They have been stated here:
That may be, but to imply that all mutations are harmful is still deceptive.
That’s exactly the lie in question! They are observed by their effects. Dark matter is "there is extra mass causing directly measured effects on gravity, but we can’t tell what the mass is. Dark energy is “whatever is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate”. To claim that direct measurements are “fudge factors” is a lie.
I still do not comprehend how arguing against the Big Bang is a useful argument in favor of anything except the arguer looking silly. It is a theory of the physical process through which the universe formed. How that is a problem with Genesis is beyond comprehension for me–the Bible says that God spoke creation into existence. It says absolutely nothing about the minutia of physical steps through which the physical universe went before life existed.
And that’s the lie in question. Redshift was calibrated using Type 1a supernovae as standard candles. If those changed significantly in brightness, it would require changes to physical constants that would render the current existence of life impossible. Astronomers have checked whether those are translational speed through space, and they aren’t.
This type of bend and folding without breaking brittle rock means that maybe it wasn’t brittle rock at the time of its formation. These might have been much softer materials after all they were laid down during Noah’s flood, had been compacted down, and started off horizontal but tectonic movements occurred that shifted them and folded them while they were probably still soft.
That’s still an untruth.
The YEC claim was that 1. the rocks were bent without cracks and 2. that such bending shows that the rocks were still all wet sediment from the flood, not solid rock, when they formed. Both of those can be proved to be false. The photos already posted show that the rocks do have cracks which were concealed in the poor quality photo supplied to “prove” that the rocks did not have cracks. The video I posted shows a rock bending without visible cracking. The claim that bending without cracking must indicate unconsolidated sediment is also definitely untrue.
The characteristics of stratified sediments are such that if you even gently bend layers of soft sediment there will be density and layer-surface changes that will result in ‘eruptions’ of more liquefied material into less liquefied as well as the other way around. If you bend the sediments really, really slowly these phenomena can be limited to the layer contact surfaces, but the phenomena can’t be eliminated. One aspect of the problem is that if you tilt sediments, at some point they will try to flow, and the more dense portions will flow through the less dense portions.
It’s still there:
Bent Rock Layers | Answers in Genesis
The USGS photo has moved by the looks of things, but there’s an even better, sharper, higher resolution photo over on the other place:
If you end up doing things such as fudging measurements, ignoring or cherry-picking evidence, quote mining, claiming that science makes assumptions that it does not, claiming that assumptions are not testable when in fact they are, claiming that two different things are equivalent when they are not, or claiming that you have evidence for something when in fact you do not, that is not making science subordinate to the Bible. It is lying.
The other problem is of course that Piltdown Man was only one data point out of millions. It’s one thing to show that a single data point was fraudulent. But claiming that millions of other data points must also be fraudulent is a leap of logic that is simply not justified in any way, shape or form. It is blowing the extent and significance of the one single data point completely out of proportion, which is basically a form of lying.
the rules of science, measurement, evidence and honesty that I am referring to have nothing whatsoever to do with secularism. There is nothing atheistic whatsoever about them. They are rules that apply to Christians and atheists alike, that apply whether miracles are a thing or not, that apply however old the Earth is and whoever or whatever did or did not evolve from what. They are rules that we should all be able to agree on if we’re committed to honesty, YECs, OECs and ECs alike. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if YECs don’t want to be accused of telling lies, manipulating the truth, and turning people away from God, then they need to stick to them.
Claiming that scientists make assumptions that they do not is lying. Claiming that the assumptions that they do make are not testable when in fact they are is lying. Claiming that assumptions are a get-out-of-jail-free card when they are not is lying. Claiming that reasoning is circular when it is not is lying. Claiming that outliers are representative of the entire body of evidence is lying. Claiming that new, improved techniques must be unreliable because their older, more rudimentary predecessors are unreliable is lying. Exaggerating the extent and significance of unreliability in those techniques is lying. Fudging measurements is lying. Quote mining is lying. And repeating falsehoods after having been told that they are falsehoods is lying.
Schroeder has endorsed some incorrect claims about other aspects of creation though, such as repeating the lie that Cambrian fossils were hidden away because they posed a challenge to evolution. In reality, the Burgess Shale fossils were reported in numerous scientific publications and even National Geographic in the early 1900’s. The claim that these fossils are a problem for evolution is based on interpretations of their identity that began to be developed in the 1970’s as they were restudied with new techniques and based on improved dating in the 1990’s of the relevant layers that decreased the time involved for the Cambrian “Explosion”. No, Walcott did not hide the specimens in museum drawers because of claims about evolution that would be made decades later. And specimens were distributed to numerous museums. I actually have a fossil from the Burgess as a result of that.
In addition to the misrepresentation of unusual dinosaur footprints as giant human prints (although slightly understandable as a mistake initially, by now it’s lying to claim them as human) and carvings or paintings billed as actual footprints, there are also quite a few “footprints” that are based on imaginative interpretation of something that isn’t a print at all. There are also footprints reasonably similar to those of modern humans from pre-modern hominids, some of which are a few million years old.
Most of the major young-earth groups do not promote the human footprint errors any more; it’s now primarily coming from fringe sources like Carl Baugh. So the fact that the video includes that as a top 10 “proof” suggests that this is coming from someone who doesn’t even pay attention to the major young-earth groups.
The list does not overlap much which Answers in Genesis’ list of top proofs for a young earth, but in both cases, if those are the top proofs for a young earth, the case for a young earth is absolutely terrible and nobody should take it seriously.
“Of course it is pretty hard to see God’s power manifested in whale evolution when that is an evolving tale rather than based on any solid evidence.”
This is slandering the work of numerous scientists. Creation science and ID frequently accuse science of fraud, with no solid evidence given in support. The reality is that there are a large number of fossils that the accepted patterns of whale evolution are based on. I’ve found a few fragmentary bits of middle to late Eocene whales myself, but it’s the extensive skeletons and the molecular data that provide significant evidence. You might try to develop an argument that the evidence has been misinterpreted, but to claim that there is no evidence is a lie.
Admitting “this is not a good argument” is uncommon, and sometimes incorporates further misrepresentation. (For example, before the ugly divorce with CMI, AiG had a list of arguments not to use that included the moon dust myth, but the explanation of why it wasn’t so good contained the lie that young earthers had examined new evidence and reached the conclusion that there were problems while citing old earthers pointing out evidence available when the moon dust story was first invented.)
That’s what I find in 3 searches on this forum.
Given the above list, it does not look as though the request has been ignored.
Burrawang:
Please take a long hard look at the Replica Ark above and consider the enormous difficulty of building it from scratch without chainsaws, timber jinkers (log trucks), lumber yards, powered cranes, power tools such as drills, thicknessers, planers, circular saws, routers, or other powered machinery etc…
Yes. If it looked like that replica, it wouldn’t work and would fall apart under the ocean conditions in question.
Citing an astronomer who had bad philosophy as a source for evolution is not a great option. Nor is citing 40-year-old critiques by someone who was stubbornly wrong a good way to attack the Big Bang.
And this data comes from where? Marginally deleterious and marginally beneficial are going to be about equally common.
Then why did scientists accept it in the first place? Long after they had concluded that the earth was at least millions of years old?
If a flood covers multiple hundreds of square kilometers, then yes, a boat would be useful. As I am inclined to guess the most likely geographic extent to be something on the order of a few tens of thousands of square kilometers, I don’t think that on foot would be a great way to evacuate.
2 Likes