Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse

[Statler Waldorf]

Scientologists don't really believe in the traditional view of panspermia, they believe that an evil alien tyrant named Xenu came to Earth and threw his enslaved people into volcanoes and nuked them with H-Bombs. The "souls" of these advanced people then attached themselves to early proto-humans, giving them sentience, but also all the baggage that comes with being human. You want that taught as "science" along with Genesis and evolution?

If there is scientific evidence to support it then I have no issues with it being presented to students. After all, it sounds far more credible than believing blue whales, bacteria, finches, elephants, sharks, humans, and mosquitos are all somehow “blood relatives”. If the evidence is really on your side, as you claim it is, the students surely would benefit by being exposed to being allowed to weigh the evidence in its totality. Censorship helps no one.

The dating methods that we use today can verify without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. That is all that needs to be said to refute your claims.

This is what we call an assertion; it proves absolutely nothing, now if you want to actually back it up with something I’d be more than happy to examine your evidence. Merely asserting all dating methods do support your position isn’t going to cut it with me though.

I don't know why anyone latches onto this 6,000 year old thing anyway because the Bible doesn't give specific dates on any of this. All of this was simply surmised by adding up the ages of all the generations of men listed in the Bible. That is a rather UNSCIENTIFIC method to date the Earth.

Actually it’s greater than scientific evidence, scripture is infallible, and science is fallible. I’ll take evidence of the infallible nature any day of the week. However, there is scientific evidence to support an Earth that is only 6-7,000 years old.

[SkapePhin]

Mitochondrial Eve, the first ancestor of every human currently living on Earth today,has been estimated to have lived 200,000 years ago using a variety of methods including the mutation rates of mItochondrial DNA.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You seem to claim that you have "scientific" proof that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, yet you only offer arguments of why Earth cannot be billions of years old due to what you claim to be invalid dating methods. Well, what is your scientific evidence to backup your assertion that the Earth is 6000 years old?

[SkapePhin]

Actually it’s greater than scientific evidence, scripture is infallible, and science is fallible. I’ll take evidence of the infallible nature any day of the week. However, there is scientific evidence to support an Earth that is only 6-7,000 years old.

Where is your scientific evidence that "scripture is infalible". Seems like quite an assertion!

[tylerdolphin]

…and you realize that if you are using a different element’s half-life to date something you are no longer using radio-carbon dating right? Radio-carbon dating cannot date the Earth, as I said.



How so?

I never said it was radio carbon dating. Thats irrelevant to the point. Dating methods following the same principle as radio carbon dating but using different isotopes with longer half lives show the Earth is millions/billions of years old.

As for the canyons and reefs, thats just a logical deduction on my part. We know hoe long it takes those kinds of things to form. Youre the one that either has to make the assumption that somehow it was different back then or that God just did it.

[JackFinfan]

You didn't answer my question, why would a reformed Christian care what the Catholic Church teaches or has ever taught? You don’t know?

I think his point is that it's always the same story with religion and religious people when dealing with science.

Step 1: Make an assertion when science can not prove otherwise. The sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is 6000 years old

Step 2a: Abandon belief like it never happened when science presents overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Step 2b: Refuse to accept overwhelming evidence. (pssst that's you).


On another note, instead of only attempting to debunk old Earth, how bout you actually present your argument for young Earth. I think we'd all be thrilled to hear your evidence.

[cdz12250]

God created everything, including evolution. Get it?

[Bumpus]

You didn't answer my question, why would a reformed Christian care what the Catholic Church teaches or has ever taught? You don’t know?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why would I care? Crazy is crazy.

[Statler Waldorf]

Mitochondrial Eve, the first ancestor of every human currently living on Earth today,has been estimated to have lived 200,000 years ago using a variety of methods including the mutation rates of mItochondrial DNA.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thanks for the article! It was a bit technical but interesting nonetheless. The Molecular Clock Hypothesis is something that is questioned by even evolutionists as I am sure you are aware. I think that article put the mutation rate at 1 mutation every 3500 years if I am not mistaken; this rate tends to vary depending on the article. However, have you ever wondered how they generate that mutation rate? Obviously, it’s too long of a time period to empirically measure. This mutation rate is calibrated by counting the number of mutations in great ape and human mitochondria and looking back to the time of their supposed evolutionary divergence. This point of evolutionary divergence is determined by fossils dated by radiometric dating. So essentially, they are assuming evolution took place, then using that assumption to generate a mutation rate; then they are using that mutation rate to support an evolutionary time frame, it’s all one huge circular argument. There have actually been several studies that have measured shockingly fast mutation rates in the coded regions of Human mitochondrial DNA which would indicate the mother of all humanity only lived 6,500 years ago. Additionally, you don’t find it at all odd that all humans on Earth can be traced back to one single woman exactly how scripture describes it (even if you disagree on the date at which she lived)? I find that remarkable.

Let’s look at a different way to date humanity, simply by population growth rates.

Currently the world’s population is growing at a rate of 1.8% per annum, which means it will double every 39 years. We also know that Arabs and Jews diverged from one single ancestor roughly 4,200 years ago. Given the current number of Jews and Arabs in the world today that means that their population growth rate doubles once every 150 years (even though both groups have experience great persecution and hardship they still have grown rather steadily). How fast would the human population have to double in order to get 7 billion people from 8 people 4,500 years ago (the time of the flood)? On average, it needs to double only once every 152 years. That’s a very realistic number. If the evolutionary time frame only allows for the total population of humans to double on average only once every 33,000 years, anyone can see how that is completely absurd.

You seem to claim that you have "scientific" proof that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, yet you only offer arguments of why Earth cannot be billions of years old due to what you claim to be invalid dating methods. Well, what is your scientific evidence to backup your assertion that the Earth is 6000 years old?

There’s actually quite a bit, along with just population growth rates we have…

- The fact C14 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere are not in equilibrium, which should have taken place after only 30,000 years. When this was first measured by Libby (who developed radio-carbon dating), it was written off as “instrumental error” because he “knew” that the atmosphere was millions of years old. However, we still know today that the atmosphere is not in equilibrium which is consistent with an atmosphere that is only thousands of years old and not billions.
- DNA being found in ancient fossils, we know given its empirical rate of decay, even under optimal conditions DNA cannot last for longer than a few thousand years, and yet we now find it in fossils (including dinosaurs) that are supposedly millions of years old.
- Carbon being found in Diamonds and Coal which are supposedly millions of years old, the problem is that no measurable carbon would be found if they were even older than 250,000 years old.
- The empirical decay rate for comets would mean that there should be no more comets visible after the universe had been around for over 10,000 years, yet we see them today. Many postulate the existence of comet generating entities such as the Oort Cloud and the Kuper Belt, but no evidence exists to support such entities so they are really nothing more than “rescue mechanisms”.
- The amino acids we find in fossils today are not equally racemized, even though this should take place only after a few thousand years.
- The oldest trees in the world are consistent with a world that is only a few thousand years old.
- The amount of Helium still found in zircons found within granite is consistent with only 4-8,000 years’ worth of radio-active decay, even though the zircons are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old.
- The strength of Neptune’s and Uranus’ magnetic fields is consistent with a solar system of merely 6,000 years.
- Lack of meteorites in strata indicates the strata were laid down quickly, most likely by a single catastrophic event.
- The Earth’s magnetic field’s decay is consistent with an Earth of only 6,500 years.
- The observed number of type 1 supernovas is consistent with a galaxy of only a few thousand years old.
- Similarities between languages that are geologically very isolated speaks to a very young human population.
- The rate of genetic rate of entropy is far too great for the human race to be more than thousands of years old

There’s a lot more, but I think we get the picture.

Where is your scientific evidence that "scripture is infalible". Seems like quite an assertion!

Well you can’t have “evidence” that something is infallible because science is not infallible, however you can have proof that something is infallible. The proof is that scripture has to be infallible or else we wouldn’t be able to prove anything at all; scripture’s infallibility is what makes all other knowledge possible.

I never said it was radio carbon dating. Thats irrelevant to the point. Dating methods following the same principle as radio carbon dating but using different isotopes with longer half lives show the Earth is millions/billions of years old.

How do you know such methods work to begin with? What is your control? Surely you have a control to empirically verify the methods work right? I mean you could come along and weigh me, and then weigh me again next year and if I gain 0.5 pounds you could use your dating method of “weight gain” to conclude that Statler is 340 years old!….see the problem with your assumptions? So what’s your control?

As for the canyons and reefs, thats just a logical deduction on my part. We know hoe long it takes those kinds of things to form. Youre the one that either has to make the assumption that somehow it was different back then or that God just did it.

I am sure you mean induction and not deduction, but be that as it may, how do you know how canyons form? Have you ever observed one form? We actually have, but it wasn’t by slow processes over millions of years, that’s for sure.

I think his point is that it's always the same story with religion and religious people when dealing with science.

That seems like quite the generalization…

Step 1: Make an assertion when science can not prove otherwise. The sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth is 6000 years old

Example: Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

Step 2b: Refuse to accept overwhelming evidence. (pssst that's you).

“Those aren’t red blood cells in that T-Rex fossil because red blood cells can’t last that long!!!.......Ok….so maybe they are red blood cells….well I guess red blood cells really can last that long!...yeah that’s that it! Dinosaurs still lived millions of years ago!” (pssst, that’s you) Sounds to me like the religious are not the only ones who engage in such “rationalization”.

On another note, instead of only attempting to debunk old Earth, how bout you actually present your argument for young Earth. I think we'd all be thrilled to hear your evidence.

See above…although I really only have to explain away billions of years because common descent requires billions of years.

Why would I care? Crazy is crazy.

If you don’t care about being rational, then I rest my case.

[SkapePhin]

Thanks for the article! It was a bit technical but interesting nonetheless. The Molecular Clock Hypothesis is something that is questioned by even evolutionists as I am sure you are aware. I think that article put the mutation rate at 1 mutation every 3500 years if I am not mistaken; this rate tends to vary depending on the article. However, have you ever wondered how they generate that mutation rate? Obviously, it’s too long of a time period to empirically measure. This mutation rate is calibrated by counting the number of mutations in great ape and human mitochondria and looking back to the time of their supposed evolutionary divergence. This point of evolutionary divergence is determined by fossils dated by radiometric dating. So essentially, they are assuming evolution took place, then using that assumption to generate a mutation rate; then they are using that mutation rate to support an evolutionary time frame, it’s all one huge circular argument. There have actually been several studies that have measured shockingly fast mutation rates in the coded regions of Human mitochondrial DNA which would indicate the mother of all humanity only lived 6,500 years ago. Additionally, you don’t find it at all odd that all humans on Earth can be traced back to one single woman exactly how scripture describes it (even if you disagree on the date at which she lived)? I find that remarkable.

Let’s look at a different way to date humanity, simply by population growth rates.

Currently the world’s population is growing at a rate of 1.8% per annum, which means it will double every 39 years. We also know that Arabs and Jews diverged from one single ancestor roughly 4,200 years ago. Given the current number of Jews and Arabs in the world today that means that their population growth rate doubles once every 150 years (even though both groups have experience great persecution and hardship they still have grown rather steadily). How fast would the human population have to double in order to get 7 billion people from 8 people 4,500 years ago (the time of the flood)? On average, it needs to double only once every 152 years. That’s a very realistic number. If the evolutionary time frame only allows for the total population of humans to double on average only once every 33,000 years, anyone can see how that is completely absurd.



There’s actually quite a bit, along with just population growth rates we have…

- The fact C14 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere are not in equilibrium, which should have taken place after only 30,000 years. When this was first measured by Libby (who developed radio-carbon dating), it was written off as “instrumental error” because he “knew” that the atmosphere was millions of years old. However, we still know today that the atmosphere is not in equilibrium which is consistent with an atmosphere that is only thousands of years old and not billions.
- DNA being found in ancient fossils, we know given its empirical rate of decay, even under optimal conditions DNA cannot last for longer than a few thousand years, and yet we now find it in fossils (including dinosaurs) that are supposedly millions of years old.
- Carbon being found in Diamonds and Coal which are supposedly millions of years old, the problem is that no measurable carbon would be found if they were even older than 250,000 years old.
- The empirical decay rate for comets would mean that there should be no more comets visible after the universe had been around for over 10,000 years, yet we see them today. Many postulate the existence of comet generating entities such as the Oort Cloud and the Kuper Belt, but no evidence exists to support such entities so they are really nothing more than “rescue mechanisms”.
- The amino acids we find in fossils today are not equally racemized, even though this should take place only after a few thousand years.
- The oldest trees in the world are consistent with a world that is only a few thousand years old.
- The amount of Helium still found in zircons found within granite is consistent with only 4-8,000 years’ worth of radio-active decay, even though the zircons are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old.
- The strength of Neptune’s and Uranus’ magnetic fields is consistent with a solar system of merely 6,000 years.
- Lack of meteorites in strata indicates the strata were laid down quickly, most likely by a single catastrophic event.
- The Earth’s magnetic field’s decay is consistent with an Earth of only 6,500 years.
- The observed number of type 1 supernovas is consistent with a galaxy of only a few thousand years old.
- Similarities between languages that are geologically very isolated speaks to a very young human population.
- The rate of genetic rate of entropy is far too great for the human race to be more than thousands of years old

There’s a lot more, but I think we get the picture.


Well you can’t have “evidence” that something is infallible because science is not infallible, however you can have proof that something is infallible. The proof is that scripture has to be infallible or else we wouldn’t be able to prove anything at all; scripture’s infallibility is what makes all other knowledge possible.



How do you know such methods work to begin with? What is your control? Surely you have a control to empirically verify the methods work right? I mean you could come along and weigh me, and then weigh me again next year and if I gain 0.5 pounds you could use your dating method of “weight gain” to conclude that Statler is 340 years old!….see the problem with your assumptions? So what’s your control?



I am sure you mean induction and not deduction, but be that as it may, how do you know how canyons form? Have you ever observed one form? We actually have, but it wasn’t by slow processes over millions of years, that’s for sure.



That seems like quite the generalization…



Example: Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.



“Those aren’t red blood cells in that T-Rex fossil because red blood cells can’t last that long!!!.......Ok….so maybe they are red blood cells….well I guess red blood cells really can last that long!...yeah that’s that it! Dinosaurs still lived millions of years ago!” (pssst, that’s you) Sounds to me like the religious are not the only ones who engage in such “rationalization”.



See above…although I really only have to explain away billions of years because common descent requires billions of years.



If you don’t care about being rational, then I rest my case.

I noticed you didn't cite a single one of your claims. Before I reply, I would like to see some citations from verifiable peer-reviewed studies concerning some of your extravagant claims.

---------- Post added at 11:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 PM ----------

Also, your proof of the infallibility of scripture is straight up Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs, but I think you know that.

[Statler Waldorf]

I noticed you didn't cite a single one of your claims. Before I reply, I would like to see some citations from verifiable peer-reviewed studies concerning some of your extravagant claims.

Sure, I can provide you with some sources, but only if you explain to me why you didn’t ask for them to begin with but now are asking for them? Do you have to move the goalposts in order to win the debate? Why do you only want peer-reviewed sources? If something isn’t peer-reviewed does that mean it’s automatically false and if it is peer-reviewed does that mean it’s automatically valid? Seems like a rather naïve view of science to me.

Also, your proof of the infallibility of scripture is straight up Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs, but I think you know that.

No it’s not, can you postulate a way we can know anything without scripture being infallible? Good luck.