Replies

Here are some young earth evidences from Answers in Genesis:

As I'm sure you've noticed by now, these "crevo" discussions tend to fly all over the place, hitting on dozens of topics without really resolving any because not enough time is spent on any one thing.

So I've got a proposal for you: How about if we spend some time focusing specifically on the "young earth evidences" you've just presented? We'll all examine them in depth, and see if we can come to some agreements about whether they really hold up or not when scrutinized, and why. During the process I hope you may learn some things about how scientists validate or invalidate certain arguments, and how evidence is evaluated.

Also, would you be willing to accept the idea that if (repeat, if) all or most of your evidences can be shown to be based on misconceptions or invalid reasoning, then perhaps creationist sources might not be as reliable or as good at science as you currently believe? In other words, may these be used as a "quality check" for creationist (or at least AiG) arguments, in the same way that if you randomly sample products off an assembly line and they all test successfully, it gives confidence that the rest of the production run are likely to be good too, whereas if the random samples fail the quality checks, it implies that something's probably wrong with most or all of the rest of the batch?

... If (repeat, if) all or most of your evidences can be shown to be based on misconceptions or invalid reasoning, then perhaps creationist sources might not be as reliable or as good at science as you currently believe?

My reaction as well. Seeing the concerns that an AiG article might somehow be discounted for coming from a creationist site, I was about to say something along the lines of "Given the arguments presented in ... [several AnswersInGenesis-based posts, including but not limited to 1375] ... how many times do we have to catch someone presenting risible arguments before we're allowed to discount them as bad thinkers, maybe even dishonest?"

(AiG, as they themselves like to note, aren't as bad as most other creationist sites as they have publicly discarded a few bad arguments. Still, we've seen a flood of AiG material on this thread and almost none of it has stood up to scrutiny.)

Hey ditto, why did you not respond?

I think this is a GREAT idea.

Wanna give it a try instead of bouncing from one topic and one strawman to another?

I am going to leave the bible thing alone, only because this is supposed to be a science thread, but if you would like to continue the discussion in another thread, please ping me, I will be happy to oblige.

So what do you say? Shall we do one thing at a time, or are you going to continue bouncing from one thing to another?

Let's do it!! It'll be fun!!

So I've got a proposal for you: How about if we spend some time focusing specifically on the "young earth evidences" you've just presented? We'll all examine them in depth, and see if we can come to some agreements about whether they really hold up or not when scrutinized, and why. During the process I hope you may learn some things about how scientists validate or invalidate certain arguments, and how evidence is evaluated.

You all have every right to discuss whatever you want. I you want to discuss just young earth evidences, then go for it. I'm not going to agree to limit discussion to whether or not the arguments I presented from AiG are true or false though because that is off the subject of this thread. I started the discussion, I think in post 4, by questioning the dating of the new dinosaur find. I believe all evolutionary dating models are incorrect. So, to limit me to the red hering of one particular post of mine ignores the purpose of the thread. Still, your own personal condescension in this post aside (I hope you may learn something), you may discuss whatever you wish.

Also, would you be willing to accept the idea that if (repeat, if) all or most of your evidences can be shown to be based on misconceptions or invalid reasoning, then perhaps creationist sources might not be as reliable or as good at science as you currently believe?
No, I do not accept the idea. The evolutionists on this thread have outright rejected any creationist resource I have posted. At least once, I was asked to post from something other than the two main creation website AiG and ICR, inferring that no good science is found at either. To accept your proposal would be to back down to bullying. Some creationists are better than others (as I have stated). Dr. David Menton is visibly more qualified to speak on issues than say Carl Baugh. I do not claim equal authority for each creationist or for each creationist article or argument. I will not succumb to the idea that creationism is just bad science, particularly from a group of people who are so attached to a theory that virtually no level of evidence would cause them to question it in the slightest. In other words, may these be used as a "quality check" for creationist (or at least AiG) arguments, in the same way that if you randomly sample products off an assembly line and they all test successfully, it gives confidence that the rest of the production run are likely to be good too, whereas if the random samples fail the quality checks, it implies that something's probably wrong with most or all of the rest of the batch?
For the reasons stated above, no sir. Thanks, but no thanks.