Is defending a 'young' earth necessary?

[birdan]

Now hold on a second .........................

Supposed I asked you 500 questions, you totally answered 400, kind-of answered 75 and not at all answered 25. Would I be honest if I told people that you ("birdan") provided to me no answers?

Go to their sites and you will find many hundreds of answers. Yes, sometimes there is "no answer" or there is an "answer" that does not satisfy or there is "answer" with inconclusiveness or ambiguity --- yes, all of those do occur. What I read from Faulkner and Snelling falls into the latter two categories. I myself have asked them questions and, after getting feedback from them, my questions remained.

But to make the shotgun statement that, "I strongly disagree that answers have been provided by YEC organizations" is to be either unfair to those organizations or less than honest.

Jorge

I have been to these sites, and on the topic of the heat produced by impact craters, there are no answers provided. Which is why I contacted Faulkner and Sneling directly (they both had authored articles on impact craters but hadn't addressed the issue of the generated heat).

Further, I can assure you that there are no young earth creationist answers for any of the heat issues surrounding impact craters, tectonic movement, limestone formation, lava flows, etc.

If you would care to provide answers to the above, or cite some young earth creationist articles that provide answers, then please do so. Otherwise I'll stand by my statement.

[birdan]

Several years back, shortly after the discovery of the transitional fossil Tiktaalik (a fishapod), AnswersinGenesis (AiG) did a write up describing it including its pelvis and rear limbs which at that time had not been discovered. rwatts, another poster who frequented Tweb at the time called TheGreenMan and myself separately wrote to them asking them for details especially concerning their claims about the pelvis and limbs. rwatts and TheGreenMan received a reply saying that someone would contact them within the next month with an answer. I never even got that despite making sure that I was very polite in my request. None of us heard anything back despite waiting for a reply for 6+ years now.

Similarly, for several years AiG posted an article about the "baboon dog" in which they state "The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it." A number of posters including at least one YEC (afdave) wrote AiG about this asking for verification of this claim since any species where one sex dies before reaching maturity would not do well at reproducing. Not a word back and the article still remains.

They don't have a good track record.

I would suggest emailing the individuals directly, and not via AIG. That is what I did in the two instances above, and I had no problem getting at least an initial reply. Also, I tried to be very polite in my emails. :)

[Jorge]

Interesting that Jorge would say this:


...after having earlier dismissed and ignored TheLurch's question with this statement:



To proclaim that a case "has been addressed and answered" without actually giving any address or answer to that claim is pretty much exactly what people mean when they say "dismiss and ignore."

The above is preposterous and less-than-honest.

Just because that's the way that YOU wish to interpret it does not make it so.

If I ask you a question, and you refer me to a source that provides me with an answer, would I be honest if I told others, "Boxing Pythagoras has dismissed and ignored my question to him"?

Well, would I be honest in that?

You're going to have to try harder, BP.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I do.

About ten years ago, a YEC on the old theologyweb forum posted this 'quote' he copied unacknowledged from Kent Hovind's website:I promptly pointed out that Dima - a frozen mammoth - wasn't excavated until 1975, and so could not have been mentioned in a 1975 report. Rather than investigating, the YEC in question simply dismissed this refutation. In the ten years since, this YEC has been reminded of their blunder many times, but not once have they done anything other than ignore the facts of the matter. They have certainly not retracted their original claim, nor admitted they were wrong. "Dismiss and ignore" certainly does apply in this case.

Guess the identity of the YEC.

Roy

What you are omitting from the readers (no mystery there!) is that I referred you to Kent Hovind's website where the question had been asked of him and he gave a comprehensive reply. I do not know if it is still there as I myself haven't been to that website in years. But give it a try and report back.

Speaking of Kent, I think that he's due out this year. Yay!
I love the way he rattles the cages of Evolutionists.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I have been to these sites, and on the topic of the heat produced by impact craters, there are no answers provided. Which is why I contacted Faulkner and Sneling directly (they both had authored articles on impact craters but hadn't addressed the issue of the generated heat).

Further, I can assure you that there are no young earth creationist answers for any of the heat issues surrounding impact craters, tectonic movement, limestone formation, lava flows, etc.

If you would care to provide answers to the above, or cite some young earth creationist articles that provide answers, then please do so. Otherwise I'll stand by my statement.

Did you UNDERSTAND anything that I wrote?

I proved beyond any shadow of doubt that if you have any integrity then
you CANNOT "stand by your statement"... it's not an option ... it's out!

On the other hand, if you toss integrity into the toilet then, yes, I agree,
you may certainly "stand by your statement". Your move ...

No, I do not have the answer that you seek (at least not at this time).

As for "lava flows, tectonic movements, limestone, etc ... etc" -- you
say that you "assure me" that there are no answers. I KNOW that's
not true - there are hundreds of articles on the aforementioned sites
that cover those topics - I've read many of them myself.

Maybe what you mean is, there are no answers that you wish to accept.
That I can easily believe.

Jorge

[Roy]

...wasn't excavated until 1975...

That should say 1977.

[Roy]

What you are omitting from the readers (no mystery there!) is that I referred you to Kent Hovind's website where the question had been asked of him and he gave a comprehensive reply.

Liar.

I directed you to Hovind's website after finding that was where you plagiarised the quotes from. You never directed me to anything. Nor did Hovind ever give a comprehensive reply - instead, he silently wiped the article from his website.

What I am not omitting, because it never happened, is that you ever had the cojones to admit your mistake. I did omit to point out that every single one of your claims that you respond to critics, or acknowledge error, or don't ignore evidence, or have never been refuted, or possess integrity; and just about every one of the few non-trivial post you've made since then - including the one I'm responding to - is a steaming pile of galline ordure. Still, better late than never.

Roy

[oxmixmudd]

Sirens going off ... lights flashing ... explosions ... bells ringing ... yelling and screaming !!!

STRAW MAN ALERT ... STRAW MAN ALERT ......... RUN FOR COVER !!!


A man of your age ought not to be so silly, O-Mudd, it makes you preposterously ridiculous!

Jorge

The closer one gets to pinning Jorge down - the wilder his attempts at evasion become. The post he responds to here must have been very close to the mark, for he has not one coherent thing to say in reply!

Jim

[birdan]

Did you UNDERSTAND anything that I wrote?

I proved beyond any shadow of doubt that if you have any integrity then
you CANNOT "stand by your statement"... it's not an option ... it's out!

On the other hand, if you toss integrity into the toilet then, yes, I agree,
you may certainly "stand by your statement". Your move ...

No, I do not have the answer that you seek (at least not at this time).

As for "lava flows, tectonic movements, limestone, etc ... etc" -- you
say that you "assure me" that there are no answers. I KNOW that's
not true - there are hundreds of articles on the aforementioned sites
that cover those topics - I've read many of them myself.

Maybe what you mean is, there are no answers that you wish to accept.
That I can easily believe.

Jorge

There are no articles at AIG, ICR, etc. that address the issue of the heat generated by impact craters, lava flows, tectonic movement, limestone formation, etc. It's quite easy to prove me wrong: provide a link to an article that addresses how all that heat dissipated off the earth in a young earth timeframe.

Since you haven't yet done so, I still stand by my statement. And if you doubt a heat problem exists, I can provide the simple physics and math to enlighten you.

[oxmixmudd]

Now hold on a second .........................

Supposed I asked you 500 questions, you totally answered 400, kind-of answered 75 and not at all answered 25. Would I be honest if I told people that you ("birdan") provided to me no answers?

Go to their sites and you will find many hundreds of answers. Yes, sometimes there is "no answer" or there is an "answer" that does not satisfy or there is "answer" with inconclusiveness or ambiguity --- yes, all of those do occur. What I read from Faulkner and Snelling falls into the latter two categories. I myself have asked them questions and, after getting feedback from them, my questions remained.

But to make the shotgun statement that, "I strongly disagree that answers have been provided by YEC organizations" is to be either unfair to those organizations or less than honest.

Jorge

The issue of impact events on the Earth, on the moon, are completely outside the capacity of 'scientific' explanation within the context of YEC. For the Earth, the Moon, Mercury, Mars, Ceres etc to be as they are is simply impossible within the context of a sequence of natural events over the ridiculously short period of time they would need to be placed under a YEC paradigm. Faulkner is right in that they simply must be deligated to some element of the creative act (first 6 days) AND there must be major shifts in physics. To compress what is called the late heavy bombardment and the ongoing regular interaction of the planets with small asteroids and meteors into the period of written human history as is required by YEC outside the creation week is simply absurdly ridiculous. Too much destruction, too much heat. We simply would not be here.

Your own attempt only makes the point (jorge at one point trying to grapple with this issue made what I believe was a sincere effort to find a way to explain the impact craters found in the Earth. His conclusion was scientifically of no value. He did his best and came up with nothing. He did, however, publish it. Meaning that in spite of the fact he has been told and shown many times over it is morbidly inadequate, he can live with his work deceiving those that do not understand how impossible his solution is, accepting it, and using it in their own lives as an 'answer' to this problem. The best one could say on this issue is that Jorge's ego may simply not allow him to recognize the inadequacy of his work despite all the information he has available to him that should be able to enlighten him.)

http://www.trueorigin.org/acbc_impact_craters.asp

I link to it only because I believe most of our readers will find it both amusing and educational as to what Jorge deems an 'adequate' scientific support for YEC.


Jim

PS: It appears there is a bug for some browsers in the html for the Jorge article. If your browser keeps reloading the page every 3 seconds
forcing you back to the top of the page, pull the source down to your machine, edit the top level ".html" file, and one way or the other purge the 'frame buster': Several options work - change the timeout from 3000 ms to something larger, like 300000, or just comment out those line, or even the entire block from START FRAME BUSTER to END FRAME BUSTER.

//<!-- START FRAME BUSTER -->
//<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">
// <!-- Hide script from older browsers
// setTimeout ("changePage()", 3000);
//
// function changePage() {
// if (self.parent.frames.length != 0)
// self.parent.location=document.location;
// }
//
// end hiding contents -->
//</script>
//<!-- END FRAME BUSTER -->

Then load the page from where you put it i.e.. in your browser type "file:///C:/Users/myuser/mylocation"

where 'myuser' is your userid and mylocation is where you put the trueorigins html source code.

[klaus54]

I simply LOVE the scare quotes around "impact craters".

Don't you?

It's SO rich...

K54

[Jorge]

There are no articles at AIG, ICR, etc. that address the issue of the heat generated by impact craters, lava flows, tectonic movement, limestone formation, etc. It's quite easy to prove me wrong: provide a link to an article that addresses how all that heat dissipated off the earth in a young earth timeframe.

Since you haven't yet done so, I still stand by my statement. And if you doubt a heat problem exists, I can provide the simple physics and math to enlighten you.

You are, of course, at liberty to "stand" by anything you wish.
But don't try to shift the goalposts, okay?

You had made the general statement that :

"I strongly disagree that answers have been provided by YEC organizations"

To which I responded:

"Supposed I asked you 500 questions, you totally answered 400, kind-of answered 75 and not-at-all answered 25. Would I be honest if I told people that you ("birdan") provided to me no answers?

Go to their sites and you will find many hundreds of answers. Yes, sometimes there is "no answer" or there is an "answer" that does not satisfy or there is "answer" that is inconclusive or ambiguous --- yes, all of those do occur. What I read from Faulkner and Snelling falls into the latter two categories. I myself have asked them questions and, after getting feedback from them, my questions remained (unanswered).

But to make the shotgun statement that, "I strongly disagree that answers have been provided by YEC organizations" is to be either unfair to those organizations or less than honest."

Now, you can either refute the above or you cannot.
If yes then let's see it; if no then you CANNOT "stand by your statement".

I am not saying that the answer to your question about heat generated was provided. I am saying that your statement is not true.

Don't try to deny what is patently obvious. On the other hand, you'll get plenty of help from certain TWebbers if you wish to be less than forthright. They're Masters at it, as has been my unfortunate experience to learn first-hand.

Jorge

[Roy]

We need to start up that Jorge stock response/excuse list again. IIRC, they included (in no particular order)

• You're drunk or on drugs

• I already explained this some time in the past so I won't do so now

• You're too stupid to understand my brilliant argument so I won't bother

I believe there were a couple others

Here:
1) You're drunk / high on drugs
2) You're too stupid / ignorant / dishonest to understand
3) Explaining is a waste of time / someone is paying you to waste my time.
4) This assertion is true because I said so
5) This assertion is even truer because I said so twice
6) I already provided evidence (in huge detail) but I won't repeat it or link to it.
also
7) I don't have time because I'm going on a business trip
and now
8) There are zillions of articles on ICR/AIG/CMI/TLA that I can't be bothered to link to.

Roy

[birdan]

The issue of impact events on the Earth, on the moon, are completely outside the capacity of 'scientific' explanation within the context of YEC. For the Earth, the Moon, Mercury, Mars, Ceres etc to be as they are is simply impossible within the context of a sequence of natural events over the ridiculously short period of time they would need to be placed under a YEC paradigm. Faulkner is right in that they simply must be deligated to some element of the creative act (first 6 days) AND there must be major shifts in physics. To compress what is called the late heavy bombardment and the ongoing regular interaction of the planets with small asteroids and meteors into the period of written human history as is required by YEC outside the creation week is simply absurdly ridiculous. Too much destruction, too much heat. We simply would not be here.

Your own attempt only makes the point (jorge at one point trying to grapple with this issue made what I believe was a sincere effort to find a way to explain the impact craters found in the Earth. His conclusion was scientifically of no value. He did his best and came up with nothing. He did, however, publish it. Meaning that in spite of the fact he has been told and shown many times over it is morbidly inadequate, he can live with his work deceiving those that do not understand how impossible his solution is, accepting it, and using it in their own lives as an 'answer' to this problem. The best one could say on this issue is that Jorge's ego may simply not allow him to recognize the inadequacy of his work despite all the information he has available to him that should be able to enlighten him.)

http://www.trueorigin.org/acbc_impact_craters.asp

I link to it only because I believe most of our readers will find it both amusing and educational as to what Jorge deems an 'adequate' scientific support for YEC.


Jim

In typical YEC fashion, Jorge gets around the "impact crater" heat problem by proposing a scenario that has an equal or greater heat problem:

I hypothesize that in Genesis 7:11 - when "the fountains of the great deep" were broken up - there were a series of geologic events not unlike volcanic eruptions (recall the maars craters) except that they were significantly more energetic.

Hint for Jorge and other YECs: fountains of the deep (superheated water), explosive volcanic eruptions, galloping continents, etc. ALL produce copious amounts of heat (which can be calculated rather easily). Heat exits the earth primarily via infrared radiation, the rate of which can also easily be calculated. Add up all the heat produced by past geologic events, divide by the yearly rate the earth radiates heat into space, and one can calculate the minimum age of the earth. And this calculation shows the earth has to be at least hundreds of millions of years old to have our present habitable planet.

And it is this fact that is never addressed by YECs or YEC organizations. Again, Jorge can prove me wrong by simply linking to an article that addresses this issue.

[Jorge]

The issue of impact events on the Earth, on the moon, are completely outside the capacity of 'scientific' explanation within the context of YEC. For the Earth, the Moon, Mercury, Mars, Ceres etc to be as they are is simply impossible within the context of a sequence of natural events over the ridiculously short period of time they would need to be placed under a YEC paradigm. Faulkner is right in that they simply must be deligated to some element of the creative act (first 6 days) AND there must be major shifts in physics. To compress what is called the late heavy bombardment and the ongoing regular interaction of the planets with small asteroids and meteors into the period of written human history as is required by YEC outside the creation week is simply absurdly ridiculous. Too much destruction, too much heat. We simply would not be here.

Your own attempt only makes the point (jorge at one point trying to grapple with this issue made what I believe was a sincere effort to find a way to explain the impact craters found in the Earth. His conclusion was scientifically of no value. He did his best and came up with nothing. He did, however, publish it. Meaning that in spite of the fact he has been told and shown many times over it is morbidly inadequate, he can live with his work deceiving those that do not understand how impossible his solution is, accepting it, and using it in their own lives as an 'answer' to this problem. The best one could say on this issue is that Jorge's ego may simply not allow him to recognize the inadequacy of his work despite all the information he has available to him that should be able to enlighten him.)

http://www.trueorigin.org/acbc_impact_craters.asp

I link to it only because I believe most of our readers will find it both amusing and educational as to what Jorge deems an 'adequate' scientific support for YEC.

Jim

Before ending my day, I thought I'd leave a brief reply to the above infantile and less-than-honest rant. The ending, in particular, illustrates the lack of integrity.

O-Mudd ends with "... as to what Jorge deems 'adequate' scientific support for YEC."

It was no such thing and so, once again, O-Mudd gets caught misrepresenting someone's work (an act of which I have often been a target of his). That article was never meant as an "adequate scientific support for YEC" but rather as merely an alternate explanation for what is observed.

The fact that the O-Mudds of the world cannot/will not see any other view that doesn't agree with their Religious Ideology is something that blinds such individuals.

I stand by that article to this day (I just re-read it and it's pretty good). Am I saying that the view expressed therein is correct? No, not necessarily correct. But neither is the view that O-Mudd et al. cling to "necessarily correct". But don't even suggest that to these people - they will not / cannot hear of it.

Jorge