Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[iouae]

Alright, now you have a basic (if flawed) understanding of the HPT.

Now, here is the full theory:

"In the Beginning" by Dr. Walt Brown (full online book)

It explains the theory in detail.

Sorry, I understand enough to not want to read it, as I am sure it too speaks of mach 33 droplets of water, an utter impossibility. But thanks anyway.

 

[CabinetMaker]

I think you need to look up what "False dichotomy" means before using such big words.

He didn't present an "either/or" situation, He presented what evolutionists claim about neandertals, and for each point he gave what science actually says about neandertals.

Holy false dichotomies Batman! They're everywhere!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sorry, I understand enough to not want to read it, as I am sure it too speaks of mach 33 droplets of water, an utter impossibility. But thanks anyway.

So you're saying "I don't understand the theory, therefore it must be wrong"?

That's called an argument from incredulity. It's a logical fallacy.

Or are you saying, "I'm just going to ignore this theory because I don't understand how it works and I can't be bothered to try to understand it, and so I'll just stick with my own beliefs about reality"?

 

[CabinetMaker]

So you're saying "I don't understand the theory, therefore it must be wrong"?

That's called an argument from incredulity. It's a logical fallacy.

Or are you saying, "I'm just going to ignore this theory because I don't understand how it works and I can't be bothered to try to understand it, and so I'll just stick with my own beliefs about reality"?

Sounds to me like he is saying he is going to ignore the hypothesis (it does not yet rise to the level of scientific theory) because it ignores the laws of physics.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sounds to me like he is saying he is going to ignore the hypothesis (it does not yet rise to the level of scientific theory) because it ignores the laws of physics.

As far as I know, it's the ONLY theory that doesn't require miracles (aka supernatural intervention) to explain the global flood in Genesis 7. I assure you, it does follow the laws of physics. You know, it's funny that he rejects it because he just knows that it doesn't follow the laws of physics, even though he refuses to see what the theory actually says.

 

[CabinetMaker]

As far as I know, it's the ONLY theory that doesn't require miracles (aka supernatural intervention) to explain the global flood in Genesis 7. I assure you, it does follow the laws of physics. You know, it's funny that he rejects it because he just knows that it doesn't follow the laws of physics, even though he refuses to see what the theory actually says.

What do you say about the escape velocity issue? Don't link a video or book, explain to us how the required escape velocities are attained without vaporizing the water. We await your answer.

 

[iouae]

So you're saying "I don't understand the theory, therefore it must be wrong"?

That's called an argument from incredulity. It's a logical fallacy.

Or are you saying, "I'm just going to ignore this theory because I don't understand how it works and I can't be bothered to try to understand it, and so I'll just stick with my own beliefs about reality"?

I presume you accurately gave the gist of the theory, which involved the foundations of the deep blasting water into space at mach 33, which is 6 times faster than industrial water jet steel and rock cutters. If his theory does not involve this tell me that you described it wrong, and I will examine your link.

 

[CabinetMaker]

As far as I know, it's the ONLY theory that doesn't require miracles (aka supernatural intervention) to explain the global flood in Genesis 7. I assure you, it does follow the laws of physics. You know, it's funny that he rejects it because he just knows that it doesn't follow the laws of physics, even though he refuses to see what the theory actually says.

Why would you embrace a hypothesis that eliminates God's interaction?

 

[6days]

At the heart of the HP theory is the idea that there was water in the earth, and earth convulsed and squeezed this water out of the crust at escape velocity, so that water (and rock) shot up with such force that it escaped earth's gravity, still had enough velocity to keep on going and throw rocks on the moon such that they formed craters on the near side of the moon.

Not sure if you explain the theory correctly or not... but shucks, it sounds reasonable enough in comparison to how secularists explain the formation of the moon itself. (As opposed to Scripture which tell us a perfect Creator made the moon on the 4th day)

 

[Jose Fly]

Science always helps to confirm the truth of God's word.

In the case of Neandertals you ask about...

Try and keep up 6days. You stated that science has confirmed that Neanderthals are "descendants of the first Adam". Exactly where and how did science do that?

 

[Jose Fly]

Holy false dichotomies Batman!

They're misrepresentations of history. Since the discovery of Neanderthals, there have been all sorts of debates within the scientific community about who they were and how they lived. Some of that has been resolved and some hasn't.

6days is trying to cast it as if it was all "evolutionists" on one side and some other group (no one knows who) on the other, and the "evolutionists" were always on the wrong side. Of course reality is that there were "evolutionists" (IOW scientists) on all sides of all the issues.

What 6days is really showing is that he just doesn't understand science, and how when new data is discovered there are usually debates among the relevant scientists about what that data means. Over time those debates are settled, with some scientists being correct, some being wrong, and others landing somewhere in the middle.

But then, 6days (or pretty much any other creationist) misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting science is hardly new.

 

[iouae]

Not sure if you explain the theory correctly or not... but shucks, it sounds reasonable enough in comparison to how secularists explain the formation of the moon itself. (As opposed to Scripture which tell us a perfect Creator made the moon on the 4th day)

Really 6days, it sounds reasonable to you that earth can squeeze out water at mach 33?

 

[Jose Fly]

Naw, don't take the bait. Snarky deserves none of your time. Against mean and petty, you don't have to give it another thought. For the topic, however, Try here. :up:

I'd love to hear your takeaway from that Lon. Can you describe for us what you think it says?

 

[Jose Fly]

As far as I know, it's the ONLY theory that doesn't require miracles (aka supernatural intervention) to explain the global flood in Genesis 7.

So again, how much energy was required to move continental plates 55 mph?

 

[CabinetMaker]

They're misrepresentations of history. Since the discovery of Neanderthals, there have been all sorts of debates within the scientific community about who they were and how they lived. Some of that has been resolved and some hasn't.

6days is trying to cast it as if it was all "evolutionists" on one side and some other group (no one knows who) on the other, and the "evolutionists" were always on the wrong side. Of course reality is that there were "evolutionists" (IOW scientists) on all sides of all the issues.

What 6days is really showing is that he just doesn't understand science, and how when new data is discovered there are usually debates among the relevant scientists about what that data means. Over time those debates are settled, with some scientists being correct, some being wrong, and others landing somewhere in the middle.

But then, 6days (or pretty much any other creationist) misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting science is hardly new.

I was poking at the implication that "evolutionists" and "Scientists" are somehow two different groups. People who study evolution tend to be biologists while people who study cultures are cultural anthropologists. There are also paleo biologists and anthropologists that also study evolution. They are different branches of science but they are all scientists. As they continue to collect evidence our understanding grows and hypotheses are forced to change.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was poking at the implication that "evolutionists" and "Scientists" are somehow two different groups. People who study evolution tend to be biologists while people who study cultures are cultural anthropologists. There are also paleo biologists and anthropologists that also study evolution. They are different branches of science but they are all scientists. As they continue to collect evidence our understanding grows and hypotheses are forced to change.

Exactly....science changes when new data warrants. And folks like 6days see that as a weakness rather than a strength.

 

[6days]

Really 6days, it sounds reasonable to you that earth can squeeze out water at mach 33?

Did you want to respo d to what I really said? "...it sounds reasonable enough in comparison to how secularists explain the formation of the moon itself. (As opposed to Scripture which tell us a perfect Creator made the moon on the 4th day)

 

[6days]

I was poking at the implication that "evolutionists" and "Scientists" are somehow two different groups.

Silly you. ...

Evolutionists can be scientists... some are. Not all scientists are evolutionists.

 

[6days]

You stated that science has confirmed that Neanderthals are "descendants of the first Adam".

What I actually said... "Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. Neandertals are descendants of first Adam, and people that Last Adam went to Calvary for.

Exactly where and how did science do that?

Already answered, but I will re-post it. Science has helped reveal the humanity of Neandertals, exactly as we should expect when all humans are "one blood"... descendants of Adam and Eve.


cience always helps to confirm the truth of God's word.

In the case of Neandertals you ask about...
Evolutionists claimed that Neandertals were incapable of articulate speech.
Science has shown Neandertals were as capable of articulate speech as you and I are. A distinguishing trait of humanity.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals had a stooped over posture somewhat similar to knuckle walkers.
Science has shown Neandertals walked upright like all humans do.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals never interbred with 'modern' humans.
Science has shown we are descendants of Neandertals. We are the exact same kind.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals had no culture.
Science has revealed the humanity of Neandertals. They created and wore jewellery, cosmetics, cared for the young and elderly... just like us. (Neandertals r us)

Evolutionists claimed neanderthals did not bury their dead. ( evolutionists are always a little too quick to try and dehumanize what might be a human fossil ... there is no glory in discovering humanity so they attempt to remove it.
Science has shown Neandertals buried their dead with ceremony... just like we do. They were people like us.

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals were dimwitted.
Science has shown Neandertals were intelligent. we don't know for sure but they may have been more intelligent than our selves. (We have a few thousand years of mutations since then)

Evolutionists claimed Neandertals didn't use tools.
Science has shown Neandertals were ingenious in their use of tools.

Evolutionists claimed (museum display) Neandertals had hairy beastlike bodies.
Science has shown Neandertals are us. Their DNA is 99.7% exactly the same as you and me, and their body features are within the range of humans on the earth today.

Why were evolutionists so wrong about Neandertals? They start with a false belief system (start with the conclusion) then try make the data fit. They failed, and continue to fail using their non-falsifiable belief system.

Science supports Scripture....ALWAYS

 

[iouae]

Did you want to respo d to what I really said? "...it sounds reasonable enough in comparison to how secularists explain the formation of the moon itself. (As opposed to Scripture which tell us a perfect Creator made the moon on the 4th day)

So what do you think of JR's hydroplate guy's theory?