Evidence for a Young Earth (page 6)

cofty

Perry - Choose a number from 1-44 and I will refute it.

Then I will choose a number from 1-37 and you can try to refute that in your own words without links, videos or copy-paste.

Do you accept the challenge?

Cofty, you seem to rely on the peer review process as your ultimate litmus test. If you do not personally have any peer reviewed articles published, then you are simple relying on others peer reviewed articles. There is also another inherent flaw in your litmus test:

Bogus Peer Reviewed articles abound and as a student of sociology, I study the effects of confirmation bias. I think everyone should be aware of this phenomenon.

Take this example for instance:

EDITOR IN CHIEF OF WORLD’S BEST KNOWN MEDICAL JOURNAL: HALF OF ALL THE LITERATURE IS FALSE

How is the average person supposed to know which half is true and which half isn't ?

cofty

as a student of sociology, I study the effects of confirmation bias.

Oh the irony!

How can you judge what is true since you haven't read a single book on evolution in your entire life. You are 100% ignorant of the facts and proud of it. You are the embodiment of confirmation bias.

I am thoroughly familiar with both sides of the debate.

How is the average person supposed to know which half is true and which half isn't ?

All of the evidence is on the side of evolution.

Do you accept the challenge?

WhatshallIcallmyself

"People interpret those facts differently, plain and simple." - Perry

People can only interpret facts if they are aware of all the other facts that go with the initial fact. This is where creationists diverge from scientists. The scientist interprets a set of related facts and the conclusion is drawn from where all the evidence leads whereas the creationist will interpret certain facts whilst ignoring all those that refute their desired conclusion.

"The tendency is to attack anothers interpretation of the facts and call that interpretation not science, psuedo science, fairy tale etc.," - Perry

If the conclusion is drawn from a limited data set that supports the conclusion whilst ignoring everything else that disagrees then yes, that is not science etc... If you claim to be a scientist and behave in that manner (Henry Morris et al...) then you will rightly be called on that.

"when in fact many times interpretation, especially theoretical interpretation, is a process of the mind and not a falsifiable conclusion." - Perry

Then it isn't science.... Stop pretending it is.... Science has to be falsifiable at all levels or it isn't science. I can write that last sentence in capitals, in bold, with a lovely background highlight if you are struggling to understand that simple concept.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Take this example for instance" - Perry

Here we are talking about evolution or geology and there you are linking us to a journal editor who is worried about the state of pharmaceutical research.

Do you not realise that in one fell swoop you have both shown exactly how well peer review works (the editor is openly stating there is a problem) and that you think pharmaceutical research is something relevant to this conversation. You are meant to be arguing against, not for!

"How is the average person supposed to know which half is true and which half isn't ?" - Perry

You rely on the experts in whatever field is relevant to the question at hand. The consensus amongst the scientific community is what counts. And let me make it clear to you that this consensus is not reached by sitting down and debating the "evidence". A consensus is established when numerous avenues of research all interconnect, mutually supporting each other and demonstrating that the underlying idea is sound.

Anders Andersen

How is the average person supposed to know which half is true and which half isn't ?

Perry, are you being intellectually dishonest on purpose, or are you really clueless?

First you present 'research' that support your wring ideas. Then, when actual scientific research is presented that shows you wrong is, you suddenly say research can't be trusted? And you present research to prove research can't be trusted?

Don't you see the logical problem there?

Anyway, the article you linked to is research into the field of medicine. Do you have similar research that actually applies to the fields of biology, genetics, archeology and geology?

Did you hope we wouldn't notice the difference? Or didn't you notice the difference yourself?

OnTheWayOut

The Vredefort crater in South Africa is the largest confirmed impact crater ever discovered on earth at nearly 200 miles across. It is estimated that the crater is over 2 billion years old.

If you use the young-earth model, and the massive asteroid plowed into the earth some time in the last 10,000 years, history most definitely would have recorded it, and we would still see the effects of its impact today on the life of the planet. It would have caused mass extinctions and life would not have yet come close to recovering.

So ignore evidence and say the scientists are wrong. It's just that simple to Perry. Maybe he will say that God created the world with the Vredefort crater already there and dozens of other large craters already in it, for no other reason than to make us think the earth had been hit by massive asteroids when in fact, it never was. It's a test of our faith that goes right along with seeing light from stars that would take millions and billions of years to arrive on earth. God must have made it look that way to make our scientists look stupid.

The age of our old earth has been calculated to fit the deceleration of the earth by tidal friction, the distance of the moon from the earth, the amount of dust on the moon, the dating of fossils. You cannot simply ignore the facts that don't fit your model.

cofty

Perry do you accept the challenge?

Anders Andersen

Perry, please accept the challenge even if it's just to shut Cofty up.

Oh wait. Now is the moment you normally abandon the thread because you know your position has no real foundation whatsoever.

And then in a couple of days you start a new thread spouting nonsense, unwilling to discuss beyond 'you're all wrong. I can't hear you LALALALALALALALALA'

[frustrated mode off]

cofty

I explained the challenge to Perry by PM.

Waiting with baited breath.......

Evidence for a Young Earth

Share this