibling marriages, not forgetting bananas
(on Ep 05, 06)

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?threaded=1&v=P9Vx_KLRUpE

Hans-Georg Lundahl [3 months ago]

1) Yes we YEC do reject some radiometric datings. They are not historical documentary proof.

2) U failed 2 mention we find sediments probably due mostly to world wide flood. In these cases we YEC - all of us - find your presuppositions faulty.

3) Star light reaches us "from distant galaxies" at a constant speed ... my own solution is radical: the galaxies may be not at all so far away. Not showing parallax may not mean being far away. Showing it may not mean being close. Heliocentrism is wrong.

An aside which is really not about the issue here. I tried to post this at a library in Paris yesterday. The combox kept not getting free for text, or not accepting text when free. And it kept not accepting mouse click on publish button, or even closing down the session (I reopened more than once) when I pushed repeatedly.

Some old earth non creationists are jerks, not meaning you have to be that.

xamarmm

Yeah, when the evidence proves us wrong, we reject the evidence. Go back to watch your soap operas and other shows of similar intellectual level and block out everything that those atheist scientists tells us - btw, many scientists are not atheists but I guess that is also a fact that you choose to ignore, you don't seem to be a person who allow facts to disturb your beliefs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Soap operas? Was allergic to them even before throwing out TV soon after inheriting it from granny.

Btw, my saying SOME radiometric datingS are rejectable was n ot directed exclusively against atheist scientists, I would insist and have insisted thereon as much in face of scientists who are my Catholic coreligionists.

xamarmm

Good you are not watching soap operas, but you really should stop watching that creationist propaganda also, they really don't know what they are talking about. Learn some of the theory of the physics of the atomic nucleus, it wouldn't hurt :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Learn some of the theory of the physics of the atomic nucleus, it wouldn't hurt :)"

I have. That is why I do not trust age datings when there is no way to tell whether C14 level in atmosphere when sth was alive in it was present level or 64 times less (5 half lives or 25000 - 30000 years older in "measuring" than in reality).

Zan0s

That's because carbon dating only applies to recently deceased plant-based life forms. Carbon dating is only good for at best, samples from 65,000 years ago. Read up more on radiometric dating before you start going on about bullshit reasons as to why you don't trust something. If you think you are right, then I put it to you to submit a paper to be peer reviewed which explains why radiometric dating is wrong and why all the geologists and palaeontologists have it all wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

ALL the geologists?

Meaning Flood Geologist and YEC Tas Walker is not one?

Tell that to peer reviewed CMI where his essays are in part published!

"older than C14-dating" = usually "geological dating" = other presupposition that may well be wrong (like how fast sediments form or whether fossile faunas found side by side could be considered "virtually lying on top of each other" or not).

Zan0s

"Part published"

Well then, the majority of geologists. Intelligent Design is not science, and pseudo-scientists such as Tas Walker and whoever the fuck CMI is who try to undermine actual scientific work are doing an injustice to the scientific method and those who put in real scientific, unbiased work. Look up Kitzmiller v Dover area school district (2005) - ID was ruled out of court as science by an extremely conservative judge.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"unbiased"

If P Z Myers is "unbiased" how come he hid or deleted the latter part of comment thread under his blog post on augmenting chromosome numbers?

[Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html]

"Look up Kitzmiller v Dover area school district (2005) - ID was ruled out of court as science by an extremely conservative judge."

Extremely conservative, but biassed evolutionist.

"try to undermine actual scientific work"

Criticism is undermining, is it?

Zan0s

I'm not talking about PZ Myers, that's just one person - which is typical of theists, focussing their efforts on individuals rather than addressing the issues at hand. Evolution is not the polar opposite of intelligent design "theory", it does not matter whether or he is biased. And he's a judge, JUDGE, not an 'evolutionist'. Again, focussing on individuals and appealing to authority. Criticism is welcome, so long as it actually has some basis and is beyond the critical thinking of high school.

Secondly, why are there literally 10's of thousands of peer reviewed papers on evolution, and not a single one that actually supports intelligent design "theory"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I'm not talking about PZ Myers, that's just one person"

The one who:

- a) offered an attempt of solution at a problem posed not just by me but also by an evolutionist back in february 1999

- b) when I criticised that ONE evolutionist attempt after a few weeks or months hid the part of comments where my criticism was.

Issue is increasing chromosome numbers, in mammals, not plants. PZM came in because he dealt with that precise problem. No other evolutionist does, and he does it dishonestly.

Zan0s

Now we're appealing to our own authority, are we? And you're certain not a single biologist besides you and PZ Myers have thought about your 'issue'? And if you 'win' (for want of a better word) this particular 'issue', then God is real and we're all doomed simply not for believing? And what authority could you possibly have when you claim that "heliocentrism is wrong"? Really? You're seriously a geocentrist? You don't belong in this century, you belong in or before the 16th century.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You're seriously a geocentrist? You don't belong in this century, you belong in or before the 16th century."

I take that as a compliment.

"And what authority could you possibly have when you claim that 'heliocentrism is wrong'?"

My senses, like eyes witnessing movement of sun and of moon and of stars, or like inner ears witnessing stability of earth. That is preliminary.

My logic says this has not been disproven by those who offered to do so.

"And if you 'win' (for want of a better word) this particular 'issue', then God is real and we're all doomed simply not for believing?"

That might have been PZM's motive for hiding the parts of comment thread that started after 2009 with my commenting on the problem of his solution.

postoergopostum

Satnav makes it difficult to not laugh at you.

The phases of Venus, and particle physics make it difficult not to cry.

I understand the rationalisations you use to maintain your perspective, and why you believe modern science fails to make it's case. I do, however wonder why it matters to you?

You seem comfortable with a computer, it's not technology that scares you, so why astronomy?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Your exact point about Satnav eludes me. Please clarify.

Phases of Venus are as much accounted for by Tychonian system as by Heliocentrism.

Google: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere ... on Young Earth Creationism Denying Gravity (with a certain levity towards the matter, thank God!)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-young-earth-creationism-denying.html

Google: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere ... on "Science Works" quote (c/o Dawkins)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-science-works-quote-co-dawkins.html

There are my answers to your other points.

branch off

from earlier

xamarmm

Rejecting radiometric dating shows an utter ignorance on how the physics of the atoms work and operate and ultimately is a rejection of how the reality works - a reaity which you claim was created by god - in other words, you have to reject the god you believe in in order to reject radiometric dating. This is complete and utter FAIL.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, I was not rejecting radiometric dating as such, I was contesting SOME radiometric datingS.

Kind of C14 from times when it becomes hard to check with independently datable objects that atmosphere had same level of C14 as now. Since that is a presumption that would falsify the dating of say a pre-flood dino with no traces of C14, if it happened to live in an atmosphere of very much lower levels of C14.

xamarmm

Then you have no argument. Biologists do not use ONLY C-14 radiometric dating, they use a battery of different tests and when they all converge to an answer that is when they make a claim as to the age of something. Indeed the C-14 radiometric dating is then used as evidence because it collaborates with other evidence, so disputing C-14 makes no sense.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I took C14 as an example, because it is the most commonly used dating method with reliable double checking in terms of cultrually and historically datable artefacts" - as I said in continuation post.

In such young things, C14 and dendro are basically only things used, excepting cultural dating.

In "much older" things there is hardly any C14 and I do not trust calibration of U-Pb or Th-Pb. Half life being too slow to check, results contradicting.

xamarmm

You are aware that there is a continuous record going back at least 10000 years just counting rings on trees - first living trees today which oerlaps with preserved dead trees etc. Aso, rings in antarctic Ice allow us to go even further back - so the young earth is solidly disproven - the earth is simply is older than 6000 or 12000 years or whatever you want to say. Finally, we wouldn't be able to see any galaxies if the universe was young, nearest galaxy is the andromeda galaxy which is 2 million light years way, we see that galaxy as it was 2 millon years ago so the universe is at least older than 2 million years just from that single fact alone. The galaxy that is furthest away that we can see is 13 billion light years away proving that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

All these distance measurings ultimately depend on:

- heliocentric view of the phenomenon known as "annual parallax of a star"

- a non-theistic causality of how stars ignite, i e self ignite at a sufficient mass, from which is concluded a minimum size/mass of a star, from which is concluded that smallness and closeness of stars would be physically impossible, as well as supposedly (see previous) optically disproven.

xamarmm

First off, the "annual parallax of a star" doesn't actally depend on a helioentric view. You are aware that th sun an th earth both rotate around each other around a common center of mass - it's just that because the sun is so huge and the earth is so small so that common center is somewhere near the center of the sun and the sun also moves in similar fashion around all the other planets and so in sum the sun remains relatively speaking at rest at the center of the solar system while the planets move around the sun. However,considering only earth and sun, as the earth moves around the sun in an elipsish. The annual parallax of star therefore depend on the sun being relatively at rest - which is obvious when you consider the mass of the sun relative to the earth. Claiming that the huge sun moves in an orbit around the small earth is frankly ridiculous. Also, this form of measurement only works for stars fairly close to us, the further out you go, the more planets move around the sun. However,considering only earth and sun, as the earth moves around the sun in an elipsish. The annual parallax of star therefore depend on the sun being relatively at rest - which is obvious when you consider the mass of the sun relative to the earth. Claiming that the huge sun moves in an orbit around the small earth is frankly ridiculous. Also, this form of measurement only works for stars fairly close to us, the further out you go, the more useless this method becomes and other methods are used instead. In particular when considering galaxies that are million of light years away from us, that method you speak of is not used. Secondly, whlle a star have to have a certain minimal mass to ignite, thus giving a minimumsize of a hydrogen star, say, it is quite possible to find smaller stars - they are simply made up of mostly other materials. So, how exactly have astronomy been disproven you say?

[not answered here but see

... on Young Earth Creationism Denying Gravity (with a certain levity towards the matter, thank God!)
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2013/05/on-young-earth-creationism-denying.html]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You are aware that there is a continuous record going back at least 10000 years just counting rings on trees - first living trees today which oerlaps with preserved dead trees etc."

I was aware of that factoid. It involves seeing patterns of thickness and thinness repeated identically at different levels in different trees. I have seen a diagram over some near gaps with few trees to bridge them and the identity of pattern is too loose to prove anything.

Usually there is no C14 in T Rex bones. Recently remains of a T Rex were found with both preserved soft tissue and preserved measurable level of C14. That level has not been used in dating it, since a measureable level of C14 is incompatible with the ages assigned to T Rex as died off some 60 mill. years ago.

I took C14 as an example, because it is the most commonly used dating method with reliable double checking in terms of cultrually and historically datable artefacts.