The Quoran Debate Which Prompted Previous and Some Others, on Evolution / Creation

1) Prompted by a Quoran Question Linking to Rational Wiki · 2) The Quoran Debate Which Prompted Previous and Some Others, on Evolution / Creation

Q

Is young earth creationism intellectually credible?

Own answer:

Definitely yes.

In the 15 years I have been debating evolutionists, not once did they stump me for long.

Heliocentrics have stumped me from time to time a bit more often than that. But not enough to make me give up Geocentrism.

After that, you have the choice to ignore what I say here as bragging, or to test it by going to my blog and commenting your arguments against (if any) or commenting under this answer.

If I go beyond my personal experience, I think men like Edgar Andrews, Tas Walker, at his best also Kent Hovind are living proofs for good intellects finding young earth creationism intellectually credible.

One man on the RATE project (a YEC project) mentioned that in his older days as Old Earth or Evolutionist, he was convinced by certain factors, and now he is convi nced by same factors, after taking a better look.

His main argument for changing his view was not even the Bible, but the evidence, or so he claimed.

Q a. by Frans du Plessis

Is young earth creationism intellectually credible? - further comments between me and him.

Frans du Plessis,

secular humanist, studied comparative religion and history of religions

Written Apr 10, 2015

No. Young Earth Creationism already fails at the first of Daniel Dennet's canons of good spin:

• 1. It is not a bare faced lie.
• 2. You have to be able to say it with a straight face.
• 3. It has to relieve skepticism without arousing curiosity.
• 4. It should seem profound.

Young Earth Creationist "science" is demonstrably wrong and it can be scientifically demonstrated in many ways. The old age of the earth can be demonstrated in many ways, while every single piece of "scientific evidence" for Y EC has been thorougly and scientifically debunked as pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“The old age of the earth can be demonstrated in many ways, while every single piece of ‘scientific evidence’ for YEC has been thorougly and scientifically debunked as pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.”

The old age of the earth can be demonstrated in no way, while every single piece of "scientific evidence" for Old Earth has been thorougly and scientifically debunked as pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

The old age of the earth can be demonstrated in some ways, while many pieces of "scientific evidence" against YEC have been thorougly and scientifically debunked as pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

But as a science believer, you would not be aware of that, would you?

Frans du Plessis

I don’t do the belief thing. That is for the faithful. Once we have enough evidence, then belief becomes unnecessary.

[ It seems after blocking further comments, he erased the next couple of them, mine and his.]

Gil Yehuda,

I often answer questions to stimulate thought, not to provide solutions.

Written Feb 26, 2013

No, of course not. There is no credible intellectual evidence that supports this theory. But that's not the interesting question as I see it. Rather, was it ever intellectually credible? And for that question, I'd say yes.

In order to be intellectually credible, a theory has to have evidence, even weak evidence to support it. Prior to the development of carbon-14 dating, discovery of fossils, or anything like the discovery of the Chauvet Cave, people's only evidence to the history and origins of the earth was based on traditional folk tales. Most every ancient nation had some story, and almost none of them seemed to go back more than a few thousand years. So with no opposing credible evidence, it seems reasonable that a 14th century educated person would think that a 7000 year old Earth (Young Earth Created by some divine power) is perfectly plausible — and no less plausible than a 13 Billion year old one. In fact, he'd wonder if the 13 billion year number was intellectually credible since it would seem pretty made up. Whereas everyone else seems to say otherwise.

Now of course, the evidence paints a very different picture, and thus intellectually speaking, the YEC is not credible at all. Interestingly enough, the Earth did not get older in this process. Rather, new facts became evident. Reality did not change, but our understanding of it did.

What makes this interesting to me is that much like the 14th century intellectual was quite certain of his understanding of facts, and confident that no one would come a few centuries later to prove him wrong, we too are quite confident in our understanding of facts and are quite certain that no one will prove us wrong. In this case, we may be right — but the pattern of certain ty is worth challenging.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“What makes this interesting to me is that much like the 14th century intellectual was quite certain of his understanding of facts, and confident that no one would come a few centuries later to prove him wrong, we too are quite confident in our understanding of facts and are quite certain that no one will prove us wrong.”

The difference being, a 14th C intellectual was not facing or avoiding to face an apologist for Sumerian Old Earth or Kemetic Old Earth.

You could be facing and are avoiding to face apologists for a Young Earth.

Gil Yehuda

How does that matter?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Because, the 14th C intellectual was confident, not indeed after facing a well reasoned opposition, but neither in refusal to look at one.

He was just in absence of such a thing, unless you count the philosopheme of an eternal universe and earth and, as per Epicure, recurring catastrophes which wiped out civilisation and thus shortened historical perspectives.

You are rather given opportunities to reevaluate your position and refuse to look.

Other replies to Gil Yehuda:

Chris Voeltz

Interesting points you brought up. But I do believe it is credible. Why not? The bible only shows history and basically describes time as far back as maybe 3000-4000BC, showing some evidence that the earth can really only be maybe 6000-8000 years old?

It's possible for sure.

One thing we'll have to ask Christ :)

Don Muchnick

What are your thoughts on this article called '101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe':

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Gil Yehuda

It's so difficult to say. In order for me to fully comprehend the article, I'd have to suspend my rational thinking capabilities. But then I would not be able to share my thoughts on it after I read the article, since my thinking would be suspended. A puzzle I cannot solve.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A convenient excuse for avoiding debate.

Gil Yehuda

Or, simply an honest response. How can you tell which?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Because the following seems less than candid:

“In order for me to fully comprehend the article, I'd have to suspend my rational thinking capabilities.”

When it comes to a 14th C intellectual, you seem to have a professional interest in fully understanding his position.

You do, then resume either your rational thinking or what you take to be such. How come you can’t do so with the article?

Btw, I suspect that part of what you see as resuming your rational thinking capabilities after studying 14th C intellectuals closely is really rather shutting off rational considerations which the study could have awakened - but, unlike above, that is just a suspicion, not a thought through reproach.

[Or has he not been in the habit of studying 14th C intellectuals closely before saying things on their intellectual environment and conditions? That is not very scholarly! On the other hand, his non-answer may be because he decided to take up the challenge after all - let's not despair. Maybe I'll have a well thought through answer day after tomorrow or in a month or so ...]

Other answer to Don Muchnik:

Paul Frick

101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe (rebuttal)

A detailed rebuttal

[Which is exactly where I took the material for previous]

Q

Can Young Earth creationism be disproved?, first as answered by Hans-Georg Lundahl

Hans-Georg Lundahl,

Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?

"Written 33m ago" sometime yesterday

I don’t think it can, since it is correct.

I also think on certain conditions it could, if not correct, but those do not coincide with the Evolutionist scenario.

Assuming scientific revolution had been made 2 000 000 years ago, and careful records had been kept for all of the millions of years, we would have at least 2 000 000 years of history.

And even without the scientific revolution, supposing the Catholic Church had existed 2 000 000 years instead of just 2 000 years and some less, we would also have had sufficient good historical record to rule out the idea we were created only 7216 years ago.

[This is the one and only answer which was collapsed, while all the six others - non-collapsed - refused to regard YEC as in any way shape or form true or at least proven such.]

Other answers

Include:

Dave Thompson,

Born a non-believer

"Written 49m ago" sometime yesterday

No, it cannot. Trying to will be counterproductive.

Young Earth creationism is a belief, not based on any external proof. Any proffered “proof” will always be discredited by the Believer, no matter how valid. There can be no traction to a proof whose refutation is “Because God made it that way.”

The more “proof” you provide, the more the Believer will defend the belief. The Believer will become more and more sure of the belief as he has to defend it, over and over. To give it up — or even feel a bit of doubt — will be admitting to a huge mistake, after defending it so vigorously.

The belief will change only when the Believer accepts something measurable as true. Acknowledging the speed of light, for example, might lead to the distance between stars, which might made the recent creation of Earth seem preposterous, since the belief is based on someone’s interpretation of anonymous pre-Bronze Age words. Or experiencing the vastness of a single strand of DNA, then applying that va stness to all the cells of all living things.

Perhaps Andrew Weill’s method might work: “Tell me more.” Getting the Believer rolling on trying to explain why the belief is true might work. Or may devolve to “Because God made it that way.” Dealing with any Believer is very difficult.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“Young Earth creationism is a belief, not based on any external proof”

Beliefs generally are based on external proof, albeit, if wrong ones, insufficient one.

Astrology has at least anecdotic evidence for connexions between character and horoscope at birth. It also has sufficient parameters of obscure interpretation to accomodate too glaring exceptions.

If a Virgo (Sun sign) behaved like an Ox, one could find one other parameter (ascendant, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, by now also Neptune, Uranus, Pluto) which was in the Ox, or the Ox behaviour could be redefined as sth which was explained by a nother planet in yet another sign, for instance, Virgo very timid, Ox very brazen, some planet in Scorpio to account for the deviousness of a timid person looking very brazen … by hypocrisy.

This means that some astrologers will cling to this, others will discover undisputable counterexamples (if you are a Biblical inerrantist : Jacob and Esau).

I think, rather than Young Earth Creationism, it is actually Evolutionism which is in the position of astrology.

Dave Thompson,

I’ve read your comment several times, and honestly, I don’t agree with anything in it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

So, you don’t agree that astrology has at least insufficient external proof?

Or you don’t agree astrology is a false belief?

Edward Azkarra,

I'm not an atheist. I believe in all gods equally.

"Written 4h ago" sometime yesterday

Wrong question. Can young earth creationism be proved by its believers?

Anonymous

Is it provable at all?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What exact part of it?

I’d say creation ex nihilo for things with irreducible complexity can be very directly proven in very natural sciences oriented ways.

Or youngness of earth, well, credibly historically proven, from comparing traditions, even without belief in one of them as inerrant being presupposed.

Or do you mean its claims to say dating methods leading to an Old Earth cannot be proven? That, once again, can be very conclusively proven in very scientific ways.

David Dennis,

another biological accident.

Written Mon

Science has reliably aged the Earth at ~4 billion years.

Science has reliably shown us biological evolution, that humanity continues to evolve, and that we share common ancestors with apes with the very strong implication that humanity has evolved through very many different species over ~3.8 billion years.

So yes, in as much as this contradicts a couple of fundamental Young Earth tenets it proves them wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are free to show this as proven. So far you only appear to be a science believer.

David Dennis

So are you. Have at it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Science has reliably aged the Earth at ~4 billion years."

Scientists have unreliably dated meteorites to 4.5 billion years at oldest. Now, we have several assumptions not reliable.

• 1) It is true that a meteorite cannot hit Earth and remain on Earth until Earth exists - but this doesn't tell us anything on how long meteorites were when going through space before hitting Earth.
  
  
• 2) The content was dated by Uranium Lead method, where Lead is supposed to show how much Uranium there was to start with - who says all Lead is ex-Uranium?
  
  
• 3) Who says a half life as long as that of Uranium can be accurately measured?
  
  
• 4) With Uranium we know half lives do vary when near to chain reactions in reactors or explosions, would the dates possibly be affected if there was a pre-Flood nuke war (as I think is partly reflected in Mahabharata, with several pagan distortions)?

"Science has reliably shown us biological evolution"

If you mean variations within kinds, like wolf and dog being subspecies in same kind, yes.

If you mean evolution of all kinds of animal, all kinds of plant from one or two common ancestors, science has shown no such thing.

You can feed pigeons with wheat, but you can't cross breed pigeons with wheat, unlike diverse pigeons with each other, unlike wheat with rye, unlike wolf with dog. You can as evolutionist show you have an explanation why you can't cross breed, wheat and pigeons, despite supposed common ancestor, but you cannot produce cross breeding as proof they really did evolve from common ancestors.

"that humanity continues to evolve"

We have more protruding chins and less capacious skulls than Neanderthals? Com'on, that is a race difference, not evolution to some other kind!

"and that we share common ancestors with apes"

Neither anatomic nor protein coding genetic similarities are there to prove it. That is, they are there, but they are not acceptable proof.

"with the very strong implication that humanity has evolved through very many different species over ~3.8 billion years."

Do you mean "million"? By species, do you mean kinds or races? How do you prove the time scale? Lava over Lucy's layer? Did someone date it by Ka-Ar?

David Dennis

The oldest rocks on Earth have been dated at ~4 billion years and many dated 2.5 and 3.8 according to a cursory google search. That’s orders of magnitude beyond the 6,000 to 10,000 years of YEC proponents. Just about every rock dating ever done, with very few exceptions, would be vastly older than that.

“Humanity continues to evolve” Yes. Our genome continues to change.

Genomic similarities with (other) apes do indeed strongly imply a common ancestor. Genetecists can even make a reasonable estimate of when the last speciation event occured based on rates of mutation of both MtDNA and Y-chromosome. Whats more there are ERV markers on the genomes that fit in every way with the putative commonality and time of speciation.

Do I mean “million”? No, billion. Evidence of life is billions of years old. Evolution has been going on for the entire time.

Australopithicus emerged about 4 million ya and diverged into a number of different australopithicene species. There is a note about the dating of Lucy in the Wiki article about her.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The oldest rocks on Earth have been dated at ~4 billion years and many dated 2.5 and 3.8 according to a cursory google search. That’s orders of magnitude beyond the 6,000 to 10,000 years of YEC proponents. Just about every rock dating ever done, with very few exceptions, would be vastly older than that."

Rock datings are usually either Ka-Ar or something with end product lead (Uranium, Actinium and Thorium series). With both, using the method with "very young" samples is apparently inappropriate (according to those criticising the use of Ka-Ar after eruptions on Mt St Helen and a volcano on NZ, at least it's the case with Ka-Ar), which mean sthat if Earth is that young they are all inappropriately chosen and likely to give answers which are wrong "by orders of magnitude".

"Yes. Our genome continues to change."

Indeed, we are getting more hereditary diseases, but where does that lead in evolution?

"Genomic similarities with (other) apes do indeed strongly imply a common ancestor."

Or rather a non-random common origin. A common maker will do.

"Geneticists can even make a reasonable estimate of when the last speciation event occured based on rates of mutation of both MtDNA and Y-chromosome."

Which means they suppose chimp and we have mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA in common except for mutations happening since last common ancestor. Which means, they are not looking at possibility similarities are there because of a common maker.

"Whats more there are ERV markers on the genomes that fit in every way with the putative commonality and time of speciation."

ERV? E sth? Retro-Virus? Ah, endogenous.

That is one way of looking at the loci. Another is, the ERV places or so called such really have some function, at least as stop watch for how long this or that other part of same or other chromosome should be let on, or something else (there are some non-examined or ill-examined areas of cellular biology in which junk DNA can very well be non-junk, while not coding for a specific proteine), while certain RV (retro-virus) emerged from the ERV loci.

"Do I mean “million”? No, billion. Evidence of life is billions of years old. Evolution has been going on for the entire time."

Oh, you meant you were talking about the entire evolutionary series, from LUCA to Luke over Lucy? Sorry.

Well, this is a further and vaguer step, it gives you more allegations to prove, including allegations of more time to prove. I just punctured some of your stuff on oldest rocks ...

"Australopithicus emerged"

Perhaps between Eden and Ark (if apes were ever that much in Eden) as a race of ape?

"about 4 million ya and diverged into a number of different australopithicene species. There is a note about the dating of Lucy in the Wiki article about her."

Well, will have a look. First, what did I say? "How do you prove the time scale? Lava over Lucy's layer? Did someone date it by Ka-Ar?"

Now to article:

Age estimates of the Lucy fossil Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia Initial attempts were made in 1974 by Maurice Taieb and James Aronson in Aronson's laboratory at Case Western Reserve University to estimate the age of the fossils using the potassium-argon radiometric dating method. These efforts were hindered by several factors: the rocks in the recovery area were chemically altered or reworked by volcanic activity; datable crystals were very scarce in the sample material; and there was a complete absence of pumice clasts at Hadar. (The Lucy skeleton occurs in the part of the Hadar sequence that accumulated with the fastest rate of deposition, which partly accounts for her excellent preservation.) Fieldwork at Hadar was suspended in the winter of 1976–77. When it was resumed thirteen years later in 1990, the more precise argon-argon technology had been updated by Derek York at the University of Toronto. By 1992 Aronson and Robert Walter had found two suitable samples of volcanic ash – the older layer of ash was about 18 m below the fossil and the younger layer was only one meter below, closely marking the age of deposition of the specimen. These samples were argon-argon dated by Walter in the geochronology laboratory of the Institute of Human Origins at 3.22 and 3.18 million years.[17]

OK, I had said "lava over Lucy's layer", article says two layers of lava UNDER Lucy's layer. I'll look up "argon-argon".

Relative dating only Argon–argon dating - Wikipedia The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1] An alternative method of calibrating the used standard is astronomical tuning (also known as orbital tuning), which arrives at a slightly different age.[2]

Which brings us to the fact that Ka-Ar is worthless. So, directly or indirectly, Lucy is dated by Ka/ar which is a worthless method.

David Dennis

Tell me. Do you think dating of the Earth by counting up generations reported in the Bible is more valid than science?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think it is a more valid method than the estimates made by scientists - on matters where scientists were not there, yes.

David Dennis

Well there is the root of our difference. I believe it is the Bibel that is wanting in credibility.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I believe ANY genealogy (or other transmission of memory from the past) would per se have more credibility than a mere reconstruction.

However, even if I believe the Biblical genealogies are correct because God’s word, I would even if not yet a believer be drawn to belief by the fact that they are more complete and more credible than any other geneaologies presented.

Greek genealogies have too few generations between Flood “of Deucalion” and Trojan War at End of Heroic age.

Obviously, the existence of Hittite Empire has been glossed over.

Actually, the bishop of Meaux tried to save credibility of Greeks by saying the “flood of Deucalion” was a later one in Thessaly, confounded with the Big One. I think Bossuet gave them too much credit at genealogy.

In Sumerian King Lists, you have men living mortal lives extending to 40 000 years - and that is less credible than the pre-Flood patriarchs. Also, the King Lists do not claim to be genealogies.

[17 minutes, as yet no answer, if he wants to reply, he'll appreciate this at least as a natural pause.]