Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[Silent Hunter]

I would then suggest you use Google and you would find links such as...http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/top-ten-myths-about-neanderthals-001551

Is this a link you support or are you using it selectively? For instance (listing but a few)...

"The first humans with proto-Neanderthal traits are believed to have existed in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago, and they died out around 30,000 years ago."

"Dutch scientists discovered 50,000-year-old tools made from deer ribs in south-west France..."

"Researchers utilised latest 3D x-ray imagining technology to examine a 60,000-year-old Neanderthal hyoid bone discovered in the Kebara Cave in Israel in 1989."

"The grave was in a remarkable state of preservation, considering its age of 70,000 years."

Science doesn't even come close to supporting a 7-10 thousand-year-old Earth.

Not according to your link...

"There is a common misconception, often propagated by mistaken media reporting, that Neanderthals were the direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. In fact, Neanderthals and modern humans existed side by side as two separate groups. DNA studies have found that the Neanderthals came from a distinct evolutionary line, and are therefore often referred to as the ‘distant cousins’ of humans. Nevertheless, the genetic mixing between the two species which came about as a result of interbreeding, undoubtedly contributed to who we are today."

 

[JudgeRightly]

Did you enjoy "The Bible Code"?

???

 

[6days]

... is closer to my way of thinking about the formation of the moon and solar system.

Your way rejects God's way... "God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

[Lon]

Hilarious.
Stuart

See? Snarky. You can't have an intelligent conversation. "Mockery" isn't a valid counter-argument that means anything. It is just emoting.

Is there ANYTHING wrong with questioning science speculation? That's all the Chromosome 2 outcome was. The PhD revealed a good number of reasons to question the other's conclusions. Regardless of tenor, the data he gave is sufficient reason to duly wonder what the 1991 data was thinking trying to give such conclusive data of speculative nature. It WHOLLY assumed common descent. Common descent is a house of cards at that point. You can keep building on it, but if you don't buy any of its speculative nature, you don't have to buy the top cards either. It is a contest of assertions at that point.
Snarky nor mockery can win that contest, at that point. It is BETTER simply to present facts, even if you cannot prove anything. This link's PhD said that there are sequences in Chromosome 2 not found in the ape DNA and vise versa. He makes a good point. What am I? Like 70% onion, right? Linking to a common ancestor is a stretch. Linking to a common Creator? Not nearly as far. That's why people say atheism is a greater leap. It really doesn't make 'better' sense.

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

Nor does condescension. Why is it you fellas resort to the lowest common denominator of debate as your first tactics? Just jaded anymore from TOL debate?

 

[iouae]

You're not grasping the concept of what happened with the fountains. We're not talking about normal water.

We're talking about supercritical water, which is neither liquid nor gas, and has completely different properties than liquid water.

Go read through this page, again if you have to.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotes6.html#wp14800338

The problem for you is that the moment it leaves its container providing the heat and pressure (in this case the earth's crust) it is no longer supercritical, but just normal water again, which cannot travel far through air.

 

[6days]

Is this a link you support or are you using it selectively?

It is a link supporting some of the various points I made showing how evolutionists made shoddy conclusions based on their false belief system. Their conclusions had nothing to do with science.

For instance ...."The first humans with proto-Neanderthal traits are believed to have existed in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago, and they died out around 30,000 years ago."

So... given that evolutionists have been wrong about everything else, you still are going to cling to the hope they might be correct on the dates... they aren't. (Would you like links showing how even their dates on neanderthals keep changing all the time?)

...according to your link...." In fact, Neanderthals and modern humans existed side by side as two separate groups. DNA studies have found that the Neanderthals came from a distinct evolutionary line, and are therefore often referred to as the ‘distant cousins’ of humans.

They are correct in that Neandertals lived along side other people groups, the same as we do today. Sometimes these distinct people groups die out... and their language is lost. But, it is racist beliefs that call other people a different species...distant cousins... sub species etc.


God's Word tells us all humanity is one blood... we are all related... Science helps confirm the truth of scripture. Science exposed the false belief system that led to the shoddy conclusions about Neandertals.

 

[Stripe]

This would have meant an earth with twice the mass before the flood, which would have meant twice the gravity, and animals would have had to be twice as strong. No evidence of this.

Imagine a dinosaur pulled by such a massive earth. It would have been unable to move.

:rotfl:

Do you enjoy making things up?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Vowels loves his droplets, huh? :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Jose Fly]

Regardless of tenor, the data he gave is sufficient reason to duly wonder what the 1991 data was thinking trying to give such conclusive data of speculative nature. It WHOLLY assumed common descent. Common descent is a house of cards at that point.

Really? So now, like [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION], you're accusing a set of scientists of professional malfeasance. And just as with [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION], I'll ask you the same.....do you have any actual substance behind these accusations, or are you lacking any sense of moral obligation to do so?

This link's PhD said that there are sequences in Chromosome 2 not found in the ape DNA and vise versa. He makes a good point.

Here are the two papers he cites for that claim. (CLICK HERE and CLICK HERE) Have you read them or are you just taking this creationist's word for it, even though he's writing this piece for an anti-scientific organization?

Linking to a common ancestor is a stretch. Linking to a common Creator? Not nearly as far.

Why? Because you say so?

 

[Lon]

Really? So now, like @6days, you're accusing a set of scientists of professional malfeasance. And just as with @6days, I'll ask you the same.....do you have any actual substance behind these accusations, or are you lacking any sense of moral obligation to do so?

Yes, and so do you. You KNOW how much we don't know about genomes et al. Jumping the gun? Perhaps to steer research, sure. We certainly have experienced three steps forward, two steps back with science. You'd want to blame flat-earth on the religious, but it cannot have been. It, like any other science mistake is primarily set by those 'it matters' to, not to religion. Read and be open to data, EVEN IF it disagrees with you. There is not much room in true science inquiry for opposition for questioning veracity. If you don't want to field a religious question regarding your data, don't invite them into universities and refrain from religious forums.

Here are the two papers he cites for that claim. (CLICK HERE and CLICK HERE) Have you read them or are you just taking this creationist's word for it, even though he's writing this piece for an anti-scientific organization?

"...may be associated..." "...we infer..." and then? "...difference was caused by fusion..." "...must have occured..." "...provides a potential opportunity..." "...using these data...we infer..."
The proof? --> "...likely shared an ancestor..."
The second link that sounds so self-assured off of "...likely..." :think:
Conjecture off of conjecture builds to 'assurance?' :idunno:

Why? Because you say so?

Partly, yes. I at least know my own academic prowess and so yes, lean on it. It is hard for the public to think they are related to an onion. It is easier to believe whatever made an onion, purposefully made me too, but different than an onion. Eating an onion doesn't matter. Eating a human? :wave2: See ya in a horror magazine or on 20/20, right? Which then, IS easier to believe? For over 70% of the population? That we are not just 30% different than an onion, but significantly different from all other species on the planet.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, and so do you. You KNOW how much we don't know about genomes et al. Jumping the gun? Perhaps to steer research, sure. We certainly have experienced three steps forward, two steps back with science. You'd want to blame flat-earth on the religious, but it cannot have been. It, like any other science mistake is primarily set by those 'it matters' to, not to religion. Read and be open to data, EVEN IF it disagrees with you. There is not much room in true science inquiry for opposition for questioning veracity. If you don't want to field a religious question regarding your data, don't invite them into universities and refrain from religious forums.

All that and you completely dodged the point at hand. You've accused a group of scientists of professional unethical conduct and malfeasance. Do you have actual evidence for those accusations or not?

"...may be associated..." "...we infer..." and then? "...difference was caused by fusion..." "...must have occured..." "...provides a potential opportunity..." "...using these data...we infer..."
The proof? --> "...likely shared an ancestor..."
The second link that sounds so self-assured off of "...likely..." :think:
Conjecture off of conjecture builds to 'assurance?'

So your method of reading a scientific paper is to scan through it and look for tentative language while ignoring its substance.

That explains a lot about you and how you approach science.

Partly, yes. I at least know my own academic prowess and so yes, lean on it.

That's hilarious coming from a guy who said "nothing lives without oxygen", then later tried to say "by that I meant water", and then tried to argue that the concept of anaerobes is a recently-developed hype campaign to make him look bad.

It is hard for the public to think they are related to an onion. It is easier to believe whatever made an onion, purposefully made me too, but different than an onion. Eating an onion doesn't matter. Eating a human? :wave2: See ya in a horror magazine or on 20/20, right? Which then, IS easier to believe? For over 70% of the population? That we are not just 30% different than an onion, but significantly different from all other species on the planet.

So again we see how you approach science....here it's what's harder to believe, rather than what's supported by the data.

Keep talking Lon. The more you post about science, the more you reveal yourself to be a classic case study in the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[6days]

So now, like @6days, you're accusing a set of scientists of professional malfeasance. 6days

Your words... mine were 'shoddy conclusions based on their false beliefs, and nothing to do with actual evidence'.

 

[6days]

"...may be associated..." "...we infer..." and then? "...difference was caused by fusion..." "...must have occured..." "...provides a potential opportunity..." "...using these data...we infer..."

The proof? --> "...likely shared an ancestor..."
The second link that sounds so self-assured off of "...likely..."
Conjecture off of conjecture builds to 'assurance?'

Haha.... funny how evolutionists keep using all those belief words.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your words... mine were 'shoddy conclusions based on their false beliefs, and nothing to do with actual evidence'.

Um yeah. Publishing "shoddy conclusions based on their false beliefs, and nothing to do with actual evidence" is professional malfeasance in science. You don't know that?

 

[6days]

Publishing "shoddy conclusions based on their false beliefs, and nothing to do with actual evidence" is professional malfeasance in science. You don't know that?

Ok... so call it what you want. I called it "Shoddy conclusions". For example there was no evidence that Neandertals communicated by grunting. It was based on the false, and racist belief that Neandertals were less human than ourselves.


Science had helped show the humanity of Neandertals... which evolutionists denied.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ok... so call it what you want. I called it "Shoddy conclusions". For example there was no evidence that Neandertals communicated by grunting. It was based on the false, and racist belief that Neandertals were less human than ourselves.


Science had helped show the humanity of Neandertals... which evolutionists denied.

All atheists can do is play silly little word games, trying to draw your attention away from their lack of evidence for their worldview.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ok... so call it what you want. I called it "Shoddy conclusions".

I'm using your own statements. You accused scientists of reaching conclusions even though there was zero evidence for them, and basing those conclusions on beliefs rather than data. Since I challenged you to substantiate those accusations, you've done everything you can to avoid doing so.

So as of now, it is readily apparent that you are completely lacking any sense of moral obligation to back up your accusations. It seems you see no problem with accusing people of all sorts of things even though you have no evidence of them doing such things.

That doesn't speak well of you or your faith.

For example there was no evidence that Neandertals communicated by grunting. It was based on the false, and racist belief that Neandertals were less human than ourselves.

Can you provide an actual published paper that does that?

 

[Jose Fly]

All atheists can do is play silly little word games, trying to draw your attention away from their lack of evidence for their worldview.

Dude, you can't even answer simple questions. You just ignore them completely. So you're the last person who gets to complain about game playing.

 

[Stripe]

I'm using your own statements. You accused scientists of reaching conclusions even though there was zero evidence for them, and basing those conclusions on beliefs rather than data. Since I challenged you to substantiate those accusations, you've done everything you can to avoid doing so.

So as of now, it is readily apparent that you are completely lacking any sense of moral obligation to back up your accusations. It seems you see no problem with accusing people of all sorts of things even though you have no evidence of them doing such things.

That doesn't speak well of you or your faith.


Can you provide an actual published paper that does that?

Darwinists love it when the conversation focuses on who said what.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Dude, you can't even answer simple questions. You just ignore them completely. So you're the last person who gets to complain about game playing.

Thing is, I don't have to answer anything if I don't want to. Atheists have no choice but to distract, because if they don't, everyone will see how fraudulent their worldview is.