Our Websites

Cruel Logic

Check out a video that puts the worldview of a nonbeliever into perspective. It’s a clip from  “Cruel Logic.”  In the five minutes it takes to view, it will show those who argue for the idea that there are no absolutes where that leads. I know you will enjoy this one!

Warning: It is filmed with a “scary” tone.

,

Leave35 Responses to testCruel Logic

  1. Kenneth Tyner November 8, 2010 at 7:26 am #

    I’m curious. Was his victim also a homosexual who was genetically predisposed? That was have been an interesting conversation.

  2. Kenneth Tyner November 8, 2010 at 7:27 am #

    That “would” have been an interesting conversation.

  3. Kenneth Tyner November 8, 2010 at 7:29 am #

    Also, would this imply that genetic predisposition is also insane?

  4. Dennis November 8, 2010 at 7:39 am #

    Yeb, what a supreme way of arguing. Pleading on emotions.

  5. David Ray November 8, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    Mike and Kenneth,

    Sorry for the delayed response. Family, real science to do, and I don’t check this blog every day. The “What is Truth” thread is closed so I hope I can post this here.

    Mike,
    Quote: “Gotcha”-type questions about origins of basic life processes followed by a misstatement about the basics of evolution.

    No, your assessment that microbiology = molecular biology is not correct. Microbiology and molecular biology are very different things. Also no, I don’t involve myself with the human interactome.

    With regard to your questions about mixed racemates, DNA information, and transcription are concerned, they are outside my area of expertise. They are all involved in studies about the origins of life. My area of expertise is in eukaryotic evolution and genome biology. However, all of the questions are red herrings – mere distractions from the overall discussion. I don’t know if anyone knows the answers to the questions but it doesn’t matter. The same types of questions were once raised about disease, lightning, thunder, etc. People didn’t know how all of these things came about and attributed them to supernatural forces. Then, eventually we learned about germs, genetics, electrical interactions, and weather. Now we no longer attribute them to supernatural forces. We’ve learned that what we thought was unexplainable at one point in time is not unexplainable now. You are making the assumption that just because we can’t explain something now, we must attribute it to a supernatural force. Yet, history tells us that this is simply not true. Why are you ignoring this pattern?

    With regard to your last statement – if you understand anything about evolution, you should know that it has very, very little to do with “random processes”.

    Kenneth,

    Quote: Strange and unsupported statements about evolution and pantheism.

    As before: Evidence to support your claim, please.

    I agree completely with your last statement. In fact, I challenge you to examine the history of Christianity and/or any other religion. You will find that they change constantly. Compare modern Christianity with Christianity of the first century or the middle ages, or the seventeen hundreds. Then I’ll let you and the other readers draw your own conclusion.

  6. Mike Ayala November 8, 2010 at 9:50 am #

    Hi Eric,

    Bravo. The possibilities of this are endless. Have they done more?

    God bless you all.

    Mike Ayalla

  7. Jay Liemowitz November 8, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    I remember seeing this video some months ago, and I’m as confused now as I was then; what is the point again? Yet again, I think you and this video are arguing against a position no one actually holds.

    That human individuals do not enjoy pain and/or death shows that absolute morality exists outside of humanity? I don’t see how that follows.

    The video is asking “Why should we be moral”. This is relatively meaningless question, akin to “Why should we be hungry”. Humans ARE moral creatures. As you often point out, everyone agrees that rape and murder are not ok. But consensus does not equal absolute and self-existent. Morality, like hunger, is a survival mechanism that has been bred into social animals so that they can continue to survive, because without it, they wouldn’t have. In the same way you feel hungry when you don’t eat, you have a natural repulsion of pain and suffering. Would you argue that because everyone agrees that eating is the best way to cure hunger, that there must be some absolute, self existent standard of ingestion?

    Explaining the origin of morality is a fundamentally separate topic than any attempt to justify acting according to moral standards. You’re asking us to use logic to explain why we should act on our instincts when logic is not how we arrived at those instincts. Logic is not what dictates that we would find members of the opposite sex attractive, or desire to procreate with them. Likewise, logic can not be used to remove the desire to act on these instincts either. If I can’t give a good answer as to why you should find your wife attractive, would you fail to see her that way? If I can’t do the same for why we should be moral, would you then go on to rape and pillage at your own behest? No you wouldn’t (I’ll have trouble believing you if you answer otherwise). My answer as to “why should you” is inconsequential. You ARE moral, and you would be so even if you were to shed your beliefs about why you think you are. In the same way I can’t use logic to remove my instinct for hunger or sexual attraction, I can’t use logic to remove my instinct for morality. The question is fruitless.

    So now to the point. I’m describing basically what the captive psychologist in the video was said to have described. But at what point did I ever say that this explanation can or should be used as an excuse to act in any way that one wishes? If you got that out of what I just wrote, then perhaps you need to read it again. This is what I mean when I say you’re arguing against a position nobody holds. My belief that there is no cosmic, self-existent standard of morality in no way precludes me from desiring that myself and my kin are protected from harm.

    One last related note: this is very similar to your buddy Tsye’s, proofthatgodexists.org. When trying to fool us into thinking that we believe in some absolute standard of morality apart from ourselves, he used the question “is molesting a child for fun ever morally right”, in an attempt to demonstrate a universal consensus. He claims he can demonstrate an absolute, then goes on to show evidence of consensus. But as I said above, consensus is not the same as absolute and self-existent. When we say it’s not absolute, we simply mean that human morality is relative to humanity; that is, human morality doesn’t exist apart from the humans who exercise it. The universe wouldn’t care if our species destroyed itself through rampant violence. The universe doesn’t care if we’re moral; only we do.

    Jay

  8. Jon Richt November 8, 2010 at 10:40 am #

    It puts your world view into perspective, not mine. The fact that you think this video is meaningful says far more about you than you appear capable of imagining…

  9. Jon Richt November 8, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    And it’s pretty old, too…

  10. Kenneth Tyner November 8, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    @ David Ray

    So you think the fact and supporting evidence that the theory of evolution originated 2500 years ago, by a pantheist, who lived in a time when Greek Mythology was rampant with morphed kinds, has no bearing on the origin of the theory?

    Then evidence has no bearing on discussions with you.

  11. Kenneth Tyner November 8, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    @ Jon Richt

    Jon, the video showed a lecturer stating that killers are genetically predisposed to killing. But when confronted with a killer, he claimed the man had a “sick mind”. Therefore, killing is related to the mind, not the genetics. The same is to be said with homosexuality.

  12. Stephen Holshouser November 8, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    Geno, (continued from What is Truth?)

    Thanks for the response. Sorry for not directly answering the question you asked me before. I do like to give an answer if I am able; however, I thought your question was rhetorical.

    Stephen previously claimed:
    “When creationist point out that both creation and evolution are both religious, it is not so you will chose one over the other, it is to simply show that evolution is not proven scientifically of factually,”

    Geno previously responded:
    It isn’t? According to who? Those most qualified to make a scientific judgement? Or to those who have openly declared their ANTI-scientific mindset by a stated refusal to even attempt approaching the evidence objectively?
    ##########
    Stephen answers:
    The fact is many well-known evolutionary scientists have admitted their position is unproven, unprovable, unverifiable, etc. Certainly not all, but some evolutionists agree with creationists on this. Kent Hovind quotes many of the evolutinists saying this in his seminars and debates, if I knew where they were right off, I would list them for you. I will look them up if you need me to.

    Your answers to the questions all contained unverifiable assumptions. Regarding the speed of light; it’s already accepted that time and space can vary, which is the unit of measurement for the speed of light (m/s).

    Regarding the radiometric dating;
    You state that “everything we know is based on some kind of unverifiable assumption.” Just curious; do you know what they are concerning radiometric dating?

    Stephen:
    7. Jesus was confused when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Mark 6:10
    ########
    Geno responds:
    I suspect it was more a matter that Jesus didn’t want to confuse His audience. After all, they had germs back then and germs aren’t “male and female.”
    #########
    Stephen responds:
    In context Jesus is only referring to mankind when He says “male and female”, not to all life including germs. In this instance, how would telling the truth been confusing to the audience?

    It seems like you agree with me that evolutionary science involves unverifiable assumptions. I am not saying that evolutionists do not use any facts. All I am saying is you have to “believe in” millions of years and/or evolution. YEC’s have facts and assumptions, evolutionists have facts and assumptions, it is just that God’s Word is on the YEC’s side, so better give Him the benefit of the doubt!

    I read your paper. Have you read Jason Lisle’s stuff on distant starlight? He has a good article titled, “Does distant starlight prove the universe is old?”

    Also, good idea about extending the posting time. Btw, have you submitted your video to CSE to win the ipod touch yet? : )

  13. Joe Russell November 8, 2010 at 6:25 pm #

    - it’s been quoted “its only illegal/cheating if you get caught”
    – Morality is only the voted opinion of the majority which in the last 20 years has accepted Homosexuality and violent behavior.
    – Begging is only a plea for the person found lacking ( in the eye’s of the naturalist/evolution) Beggers are equal to the sickly and old in the flock who fall behind.

    to refer to yourself as I you acknowledge you have sentience which has been thoroughly argued by some to be a rather vague term but a very substantial one. But if I were to order or ask a complete stranger to do something for or to me or them it would stand that they should know to respect me or I them. this is Social bahavior but society would not stand without being able to see the difference between Man and beast.

  14. Carl M November 8, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    You can’t reason with a psychopath therefore ………..

    Besides there is gapping flaw in the script logic. If genetics can’t determine right from wrong then the psychopath himself can’t use his genetic predisposition to justify his actions. Use fancy sounding arguments fast enough and the audience won’t have time to catch the errors (sounds like a Hovind seminar)

    I agree with JR, using this film as support for a certain proposition implies some scary things.

  15. Duane November 9, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    Yet again, you resort to an emotional argument where you misrepresent the other side as a straw man. Once again I have to wonder at the sanity of Christians if they think the only thing holding them back from raping, murdering and pillaging is a book written 2000 years ago. How sad your sordid view of humanity. Even if you want to believe a God created all this, how little respect you have for His creation. Do you think morality started with the publication of the Bible? It was centuries before anyone other than Hebrews were even exposed to it. Did humanity behave like this before Paul came along and spread Christianity to the rest of humanity? Does the rest of the world that is not Christian, or even Abrahamic, act like this? Do you even see ANIMALS acting like this? Social animals do not wantonly rape and murder their own kind. Why would humans do any less, unless diseased? Secular morality saved society from the barbarism of religious morality. When was the last time you were able to stone an unruly child or sell a rape victim to her attacker? Want to see what a society run as a theocracy looks like? Look at the Islamic nations or Europe in the dark ages. Religion, especially Christianity, has hundreds of years worth of the most vicious torture devices designed explicitly to keep victims alive while put through unimaginable agony to confess or convert. Atheist worldview holds that this is the only life we have and what we make of it has its own intrinsic value as opposed to the Christian worldview that this is only a qualifier lap for an empty promise of a future one spent as a sycophant to a psychopathic deity who creates a flawed humanity destined to suffer for eternity for merely being human. With few exceptions, every single life on this planet dies in the agony of being slaughtered by other animals or of disease or decrepitude. Your fantasy of a Santa Claus-esque deity does nothing to alleviate the suffering of children born deformed or in poverty. That charlatans can lie in His name and profit from the credulity of the gullible is the saddest cut of all. The arrogance of a worldview that believes everything in this entire universe was created for your sole enjoyment, that the vast cosmos is merely a backdrop for your daily dramas never fails to astonish me.

  16. Carl M November 9, 2010 at 12:38 am #

    I’ve rewatched the film, taking notes, and I still don’t get the point.

    The film has nothing to do with belief or unbelief nor does it have anything to do with absolutes. Are Eric, KT and MA trying to say they are psychopaths and religion keeps them in line?

    How would a “believer” answer the question?

    But lets take a closer look at the script

    Murder is illegal

    Response: “I’m not planning on being caught”

    Error: Planning to avoid accountability implies there is something to be accountable for.

    Abnormal DNA

    Response: Only statistical variation

    Error: Statistical variation is a valid measurement of malfunction. Used extensively in manufacturing.

    Species survivability

    Response: You won’t survive, I will.

    Error: Wider issue of species survivability is not addressed.

    (Psycho) All behaviour is genetically determined

    Error: This is not the claim of sociobiologists. Direct causality of behaviour is not claimed, rather propensity.

  17. David Ray November 9, 2010 at 11:31 am #

    @ Kenneth (in response to two comments)

    Earlier comment in What is Truth thread: –Supposed geneology of evolutionary throught from Anaximander to Darwin– followed by “Evolution is not science but rather religious myth. The common ancestor of evolution is a myth, an imaginary or unverifiable person or thing. Anything supposedly evolving from a myth is also myth. Observations in reality are not consistent with the myth of evolution, proposed by pantheist.”

    Comment in the current thread: So you think the fact and supporting evidence that the theory of evolution originated 2500 years ago, by a pantheist, who lived in a time when Greek Mythology was rampant with morphed kinds, has no bearing on the origin of the theory? Then evidence has no bearing on discussions with you.

    ===
    There is so much wrong here I hardly know where to start. I’ll begin with your logic.
    You essentially say the following:
    Anaximander was a pantheist.
    Anaximander came up with an idea that in some loose way resembled modern evolutionary thought.
    Therefore, anyone who accepts evolution is a pantheist.

    Using the same logic, we can also make the following statements.
    Anaximander ate chicken livers with an early Greek version of ranch dressing.
    Anaximander came up with an idea that in some loose way resembled modern evolutionary thought.
    Therefore, anyone who accepts evolution eats chicken livers with an early Greek version of ranch dressing.

    I hate ranch dressing (ancient or otherwise) and chicken livers but I accept modern evolutionary theory. Your logic is flawed.

    ===
    “The common ancestor of evolution is a myth, an imaginary or unverifiable person or thing. Anything supposedly evolving from a myth is also myth.”

    Modern meteorology arose from people attempting to understand what seemed to be capricious events arising from the heavens. What gods were invloved depended on the culture. Meteorology (bringing an umbrella based on the observation that a low pressure system is approaching) is verifiable science, rain dances/offerings to god are not. Non-myth has arisen from myth.

    Astronomy arose from astrology – Astronomy is verifiable science, astrology is not.

    Chemistry arose from alchemy – Chemistry is verifiable science, alchemy is not.

    Here are at least three examples where your statement is just plain wrong. Evolution did not arise from some strange beliefs about satyrs and minotaurs. All you need to do is read Darwin’s work and the work of all other reputable evolutionary biologists to realize this fact. (I do look forward to whatever mental gymnastics you will present to support your theory, however.) Even if it did, the statements above regarding meteorology, astronomy and chemistry make such an observation irrelevant. Yes, the idea of evolutionary change was around before Darwin. So what?

    ===
    “Observations in reality are not consistent with the myth of evolution”

    Please present evidence that has not been refuted hundreds of times by people actually doing science.

  18. Geno Castagnoli November 9, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    Stephen wrote:
    Thanks for the response. Sorry for not directly answering the question you asked me before. I do like to give an answer if I am able; however, I thought your question was rhetorical.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    To a large extent, I guess it was. As I pointed out, we already know who makes up most of the crowd claiming evolution is a religious belief.
    #####

    Stephen answers:
    The fact is many well-known evolutionary scientists have admitted their position is unproven, unprovable, unverifiable, etc.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Depending on where one sets the bar, it is “unproven, unprovable, unverifiable, etc.” that you exist. As I’ve already pointed out, the question isn’t one of “proof”, it’s a matter of how reasonable the assumptions are.
    #####

    Stephen writes:
    Certainly not all, but some evolutionists agree with creationists on this. Kent Hovind quotes many of the evolutinists saying this in his seminars and debates, if I knew where they were right off, I would list them for you. I will look them up if you need me to.
    #####
    Geno responds:
    No thanks. I’ve seen these lists of quotes before. On investigation, they almost always end up being out of context in one way or another. Sometimes they are the direct opposite of what the evolutionist actually says. That’s why I’m much more persuaded by data than quotes.
    #####

    Stephen says:
    Your answers to the questions all contained unverifiable assumptions. Regarding the speed of light; it’s already accepted that time and space can vary, which is the unit of measurement for the speed of light (m/s).
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Again, there are ALWAYS “unverifiable assumptions.” The question isn’t if they are verifiable…. if they were, they wouldn’t be “assumptions”, would they? The real issue is whether or not the assumptions are reasonable.

    We know the conditions under which time and space can vary. So, all you need do is show those conditions were present. For example, “stretching the heavens” would also stretch the light from stars. This would cause a noticible red shift. (Which, BTW, is how we know space is being stretched….. just not NEAR as much as YEC needs.) Unfortunately, Sn1987a shows a half-life for Co-56 consistent with that observed on Earth today (verifying the speed of light) and is not red-shifted. Andromeda isn’t red shifted either… in fact, it’s blue shifted.

    So, is the “unverifiable assumption” (supported by evidence) that the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with that observed on Earth today reasonable or not?
    #####

    Stephen wrote:
    Regarding the radiometric dating;
    You state that “everything we know is based on some kind of unverifiable assumption.” Just curious; do you know what they are concerning radiometric dating?
    #####
    Geno replies:
    Different techniques use different assumptions. The one assumption consistent among radiometric dating techniques is a constant decay rate. Is that assumption reasonable or not?
    #####

    Stephen previously wrote:
    7. Jesus was confused when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” Mark 6:10
    ########
    Geno responded:
    I suspect it was more a matter that Jesus didn’t want to confuse His audience. After all, they had germs back then and germs aren’t “male and female.”
    #########
    Stephen replies:
    In context Jesus is only referring to mankind when He says “male and female”, not to all life including germs. In this instance, how would telling the truth been confusing to the audience?
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Since mankind wasn’t created until day 6, man wasn’t made “at the beginning of creation. Using the same rules of context, as you apply, Jesus was speaking only of the creation of mankind. Looks like a non-issue to me.
    #####

    Stephen wrote:
    It seems like you agree with me that evolutionary science involves unverifiable assumptions.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    It seems to me the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a has been verified. It also seems to me the basic assumptions of nuclear decay have also been verified in tens of thousands of blind tests. If you don’t think those are verification, what exactly would you require?
    #####

    Stephen wrote:
    I am not saying that evolutionists do not use any facts. All I am saying is you have to “believe in” millions of years and/or evolution.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    There are differing levels of “belief.” In this case the EVIDENCE and DATA point to millions/billions of years.
    #####

    Stephen:
    YEC’s have facts and assumptions, evolutionists have facts and assumptions, it is just that God’s Word is on the YEC’s side, so better give Him the benefit of the doubt!
    #####
    Geno replies:
    I hope you mane “God’s word,” not “God’s Word.” There is a difference. God does not only speak to us through the Bible. His creation itself also has a story to tell. Which do you think is more reliable… the information that has been passed down through dozens of centuries of hand-copies, been through multiple translations, and is subject to things like idioms of speech. (In a court, this would be known as hearsay evidence.) Or the evidence that results from direct observation and measurement. (In a court, this would be called forensic evidence.)
    #####

    Stephen points out:
    I read your paper. Have you read Jason Lisle’s stuff on distant starlight? He has a good article titled, “Does distant starlight prove the universe is old?”
    #####
    Geno comments:
    I have looked at Dr. Lisle’s new work, but must admit I haven’t studied it extensively. Honestly, he lost a lot of traction with me when he proposed a “dual speed” for light in which it travels instantly toward the observer but only half speed when moving away. He claimed the idea was untestable. It took me about 5 minutes to figure out a way to test the claim.
    #####

    Stephen:
    Also, good idea about extending the posting time.
    #####
    Geno:
    Thanks.

    Stephen:
    Btw, have you submitted your video to CSE to win the ipod touch yet? : )
    #####
    Geno:
    No. I don’t do videos so I figure mine would be really junky compared to some of the other submissions CSE would get.

  19. John Bebbington November 9, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner said: “So you think the fact and supporting evidence that the theory of evolution originated 2500 years ago, by a pantheist, who lived in a time when Greek Mythology was rampant with morphed kinds, has no bearing on the origin of the theory? Then evidence has no bearing on discussions with you.”

    I, for one, cannot see why the philosophical (as opposed to Darwinian evidential) origins of a theory have any relevance as to the truth of it. After all, Christianity is an evolutionary offshoot of a pantheistic belief system so, by the same Tynerian logic, it must be equally artificial.

  20. Carl M November 9, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    @ Kenneth Tyner

    May I butt in?

    Jon, the video showed a lecturer stating that killers are genetically predisposed to killing.

    Actually, the claim made in the film is that all behavior is genetically determined and genetics determines morality. Neither of which is a position of sociobiology.

    But when confronted with a killer, he claimed the man had a “sick mind”. Therefore, killing is related to the mind, not the genetics.

    See above.

    The same is to be said with homosexuality.

    Me thinks you do protest too much about The Gays.

  21. Stephen Holshouser November 9, 2010 at 11:37 pm #

    Geno,

    Stephen previously wrote:
    7. [Was] Jesus was confused when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”? Mark 10:6
    ########
    Geno responded:
    I suspect it was more a matter that Jesus didn’t want to confuse His audience. After all, they had germs back then and germs aren’t “male and female.”
    #########
    Stephen replies:
    In context Jesus is only referring to mankind when He says “male and female”, not to all life including germs. In this instance, how would telling the truth been confusing to the audience?
    #####
    Geno points out:
    Since mankind wasn’t created until day 6, man wasn’t made “at the beginning of creation. Using the same rules of context, as you apply, Jesus was speaking only of the creation of mankind. Looks like a non-issue to me.
    ########
    Stephen points out:
    You have confused the act of creation (creation) with the created thing (creation). So, Jesus is saying that at the beginning of this creation that you live in (not -the beginning of the creation event), God made mankind as male and female. The first 6 days was when this creation came into being, and man and woman have been here ever since. You must either deny Jesus or evolutionism, which one will you choose?
    ###########

    Geno comments:
    It seems to me the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a has been verified. It also seems to me the basic assumptions of nuclear decay have also been verified in tens of thousands of blind tests. If you don’t think those are verification, what exactly would you require?….
    …So, is the “unverifiable assumption” (supported by evidence) that the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with that observed on Earth today reasonable or not?…. We know the conditions under which time and space can vary.
    #######
    Stephen responds:
    Are we aware of all of the conditions where space and time vary? What about the conditions where time and space vary that we don’t know about yet… do you know about those? I tend to think that what we understand about the universe is very minuscule compared to what we don’t understand about it. Realizing that we have limited knowledge, don’t be so quick to dogmatically say that since light usually does “x” in our speck of the universe, it must have done “x” at all times and in all places.

    Radioactive dating again; for me to accept it, I would need to know for sure the composition of the rock when the clock started and know for sure that no external forces have altered the decay rate the entire time, neither of which could be known. I reject radioactive dating and carbon dating because when you date objects of known age, you get severely over estimated dates, but when you date object of unknown age, it is assumed to be accurate. They are filled with erroneous results and assumptions. Sure there has been thousands of tests, but still no one can know the composition of the original, nor certify that nothing has affected the decay rate.

    Geno comments:
    I have looked at Dr. Lisle’s new work, but must admit I haven’t studied it extensively. Honestly, he lost a lot of traction with me when he proposed a “dual speed” for light in which it travels instantly toward the observer but only half speed when moving away. He claimed the idea was untestable. It took me about 5 minutes to figure out a way to test the claim.
    #####
    Stephen asks:
    Did Stephen Hawking lose any traction with you after he said the universe made itself?

    Geno points out:
    The real issue is whether or not the assumptions are reasonable
    ########
    Stephen:
    Actually, the issue is whether or not the assumptions are right. Plenty of reasonable assumptions have just been flat wrong.

    Geno states:
    There are differing levels of “belief.” In this case the EVIDENCE and DATA point to millions/billions of years.
    ###########
    Stephen responds:
    The speed of light from Sn1987a is not as harmful to YEC as you seem to think it is. Balance the assumptions for a constant speed of light with some of the YEC explanations and it far from invalidates a young earth. I think old-earthers have much bigger problems in regards to things like the existence of short life comets, earth’s waning magnetic field, polystrate fossils, receding moon, planetary rings, amount of C-14 and helium in the atmosphere/earth, unfossilized dinosaur bones, earth’s oil pressure, spiral arms of galaxies, amount of mud on the ocean floor and salt in the sea, etc, etc.

    Stephen previously wrote:
    YEC’s have facts and assumptions, evolutionists have facts and assumptions, it is just that God’s Word is on the YEC’s side, so better give Him the benefit of the doubt!
    #####
    Geno replied:
    I hope you mane “God’s word,” not “God’s Word.” There is a difference. God does not only speak to us through the Bible. His creation itself also has a story to tell. Which do you think is more reliable, the information that has been passed down through dozens of centuries of hand-copies, been through multiple translations, and is subject to things like idioms of speech. (In a court, this would be known as hearsay evidence.) Or the evidence that results from direct observation and measurement. (In a court, this would be called forensic evidence.)
    #####
    Stephen responds:
    Jesus Christ is the Word of God, and He confirms the Genesis account, so, yes, I mean the Word of God (John 1, Heb 1). Speaking of Him; are you trusting only what Jesus Christ has done as your means of reconciliation to God? Or do you hope to approach God another way? The age of the universe will mean nothing to us if we have any sin on our account on the Day of Judgment. Do you love Jesus more than anyone or anything else in your life, Geno?

    better get to bed… this time change has me a little out of whack, SH

  22. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 2:28 am #

    Hi Carl,

    In the next thread Mike argues that God micromanages his creation.

    The ineluctable conclusion must be that if DNA is responsible for evil and that God micromanages all physical and chemical processes in the universe then God is directly responsible for evil. I doubt that this is the conclusion Mike intended.

  23. Kenneth Tyner November 10, 2010 at 9:34 am #

    John said:

    I, for one, cannot see why the philosophical (as opposed to Darwinian evidential) origins of a theory have any relevance as to the truth of it. After all, Christianity is an evolutionary offshoot of a pantheistic belief system so, by the same Tynerian logic, it must be equally artificial.

    John, Darwinian evolution was not evidential but theoretical. Charles Darwin was no more a witness to the idea than his grandfather Erasmus, who wrote on the theory of evolution before Charles did, and was a self confessed pantheist.

    Christianity is a sect of Judaism and based on monotheism. Pantheism rejects anthropomorphic Gods for “nature did it”. There is no correlation to your claim.

  24. Kenneth Tyner November 10, 2010 at 9:51 am #

    @ David Ray

    David, rejecting the history of the theory of evolution and its development doesn’t change the reality of it. Anyone who rejects Intelligent design for “nature did it” is a pantheist.
    There is no observable evidence to the claim that nature did it, to consider this to be scientific claim. It’s science fiction. I refer to it as a “pig in a blanket”. Wrap a lot of myth with a little bit of science and serve it up as one scientific dish.
    Also, you really need to give up trying to use logic as a refute. Your non-sequitur fallacious attempts are not logic. You obviously do not get logic, so quit embarrassing yourself.
    The common ancestor of evolution is a myth; an imaginary or unverifiable thing. Anything claimed to evolve from this myth is also a myth. Myths are not scientific. And a tadpole morphing into a frog is not proof of evolution, lol.

  25. andrew Ryan November 10, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    You could repeat the film with a Christian victim and he’d still be toast.
    “Why shouldn’t I kill you?”
    “My God says you shouldn’t”
    “Don’t worry, I’ll ask for forgiveness afterwards”

    If a psychopath wants to kill you then he’ll do so, you won’t be able to talk him out of it regardless of your religion.

  26. John Bebbington November 10, 2010 at 6:55 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner said:

    “John, Darwinian evolution was not evidential but theoretical. Charles Darwin was no more a witness to the idea than his grandfather Erasmus, who wrote on the theory of evolution before Charles did, and was a self confessed pantheist.”

    Kenneth, that’s where you are wrong, you see. Charles did not fully accept the idea of evolution until he had discovered a mechanism by which it could be sustained. He says as much in his book. It was only by stint of many years of constant research he was able to provide the evidence for his hypothesis. But, time was a problem and so was the genetic connection. Up until the late 1800s it was thought that given the temperature of the earth’s crust, the planet could not be much older than a few million years which was not enough to allow for Darwin’s evolutionary processes to occur. Nor was there any mechanism known which would transmit to the next generation the genotypes of the current generation. So what was the point of sex? Then around 1900 radio-activity was discovered which dealt with the Earth age problem and then around about 1928 DNA was first thought to be the transmitter of genetic information. Bingo. 2 accurate prophesies in one theory.

    None of this has a jot to do with pantheism. I accept evolution but believe in fewer gods than you. Your point is utterly irrelevant and, worse, fallacious. If Erasmus was a pantheist and believed the world was flat would his belief in multitudinous gods, ignoring all other evidence, make his hypothesis right or wrong?

    .
    Christianity is a sect of Judaism and based on monotheism. Pantheism rejects anthropomorphic Gods for “nature did it”. There is no correlation to your claim.

  27. Geno Castagnoli November 10, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    Geno comments:
    I have limited time right now, so will address only this one issue from Stephen’s last response. If there is more time, I will deal with additional points Stephen raised in additional posts………..

    Stephen initially asked:
    7. [Was] Jesus was confused when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”? Mark 10:6
    —–
    Geno responded:
    I suspect it was more a matter that Jesus didn’t want to confuse His audience. After all, they had germs back then and germs aren’t “male and female.”
    ——Stephen replied:
    In context Jesus is only referring to mankind when He says “male and female”, not to all life including germs. In this instance, how would telling the truth been confusing to the audience?
    ——
    Geno answered:
    Since mankind wasn’t created until day 6, man wasn’t made “at the beginning of creation. Using the same rules of context, as you apply, Jesus was speaking only of the creation of mankind. Looks like a non-issue to me.
    —–
    Stephen points out:
    You have confused the act of creation (creation) with the created thing (creation). So, Jesus is saying that at the beginning of this creation that you live in (not -the beginning of the creation event), God made mankind as male and female.
    #####
    Geno responds:
    OK… Looks like you’re saying Jesus was speaking of from the creation of mankind, mankind has been male and female. I have no issue with that. Like I said, I was using the same context as you when I pointed that out.
    #####

    Stephen says:
    The first 6 days was when this creation came into being, and man and woman have been here ever since. You must either deny Jesus or evolutionism, which one will you choose?
    ####
    Geno concludes:
    Ya know….. everytime I run into a “it’s either a literal Genesis or deny Jesus and God” attitude like yours, I thank God my religious mentors did not take that stand when I approached them with my concerns on this matter.

    More than 40 years ago, my religious mentors did not lie to me about what science says and why science says it. They did not tell me I MUST accept a literal Genesis in order to believe or to be saved. If they had done that, I would have completely rejected my belief in God. Instead, they pointed out the Bible is not a science text. They suggested I should search for the greater truths in the Bible about God, our neighbors, and how we should handle our relationships with both. Paul Abramson, the former moderator of the old CSE blog said it well….. The Bible is: “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.”

    My students like to get me to discuss my past. My answer goes something like this: “I was a submarine sailor. I spent twelve and a half years in the Navy. I did what sailors do.” You can rest assured, when my time for judgement arrives I’ll have a LOT more to answer for than my acceptance of evolution.

    Saint Augustine was right about those who practice bibliolatry enslaving God’s creation to their Genesis literalism and demand a literal Genesis or nothing. You do great damage to the faith and efforts to save those who do not yet believe.

    Insisting I “must either deny Jesus or evolutionism” won’t work. I do not answer to you. I again thank God that those who think like you are not, have never been and never will be my religious mentors. That said, I choose to deny neither the truth of God’s creation nor our Savior, Jesus Christ.

  28. andrew Ryan November 11, 2010 at 3:30 am #

    Kenneth: “Darwinian evolution was not evidential but theoretical.”

    This is simply nonsense. SImple question: Have you read Darwin’s Origin of Species? Yes or no. It’s filled with evidence. And enough with you telling other people that they don’t ‘get logic’. It’s not fooling or convincing anybody.

  29. David Ray November 11, 2010 at 9:23 am #

    @Kenneth,

    In your most recent comment, you do not respond to my criticisms. I gave specific examples to illustrate that your claim that myth cannot give rise to non-myth is false. You did not refute those examples. You claim that my logic is false but do not demonstrate in what way. Merely saying so is not enough.

    Essentially, your last response is one in which you loudly shout “Nuh uh!”, resort to an insult, and then restate your fallacious claims. Until you can do better, just stop.

  30. Geno Castagnoli November 11, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    Geno posted:
    It seems to me the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a has been verified. It also seems to me the basic assumptions of nuclear decay have also been verified in tens of thousands of blind tests. If you don’t think those are verification, what exactly would you require?.
    …So, is the “unverifiable assumption” (supported by evidence) that the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with that observed on Earth today reasonable or not?. We know the conditions under which time and space can vary.
    ——
    Stephen responds:
    Are we aware of all of the conditions where space and time vary? What about the conditions where time and space vary that we don’t know about yet do you know about those?
    ######
    Geno points out:
    This is getting ridiculous. If there are other conditions that would vary space and time we don’t know about, then obviously we wouldn’t know them.

    Do you have evidence of other conditions we don’t know about that do impact space and time or are you requiring absolute knowledge before you will accept anything? (In which case, you better start rejecting EVERYTHING as absolute knowledge is impossible.)

    You did not answer my question: Based on the EVIDENCE in the light spectra of Sn1987a, is it reasonable to conclude the speed of light at the time and place of that event was consistent with what we observe on Earth today? (Note: This is a “conclusion” not an “assumption.”)
    #####

    Stephen:
    I tend to think that what we understand about the universe is very minuscule compared to what we don’t understand about it.
    #####
    Geno:
    Right. Feynman said it: “The universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is, it’s weirder than we can imagine.”

    So what? The question is what empirical evidence do you have the supenova event observed on Earth in 1987 did not actually take place over 167,000 years ago? What empirical evidence do you have it did not take the light from Andormeda over 2,000,000 years to reach Earth?
    #####

    Stephen:
    Realizing that we have limited knowledge, don’t be so quick to dogmatically say that since light usually does “x” in our speck of the universe, it must have done “x” at all times and in all places.
    #####
    Geno:
    It’s called the “Newtonian synthesis.” Basically, it says: “The natural laws apply at all times and in all places.” But it isn’t me that is being dogmatic. If you have evidence produce it.
    #####

    Stephen:
    Radioactive dating again; for me to accept it, I would need to know for sure the composition of the rock when the clock started
    ####
    Geno:
    As I’ve already pointed out, there are methods that do not require any particular ratio of parent-daughter elements. Further, some methods can be cross checked by isochrons.
    #####

    Stephen:
    and know for sure that no external forces have altered the decay rate the entire time, neither of which could be known.
    #####
    Geno:
    You’re asking for proof of a negative. I can’t prove there are no little green men on Mars either. Scientists have been trying to modify decay rates for around 100 years now. They know of a number of things that won’t work, but none that will. If you know of an external force that can alter the decay rate, produce it.
    #####

    Stephen:
    I reject radioactive dating and carbon dating because when you date objects of known age, you get severely over estimated dates,
    ######
    Geno:
    Not when you use the test within its known limitations.
    #####

    Stephen:
    but when you date object of unknown age, it is assumed to be accurate. They are filled with erroneous results and assumptions.
    #####
    Geno:
    Then show the assumptions are wrong. Start with changes in decay rates. (Hint: I’ve already pointed out if we can prove an assumption to be true, it isn’t an assumption any more…. it’s a fact.)
    #####

    Stephen:
    Sure there has been thousands of tests, but still no one can know the composition of the original, nor certify that nothing has affected the decay rate.
    #####
    Geno:
    When I talk about thousands of blind tests, I’m talking about the method being used within its known constraints to test objects of known age without knowledge of the age on the part of the lab doing the testing.

    Again, if you know of something that will affect the decay rates produce the evidence. But you won’t produce the evidence because you can’t. There is no known factor that will significantly impact nuclear decay rates short of a nuclear chain reaction…. and you know it.
    #####

  31. Geno Castagnoli November 11, 2010 at 12:36 pm #

    Geno wrote:
    I have looked at Dr. Lisle’s new work, but must admit I haven’t studied it extensively. Honestly, he lost a lot of traction with me when he proposed a “dual speed” for light in which it travels instantly toward the observer but only half speed when moving away. He claimed the idea was untestable. It took me about 5 minutes to figure out a way to test the claim.
    ——
    Stephen asked:
    Did Stephen Hawking lose any traction with you after he said the universe made itself?
    ######
    Geno replies.
    Nice way to change the subject (again). No, Hawking didn’t lose any traction because I had already factored in an expectation he would say something like that. Dawkins can’t lose any traction with me either when he discusses matters involving God …. for the same reason.

    But I’m not talking about Hawkings or Dawkins. I’m talking about Dr. Jason Lisle and his “new” explanation of why he thinks light from distant stars isn’t a problem. You had presented Lisle’s new paper for a possible explanation of our ability to directly observe distant objects. Lisle made a claim his dual speed of light idea was untestable yet it took me less than 10 minutes to devise a way to test it. Now, if an “expert” makes a claim and it only takes you a few minutes to figure out his claim is wrong, how much credibility would that expert have with you? How about if that expert had also been a signatory to a statement he would not attempt to evaluate evidence objectively?

    For the record, here’s Lisle’s claim and a way to test it:

    Dr. Lisle proposes light travels at an infinite speed toward an observer but at only half “c” when travelling away. Leaving aside for the moment the paradox this creates in having light arrive at its destination at two different times, here is the simple test.

    Place two test stations some distance apart. Put a third station halfway between the other two. Send a pulse from the middle station to each of the end stations. The pulse will arrive at each end station at the same time and can be used to set a clock. Time at the two end stations will then be synchronized. Then, at a predetermined time send a pulse from one end station to the other. If the speed of light is infinately fast travelling toward the destination, the recieving station will get the pulse with no time delay.

  32. Geno Castagnoli November 11, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    Geno said:
    “The real issue is whether or not the assumptions are reasonable”
    —–
    Stephen claims:
    Actually, the issue is whether or not the assumptions are right. Plenty of reasonable assumptions have just been flat wrong.
    #####
    Geno points out:
    If we know they are right, and can “prove” them and “verify” them, they aren’t assumptions any more.

    If you have evidence the speed of light has changed significantly since leaving Sn1987a produce it. If you have evidence the Earth and Sanduleak 69-202 (the star that went supernova and was redesignated Sn1987a have significantly different time reference frames, produce it. If you have evidence nuclear decay rates have changed significantly, produce it.

    Not only do you lack evidence of these things…. you can’t even show the assumptions aren’t perfectly reasonable based on direct observational evidence.

  33. Geno Castagnoli November 11, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    One final post in response to Stephen’s allegations:

    Stephen wrote:
    The speed of light from Sn1987a is not as harmful to YEC as you seem to think it is.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Right. That’s why so many creationists have spent entire careers trying to address the problem.
    #####

    Stephen:
    Balance the assumptions for a constant speed of light with some of the YEC explanations and it far from invalidates a young earth.
    #####
    Geno answers:
    The problem YEC has isn’t with assumptions, it’s with EVIDENCE. The YEC explanations simply don’t hold water any more than their flood explanations do. Let’s look at them:
    1) C-decay ….. an argument so bad even the YEC ministry “Answersingenesis” says it shouldn’t be used. There are things we should see if the proposal were true and we don’t see those things. Further, it doesn’t only deal with a change in the speed of light. In order to deal with well-established physics, CDK proponents are forced to tamper with a host of other values.

    2) Dual speed …. already discussed. As I said, it took me less than 10 minutes to design a way to test it. Yet Dr. Jason Lisle, the leading advocate of dual speed claims he can’t verify the idea.

    3) Humphreys’ “white hole” ….. again, there are a lot of things we should see but don’t. For example Sn1987a should be moving from Earth with a pretty significant velocity as should Andromeda. Even the formation of the solar system and Milky Way present major problems.

    4) Light created in transit ….. prevents serious theological problems regarding the nature (and trustworthiness) of God. If this were the case, we see objects that never existed (ie: Sanduleak 69-202) and events that never took place (ie: Supernova Sn1987a). If God is creating an image of a universe that never existed, how can we trust ANYTHING we see, touch, hear, or feel?

    5) Stretching the heavens ….. again, we should see things that are not observed. We do see evidence the universe is “stretching”…. just not at a rate that is of any help to YEC. If the YEC version of stretching were true, even nearby objects (by astronomical standards) should have a significant red-shift.
    #####

    Stephen:
    I think old-earthers have much bigger problems in regards to things like the existence of short life comets,
    ####
    Geno:
    The Kuiper belt explains these quite nicely. Twenty years ago, YEC were claiming the Kuiper belt doesn’t exist. Today, we know of dozens of Kuiper objects.
    ####

    Stephen:
    earth’s waning magnetic field,
    ####
    Geno:
    The magnetic field is known to have switched polarity. Even YEC admit this. Since polarity reversals are known to have happened, a change of strength in no problem.
    #####

    Stephen:
    polystrate fossils,
    #####
    Geno:
    Dealt with over 100 years ago.
    #####

    Stephen:
    receding moon,
    #####
    Geno:
    I could look it up, but I think LaGrange points have something to do with it.
    #####

    Stephen:
    planetary rings,
    ####
    Geno:
    Who says planetary rings are permenant features?
    #####

    Stephen:
    amount of C-14 and helium in the atmosphere/earth,
    #####
    Geno:
    It’s called “equilibrium.”
    #####

    Stephen:
    unfossilized dinosaur bones,
    #####
    Geno:
    Fascinating and unexpected discovery. I hope for great discoveries from this.
    #####

    Stephen:
    earth’s oil pressure,
    #####
    Geno:
    Once contained, there is no problem.
    #####

    Stephen:
    spiral arms of galaxies,
    ####
    Geno:
    Under investigation. Only YEC claim to have absolute knowledge.
    #####

    Stephen:
    amount of mud on the ocean floor
    #####
    Geno:
    Plate tectonics.

    Stephen:
    and salt in the sea, etc, etc.
    #####
    Geno:
    Which salt? Depending on the salt, I could use this one to prove the Earth is less than 200 years old or I could use it to prove the Earth is 100,000,000. I suspect equilibrium is the answer here too.

  34. Stephen Holshouser November 12, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    Geno,

    Stephen initially asked:
    7. Was Jesus confused when He said, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”? Mark 10:6
    ##########
    Geno responds:
    OK, Looks like you’re saying Jesus was speaking of from the creation of mankind, mankind has been male and female. I have no issue with that. Like I said, I was using the same context as you when I pointed that out.
    ##########
    Stephen:
    Why would Jesus say, “from the creation of mankind, mankind has been male and female.”? That goes without saying. He is saying from the beginning of the universe man has been here as male and female. That rules out evolutionism. period.

    Geno concludes:
    Ya know… everytime I run into a “it’s either a literal Genesis or deny Jesus and God” attitude like yours, I thank God my religious mentors did not take that stand when I approached them with my concerns on this matter.

    Saint Augustine was right about those who practice bibliolatry enslaving God’s creation to their Genesis literalism and demand a literal Genesis or nothing. You do great damage to the faith and efforts to save those who do not yet believe.

    Insisting I “must either deny Jesus or evolutionism” won’t work. I do not answer to you. I again thank God that those who think like you are not, have never been and never will be my religious mentors. That said, I choose to deny neither the truth of God’s creation nor our Savior, Jesus Christ.

    ##########
    Stephen responds:
    When I said “deny Jesus” I was only refering to denying that statement of His, not rejecting God altogether… though I see how it could have been read like that. Just to clarify; I don’t believe you have to be a YEC to believe in God and know Jesus. If Jesus has paid for your sins, you will certainly spend eternity in the presence of God. If we had to have perfect knowledge about everything to know God, I would be out of luck.. Now can I be your religious mentor?? : )

    Give me a bit to look thru the rest of the stuff you wrote and I’ll get back with you. I’m glad you answered all that, but I was most curious about the last couple of questions I asked you regarding your salvation. I know we are way off topic here, but when has that ever stopped us? They need to have a topic that says “stephen and geno go back and forth about anything” and then we’ll be okay.

  35. Stephen Holshouser November 14, 2010 at 6:19 pm #

    Geno pointed out:
    …If there are other conditions that would vary space and time we don’t know about, then obviously we wouldn’t know them, Do you have evidence of other conditions we don’t know about that do impact space and time… ?
    ######
    Stephen:
    I don’t know of any, and brace yourself, I think it is a “reasonable” assumption that the speed of light was the same from Sn1987a as it is on earth today, which would indicate a “reasonable” conclusion of the super nova being 167,000 years old (or whatever age you said). However, as I already pointed out, there are plenty of reasonable assumptions and conclusions that have been just flat wrong. What gives me reason to stop and examine the evidence and assumptions closer is the Bible itself. If you believe what the Bible plainly teaches (and I do), the universe can’t be that old. So, if there are circumstances where time and space vary that we know about, maybe there are more that we don’t know about that would cause the light to reach us faster, or maybe the stars aren’t as far as we think they are or something along those lines. Because of my belief that God has preserved for us what He wants us to know in the Bible, I give it the benefit of the doubt and realize that our observations are limited and finite at best. As you agreed to previously, our knowledge about the universe is certainly very small compared to what we don’t know about it, there is plenty of room in the unknown that could account for a faster transit time of light… just wait; “science” will catch up. Couple the Bible’s authority and veracity with the “forensic” evidences for a young solar system / earth, and it is perfectly reasonable to explore alternative hypotheses to “starlight automatically proves an old universe.” If you want to be accurate in science, listen to what the Creator has preserved for us about His creation in the Bible.

    Is that irrational? What if I told you I didn’t believe much of what the Bible plainly teaches, and thought its transmittal process was highly flawed, yet I staked my eternal destiny on its teaching, is that irrational? Yet this is exactly the position that you indirectly admit to holding. You cannot learn about Jesus and the Gospel under the microscope or thru a telescope can you? You acquired that information from the Bible or someone that read the Bible didn’t you? So if absolute truth has not been preserved for us by God in the Bible, why do you believe any of it, and how do you know which parts to believe and which parts to discard (or, deem to be non-literal)? The Bible is not a buffet line for you to pick and choose what you agree with or disagree with.

    Stephen previously wrote:
    Certainly not all, but some evolutionists agree with creationists on [evolution being unprovable, unverifiable]. Kent Hovind quotes many of the evolutionists saying this in his seminars and debates, if I knew where they were right off, I would list them for you. I will look them up if you need me to.
    #####
    Geno responds:
    No thanks. I’ve seen these lists of quotes before. On investigation, they almost always end up being out of context in one way or another. Sometimes they are the direct opposite of what the evolutionist actually says. That’s why I’m much more persuaded by data than quotes.
    ######
    Stephen:
    Almost always out of context? Name one of them please.

    Geno wrote before:
    I’m talking about Dr. Jason Lisle and his “new” explanation of why he thinks light from distant stars isn’t a problem. You had presented Lisle’s new paper for a possible explanation of our ability to directly observe distant objects. Lisle made a claim his dual speed of light idea was untestable yet it took me less than 10 minutes to devise a way to test it. Now, if an “expert” makes a claim and it only takes you a few minutes to figure out his claim is wrong, how much credibility would that expert have with you?

    For the record, here’s Lisle’s claim and a way to test it:
    Dr. Lisle proposes light travels at an infinite speed toward an observer but at only half “c” when travelling away. Leaving aside for the moment the paradox this creates in having light arrive at its destination at two different times, here is the simple test.
    Place two test stations some distance apart. Put a third station halfway between the other two. Send a pulse from the middle station to each of the end stations. The pulse will arrive at each end station at the same time and can be used to set a clock. Time at the two end stations will then be synchronized. Then, at a predetermined time send a pulse from one end station to the other. If the speed of light is infinately fast travelling toward the destination, the recieving station will get the pulse with no time delay.

    Stephen responds:
    No, your test doesn’t work. It assumes that the light travelling in different directions is the same speed, which is exactly what is in question. If you would have spent more than 5 minutes on it, you might have caught that. Look at this quote from Einstein in Jason’s paper:

    Einstein rightly concludes that the one-way speed of light is not an empirical quantity of nature, but a choice of man. He states,
    That light requires the same time to traverse the path A M as for the path B M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity (Einstein 1961, p. 23) [emphasis is in the original].

    Measuring the speed of light by the speed of light is inherently circular. For the record, the paper I suggested to you earlier was one written back in 2007, but the above is from his paper from Sept. 2010 that discusses Anisotropic Synchrony. I suggest you actually read it and give it some consideration before being so quick to pooh-pooh it.

    Geno stated:
    As I’ve already pointed out, there are methods that do not require any particular ratio of parent-daughter elements. Further, some methods can be cross checked by isochrons.
    ##########
    Stephen:
    Contamination can produce any isochron pattern regardless of the true isochron. They still get wild dates and simply reject the ones that don’t fit the geologic column. Do you really consider that good science? You can read about the problems with isochron dating at AIG’s website, there is a paper titled “Radioactive dating method under fire.” Incidentally, they tried to switch to isochron dating because they knew radioisotope dating to be invalid. Distilled water can remove 80% of the K+ from certain rocks in 4.5 hours. Many of the parent elements are water soluble. Many things can change the “perceived” decay rate, but even the decay rate itself is only an estimate.
    With regards to dating the rocks without radioisotopes; do you mean where they use the fossils to date the rocks, or were you referring to something else?

    Your reasons to ignore the evidence for a young earth were weak. I bet you just ran out of time and jotted something down.

    God could have just as easily told us the universe was billions of years old as He told us it was made 6000 years ago. He didn’t tell us it was billions of years old because it isn’t. Don’t you want to be on the side of truth? The scientific world vacillates and often finds out that what they once believed to be true is actually false. Thanks for the efforts and I have enjoyed the discussion. I hope I haven’t been too offensive. You seem like a teacher and sometimes teachers don’t take well to being challenged / opposed I guess you are okay with it since you frequent this site.

    take care, SH