Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => Non-Catholic Discussion Subforum => Topic started by: Xavier on April 02, 2020, 10:15:36 AM

Title: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Xavier on April 02, 2020, 10:15:36 AM
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 02, 2020, 12:02:35 PM
Lol.

Kent "Arrested for Tax Fraud" Hovind is a con-artist and manipulative liar, using repeatedly disproven young-earth creationist methods and outdated scientific information, that even other Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham have disavowed him completely.

"Dr. Dino" himself also has no academic qualification whatsoever to even discuss these questions. He received his degree in Theology, and nothing else, from an unaccredited Bible degree mill.

If you want to post Young Earth Creationist arguments, use at least more credible authors and sources.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Xavier on April 02, 2020, 01:09:16 PM
You should read this: "A comprehensive, meticulously documented resource dealing with the age-old creation/evolution controversy. The author, who received a PhD from MIT, carefully explains and illustrates scientific evidence from biology, astronomy, and the physical and earth sciences that relates to origins and the flood. The hydroplate theory, developed after more than 30 years of study by Dr. Walt Brown, explains with overwhelming scientific evidence earth's defining geological event - a worldwide flood. The book includes hundreds of illustrations, most in full color, an index, extensive end notes and references, technical notes, and 36 frequently asked questions on related topics. This revised 8th edition, 120 pages larger than the previous edition (2001) contains new material on almost every page." https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3963705-in-the-beginning

Dr. Walter Brown is as well qualified as anyone could probably want, and he is a strong defender of Creation Science. But refresh my memory. Do you believe in a young earth, or are unsure?

I sometimes cite people I don't fully agree with personally, if I agree with some of the facts they relate or the arguments they make. I've even cited the Dimonds on Creation before. Let's just take 2 points from the video for discussion (1) Super-Novas showing the universe is young, and (2) the Earth Moon system showing the earth is young. I can easily document the same evidence from other sources:

I. "A supernova,2 or violently exploding star, is one of the most brilliant and powerful objects in God’s vast cosmos. On average, a galaxy like our own, the Milky Way, should produce one supernova every 25 years ... As can be readily seen above, a young universe model fits the data of the low number of observed SNRs. If the universe was really billions of years old, there are 7000 missing SNRs in our galaxy.

Not only that, but the predictions for the Milky Way’s satellite galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud are also consistent with a young universe. Theory predicts 340 observable SNRs if the LMC were billions of years old, and 24 if it were 7000 years old. The number of actually observed SNRs in the LMC is 29. [See Detailed discussion and calculations]

As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’.4

There should be no mystery—Psalm 19:1 says: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.’ Supernovas declare His mighty power, but are still only finite expressions. The low number of their remnants is a pointer to God’s recent creation of the heavens and earth." https://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-a-young-universe

II. Here's an Article from the Institute of Creation Research on Young Age deduced from the Earth-Moon System: "It takes but one proof of a young age for the moon or the earth to completely refute the doctrine of evolution. Based upon reasonable postulates, great scope of observational data, and fundamental laws of physics there is proof that the moon and the earth are too young for the presumed evolution to have taken place.

There is an easily understood physical proof that the moon is too young for the presumed evolutionary age. From the laws of physics one can show that the moon should be receding from the earth. From the same laws one can show that the moon would have never survived a nearness to the earth of less than 11,500 miles. That distance is known as the Roche limit.1 The tidal forces of the earth on a satellite of the moon's dimensions would break up the satellite into something like the rings of Saturn. Hence the receding moon was never that close to the earth.

The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth. It could not have been receding for anything like the age demanded by the doctrine of evolution. There is as yet no tenable alternative explanation that will yield an evolutionary age of 4 billion years or more for the moon. Here is as simple a proof as science can provide that the moon is not as old as claimed." https://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/

The reason these things are important is because so many people today, especially young people, hardly believe in Creation anymore. God as Creator is the First Article of the Creed.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Kreuzritter on April 04, 2020, 08:25:33 AM
Lol.

Kent "Arrested for Tax Fraud" Hovind is a con-artist and manipulative liar, using repeatedly disproven young-earth creationist methods and outdated scientific information, that even other Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham have disavowed him completely.

"Dr. Dino" himself also has no academic qualification whatsoever to even discuss these questions. He received his degree in Theology, and nothing else, from an unaccredited Bible degree mill.

If you want to post Young Earth Creationist arguments, use at least more credible authors and sources.

These are both ad hominem. The bolded part in particular is pathetic and beneath you.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: christulsa on April 04, 2020, 09:54:46 AM
Lol.

Kent "Arrested for Tax Fraud" Hovind is a con-artist and manipulative liar, using repeatedly disproven young-earth creationist methods and outdated scientific information, that even other Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham have disavowed him completely.

"Dr. Dino" himself also has no academic qualification whatsoever to even discuss these questions. He received his degree in Theology, and nothing else, from an unaccredited Bible degree mill.

If you want to post Young Earth Creationist arguments, use at least more credible authors and sources.

These are both ad hominem. The bolded part in particular is pathetic and beneath you.

not quite, K.  expecting an academic to limit their academic judgments to their field of knowledge is common sense.  if an astrophysicist tries to publish a book on French culinary arts, the publisher is going to laugh them out the door.   even if they make a great souffle. 

ad hominem would be to scorn someone to score a point in an argument, they way you just did RoL.   ::)
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 04, 2020, 02:40:33 PM
Lol.

Kent "Arrested for Tax Fraud" Hovind is a con-artist and manipulative liar, using repeatedly disproven young-earth creationist methods and outdated scientific information, that even other Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham have disavowed him completely.

"Dr. Dino" himself also has no academic qualification whatsoever to even discuss these questions. He received his degree in Theology, and nothing else, from an unaccredited Bible degree mill.

If you want to post Young Earth Creationist arguments, use at least more credible authors and sources.

These are both ad hominem. The bolded part in particular is pathetic and beneath you.

It's not pathetic or beneath me. If an individual is notorious for using falsified evidence and using methods which nobody else uses, then that individual should not be spread around as a trustworthy source of information.

There are plenty of Young Earth Creationists, and further, Old Earth Creationists, who actually have scientific degrees and can see past and make arguments against the uniformitarian assumptions that scientists hold onto past the point of high probability and into the point of arbitrary Faith (for example, believing in infinite big bangs or believing that consciousness was formed from non-consciousness). You need uniformitarianism in the scientific community otherwise we could not study science, so as such, they are often shunned by the academic community, but you could at least use their work.

You want an ad-hominem attack? How about the fact that Kent Hovind also is a Millenalist, who believes that Jesus will come back and establish a 1000 year old Kingdom on Earth and be enthroned in a Third Temple? A heresy so dangerous that even the Muslims, in appropriating the Apocalyptic narrative from Ancient Christianity, see that as a heresy?
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Kreuzritter on April 05, 2020, 05:55:24 AM
not quite, K.

Yes, quite. Kent Hovind's "tax fraud" and his "academic qualifactions" are not refutations of his claims and arguments.

Quote
expecting an academic to limit their academic judgments to their field of knowledge is common sense.

This matters to sheep who bow to authority and convention and are unconcerned with facts and logic themselves.

Quote
if an astrophysicist tries to publish a book on French culinary arts, the publisher is going to laugh them out the door.   even if they make a great souffle. 

You're now comparing cooking with objective truth claims and the financial motives of a publisher with whether or not they are true?

Quote
ad hominem would be to scorn someone to score a point in an argument, they way you just did RoL.   ::)

No, an ad hominem is precisely what was done above to dismiss that video out of hand and anything Kent Hovind has to say.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Kreuzritter on April 05, 2020, 06:11:02 AM
It's not pathetic or beneath me. If an individual is notorious for using falsified evidence and using methods which nobody else uses, then that individual should not be spread around as a trustworthy source of information.

"Trustworthy source of information". You see, there is your problem, that you operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information" regarding claims that can and should in any case be scrutinised for evidence and arguments that can be logically analysed for validity.

And it's one thing to make note of an alleged propensity to give false information, but it's quite another to say this:

Quote
"Dr. Dino" himself also has no academic qualification whatsoever to even discuss these questions.

That is sheeple talk.

Quote
There are plenty of Young Earth Creationists, and further, Old Earth Creationists, who actually have scientific degrees and can see past and make arguments against the uniformitarian assumptions that scientists hold onto past the point of high probability and into the point of arbitrary Faith (for example, believing in infinite big bangs or believing that consciousness was formed from non-consciousness). You need uniformitarianism in the scientific community otherwise we could not study science, so as such, they are often shunned by the academic community, but you could at least use their work.

And their "scientific degrees" have nothing whatsoever to do with what I think of their data and arguments.

Also, "consciousness" being "caused" by "non-consciousness" isn't a uniformitarian assumption or even a coherent point of faith; it's meaningless nonsense. One doesn't get to use a word, like "cause", "arise" or "form" here, if one cannot even begin to account for what it's supposed to mean and entail in context.

Quote
You want an ad-hominem attack? How about the fact that Kent Hovind also is a Millenalist, who believes that Jesus will come back and establish a 1000 year old Kingdom on Earth and be enthroned in a Third Temple? A heresy so dangerous that even the Muslims, in appropriating the Apocalyptic narrative from Ancient Christianity, see that as a heresy?

What does this have to do evolution? Attacking academic qualifications is an ad hominem, just like citing them is an appeal to authority.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 05, 2020, 12:57:22 PM

"Trustworthy source of information". You see, there is your problem, that you operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information" regarding claims that can and should in any case be scrutinised for evidence and arguments that can be logically analysed for validity.


If you contend that you never take heuristic shortcuts whenever someone shares information but you meticulously spend every waking hour of your life analyzing every single claim that has ever been presented to you, then please, senpai, share with me your omniscient powers and how I may be able to acquire such wisdom.

The claim you are making here is absolutely baffling. If a Microbiologist with a PhD gave a lecture on the translation of ribosomes within a specific bacteria sample, who in their right mind would think "hmm...I need to make sure that every single claim this man has ever said in this lecture is verifiable. I'm going to find several papers on this exact topic, acquire a microscope, acquire this exact sample, as well as buy several books on this exact topic, and perform all the chemistry equations this guy did to make sure he is right, as well as try to philosophically prove that ribosomes exist, that bacteriae exist, that I exist, and prove that philosophically that ribosomes will always be replicated like this."

Truly, if people operated on this level, anybody could win any argument by just flooding the other side with an over quantity of information regardless of their validity or soundness.

While admittedly a problem even with heuristics, it's a problem made 20x worse with this claim.

Due to the inevitability of the fact that people will take shortcuts at some point when there is a large abundance of claims, especially within the field of science, yes, absolutely, "trustworthiness" is vitally important to someone sharing information.

When someone who has time and time again been shown as such a fraudulent fool even by those in the YEC community, he should not be promoted, especially when impressionable people who cannot even understand the claims he is making (which a scientific background would provide) WILL take shortcuts and assume him to be true, no less than those who blindly obey every single philosophical claim Neil de Grasse "School Shootings are not a big deal" Tyson makes.

If you cannot at a basic level determine trustworthiness or falsity - a BASIC level of being caught using fraudulent claims - then we should ditch the entire field of science altogether.

Quote
And it's one thing to make note of an alleged propensity to give false information, but it's quite another to say this:

Quote
"Dr. Dino" himself also has no academic qualification whatsoever to even discuss these questions.

That is sheeple talk.

Bah bah black sheep have you gotten a degree? Yessir, yessir, from fraud university.

I would say it's more Hyena talk, because the title "Dr. Dino" is a hilarious one. Not only is it prima facially absurd, but it's doubly funny when he doesn't have education even at a community-college or trade-school level. It's also funny that a "Dr." has committed tax fraud.

Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 05, 2020, 01:06:38 PM
Quote
This matters to sheep who bow to authority and convention and are unconcerned with facts and logic themselves.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/420/239/e5e.jpg)
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Xavier on April 05, 2020, 02:00:28 PM
LOLOL. Live, did you read Dr. Brown's unimpeachable academic qualifications? Also, according to your own standards, you yourself have no right to be pontificating on the topic, since you don't have a doctorate in a relevant field! Yes, there is True Authority in the sight of God. Christ is an Authority, and all He teaches is to be believed as true. He shows His authority by miracles and prophesies. Everything He says is therefore to be believed by Faith, and such Faith is Reasonable, for He is a Divine Authority, as certified and proved by His Works.

And then there are subordinate human authorities, who are not infallible, but may be reasonably believed. Dr. Brown is clearly one such. Then there are others, whose arguments are very good, and the intrinsic worth and merit of those arguments make them worth pondering.

I already gave you 2 proofs, one from SuperNovas, and another from the Moon's Distance from the Earth. Anything to say about them?

Here's the Catholic Creationist Site St. Kolbe's Centre: we'll look at 2 other proofs (3) C-14 remaining (all of it should be gone in thousands of years, and would not survive millions) in ancient fossils, rocks etc showing they are young. And (4) DNA (which cannot survive more than 10,000 years) being found in the most ancient animals, along with haemoglobin, red blood cells etc showing they are young. And I want to note, anything showing the earth is less than even 100,000 years old absolutely destroys and falsifies evolution.

III. St. Maximillian Maria Kolbe Centre for the Study of Creation: "For example, Carbon 14 is an isotope formed by the radioactive decay of carbon atoms, which is not supposed to be detectable in organic material older than about 50,000 to 60,000 years because of its short half life. However, it is often found in materials dated by other methods to be millions of years old, including petroleum, coal, wood, and bone, and has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.[10],[11],[12]

Additionally, the surprising discovery of soft tissue in fossils presumed to be millions of years old brings radiometric dating into direct contradiction with currently observed decay rates of organic materials" https://kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/

IV. Highly Qualified Physicist Dr. Walt Brown, Graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology on DNA in ancient fossils: "See also Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA "1990s The post-PCR era heralded a wave of publications as numerous research groups tried their hands at aDNA. Soon a series of incredible findings had been published, claiming authentic DNA could be extracted from specimens that were millions of years old, into the realms of what Lindahl (1993b) has labelled Antediluvian DNA.[9]"

68.     Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue?

DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing.a Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years.b This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age, such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly a 400,000-year-old hominin femur from Spain,c 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves,d and 11-to-425-million-year-old salt crystals.e Dozens of plants and animals have left DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old.f DNA fragments have been found in the scales of a “200-million-year-old” fossilized fishg and possibly in “80-million-year-old” dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed.h Frequently, DNA is found in insects and plants encased in amber samples, assumed to be 25–120-million years old.i

These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit.j They now claim that DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this claim.k" http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.html

Without millions and billions of years, both monkeys-t0-men and particles-to-people evolution falls down and dies a natural death.

If I absolutely need to, it is not impossible to accept the idea of progressive creation across about 100,000 years; I see no evidence or reason to accept such an idea, however. As it is even scientifically demonstrable the Earth and Creation is much younger than that.

Therefore, I am a confident Young Earth Catholic Creationist Christian, just as is St. Kolbe's Centre. Evolution is soul-destroying poison, study after study shows so many people, especially young people, lose their Faith and become infidels and God-hating atheists, agnostics and anti-theists because they once uncritically accepted evolutionary paganism as if it were a truly proven scientific fact.

Effects of Evolution: "So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven hypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and atheism. Prof. James H. Leuba, of Bryn Mawr College, Pa. sent a questionnaire to 1000 of the most prominent scientists teaching sciences relating to evolution. The replies indicate that more than one-half do not believe in a personal God, nor the immortality of the soul--beliefs almost universal even in the heathen world. So pernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half of the professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels and atheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen. And while we are happy in the conviction that the great majority of professors and teachers of other subjects are Christians, yet one or two atheists or infidels are sufficient to make havoc of the faith of many, in a great college or university.

A doctrine so abhorrent to the conscience, so contrary to the well nigh universal belief, and so fruitful of evil, certainly can not be true. Small wonder is it that students are fast becoming infidels and atheists, and we shudder as we think of the coming generation. A great responsibility rests upon the authorities who employ such teachers.

The answers of the students in seven large representative colleges and universities to Prof. Leuba's questionnaire, show that while only 15% of the Freshmen have abandoned the Christian religion, 30% of the Juniors and over 40% of the Seniors have abandoned the Christian faith. Note the steady and rapid growth of infidelity and atheism as a result of this pernicious theory.

Will Christian parents patronize or support or endow institutions that give an education that is worse than worthless? What the colleges teach today the world will believe tomorrow.

Atheism, under its own name, has never had many to embrace it. Its only hope is to be tolerated and believed under some other name." http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 05, 2020, 02:24:30 PM
LOLOL. Live, did you read Dr. Brown's unimpeachable academic qualifications? Also, according to your own standards, you yourself have no right to be pontificating on the topic, since you don't have a doctorate in a relevant field! Yes, there is True Authority in the sight of God. Christ is an Authority, and all He teaches is to be believed as true. He shows His authority by miracles and prophesies. Everything He says is therefore to be believed by Faith, and such Faith is Reasonable, for He is a Divine Authority, as certified and proved by His Works.

1. I'm talking specifically about Kent Hovind.
2. Nope. I'm not sharing a particular opinion on this issue as of this thread, but I'm commenting on how Kent Hovind is a manipulative conman, something which I do have the authority to discuss.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Kreuzritter on April 05, 2020, 02:39:30 PM

"Trustworthy source of information". You see, there is your problem, that you operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information" regarding claims that can and should in any case be scrutinised for evidence and arguments that can be logically analysed for validity.


If you contend that you never take heuristic shortcuts whenever someone shares information but you meticulously spend every waking hour of your life analyzing every single claim that has ever been presented to you, then please, senpai, share with me your omniscient powers and how I may be able to acquire such wisdom.

And now you launch into a straw man and attempt to ridicule an entirely logical position. Take your own advice then and refrain from attempting to engage in questions of epistemology and logic, in which you clearly have no formal academic qualifications. I dismiss everything out-of-hand, since who you are makes you unqualified to discuss these things and your premises,arguments and conclusions untrustworthy.

Quote
The claim you are making here is absolutely baffling.

What's absolutely baffling is that you think crying "layman" constitutes a refutation or "muh degree" evidence.

Quote
If a Microbiologist with a PhD gave a lecture on the translation of ribosomes within a specific bacteria sample, who in their right mind would think "hmm...I need to make sure that every single claim this man has ever said in this lecture is verifiable.

If I actually gave a damn about his contentions, yes, I would look to means to verify his claims. Outside of that, that is all they are to me: things I've heard someone claim. I have no need to believe them true or dismiss them as false.

Quote
I'm going to find several papers on this exact topic, acquire a microscope, acquire this exact sample, as well as buy several books on this exact topic, and perform all the chemistry equations this guy did to make sure he is right, as well as try to philosophically prove that ribosomes exist, that bacteriae exist, that I exist, and prove that philosophically that ribosomes will always be replicated like this."

What's so laughably ass-backwards about your entire line of thought is that this "trustworthiness" based in the acquisition of academic qualifications is built upon the premise that what this man has studied, learned and produced is, in fact, true. That you then appeal to academic qualifications to establish "trustworthiness" is order accept of dismiss these very things

To the contrary, I believe that bacteria exist because I have seen them under a microscope.

Quote
Truly, if people operated on this level, anybody could win any argument by just flooding the other side with an over quantity of information regardless of their validity or soundness.

The notion of "winning arguments", as if the truth were some sort of competition in persuading people, is absurd. But it again unmasks your mentality.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Kreuzritter on April 05, 2020, 02:42:30 PM
2. Nope. I'm not sharing a particular opinion on this issue as of this thread, but I'm commenting on how Kent Hovind is a manipulative conman, something which I do have the authority to discuss.

What exactly is your qualification in, say, the psychological or criminal sciences? Moreover, why should I believe this claim of yours? How trustworthy are you and your soruces?

Or, instead of wasting my time investigating that, I could just try check the evidence for his claims.

Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 06, 2020, 12:52:33 PM
And now you launch into a straw man and attempt to ridicule an entirely logical position. Take your own advice then and refrain from attempting to engage in questions of epistemology and logic, in which you clearly have no formal academic qualifications. I dismiss everything out-of-hand, since who you are makes you unqualified to discuss these things and your premises,arguments and conclusions untrustworthy.

I'm not ridiculing a straw man, I'm ridiculing your position.

You said

Quote
"Trustworthy source of information". You see, there is your problem, that you operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information" regarding claims that can and should in any case be scrutinised for evidence and arguments that can be logically analysed for validity.

So

1. You shouldn't operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information"
2. Rather than operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information," we should analyze each claim for validity via scrutiny for evidence.

And I ridiculed this exact position; that while you can do that, it's fundamentally impossible to do that for every single claim someone makes to you, due to our limited time and resources.


Quote
The claim you are making here is absolutely baffling.
What's absolutely baffling is that you think crying "layman" constitutes a refutation or "muh degree" evidence.

How funny is it that every single time someone attacks your position, you cry "stawman," but then you feel the need to ward off the crows by propping up your own strawman.

Not once, not once have I ever made a claim that an appeal to authority constitutes a refutation of claims. Nor have I engaged with any of the substance of his claims and appealed to authority to overturn them.

I just made the claim that Kent Hovind is not worth your time not only because he's proven to be fraudulent and manipulative, and as people will inevitably take heuristic shortcuts (especially when people don't have a basic understanding of biological terminology to even contest the claims he makes), that you are better off finding someone more trustworthy to take heuristic shortcuts.

If you want, I can go through this video and show why his claims in this video are absolutely retarded one by one, including his claim - made in this exact video that Xavier shared - that Catholics are secretly following the path of Eve and obeying Satan's will by holding onto the line of "God became man so men could become God," but thus far, I have not attacked anything regarding the substantive content.

Quote
If a Microbiologist with a PhD gave a lecture on the translation of ribosomes within a specific bacteria sample, who in their right mind would think "hmm...I need to make sure that every single claim this man has ever said in this lecture is verifiable.

Quote
What's so laughably ass-backwards about your entire line of thought is that this "trustworthiness" based in the acquisition of academic qualifications is built upon the premise that what this man has studied, learned and produced is, in fact, true. That you then appeal to academic qualifications to establish "trustworthiness" is order accept of dismiss these very things.

To the contrary, I believe that bacteria exist because I have seen them under a microscope.


Under the assumption that you actually saw then under a microscope and you perceived them to exist.

You cannot prove anything is definitively true without assumptions; you could believe Descarte's demon is manipulating you and everything you ever perceived is false, and nobody could disprove that. But you would go insane otherwise, so you would have to make assumptions that your experiences are real.

Science, more narrowly, requires uniformitarian assumptions to a substantive degree, because you could not gather data or make predictions if a demon could manipulate your measurements from what it really is. And human society as a whole has agreed to that. Regardless if those uniformitarian assumptions are true or not as it pertains to evolution, we would not have iPhones without assuming that circuits would always be uniformitarian in how they behave.

I contend that people who actually understand the concepts they are discussing and have studied science under the purview that it is uniformitarian for at least enough years to receive an undergraduate degree in that field are much more trustworthy than people who have demonstrated they don't understand the concepts they are talking about, have intentionally and knowingly used false information, and don't have enough exposure to science with such an assumption to work within what we define "science" to be are not trustworthy, see my argument above.

If you disagree and want to define science as a search for a Leprechaun's gold or to unplug one's self from the Matrix, go ahead, but that is a facially foolish endeavour.

Quote
The notion of "winning arguments", as if the truth were some sort of competition in persuading people, is absurd. But it again unmasks your mentality.

"If I only had a brain..."

I'm not contending that. I am contending that people's ability to grasp truth is fundamentally limited; see Saint Augustine's beach story:
https://olmlaycarmelites.org/reflections/mystery-trinity

As such, people will accept information heuristically from a "higher source" without understanding it fully.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Xavier on April 06, 2020, 01:25:13 PM
Jesus Christ Our Lord on Darwin's Theory of Evolution to Maria Valtorta. Imprimatur: Bp. Ramon Danylak. Bp. Williamson also approves.

"       Jesus says:

     "One of the points at which your pride founders in error--which, above all, degrades precisely your haughtiness by giving you an origin that, if you were less corrupted by pride, you would repudiate as degrading--is that of Darwin's theory.

     In order not to admit God, who, in His power, was able to have created the universe from nothing and man from the already created mud, you take the paternity of a beast as your own.

    Don't you realize you are diminishing yourselves, for--consider this--won't a beast--no matter how exemplary, selected, improved, and perfected in form and instinct, and, if your wish, even in mental formation--always be a beast?  Don't you realize this?  This testifies unfavorably regarding your pride as pseudo-supermen.

    But if you fail to realize, I will not be the one to waste words to make you aware of it and converted from the error.  I ask you only one question which, in your great numbers, you have never asked yourselves.  And if you can answer Me with facts, I will no longer combat this degrading theory of yours.

    If man is a spin-off from the monkey, which by progressive evolution has become man, how is it that over so many years in which you have maintained this theory you have never succeeded, not even with the perfected instruments and methods at present, in making a man from a monkey?  You could have taken the most intelligent offspring of a pair of intelligent moneys and then their intelligent offspring, and so on.  You would now have many generations of selected, instructed monkeys cared for by the most patient, tenacious, and sagacious scientific method.  But you would still have monkeys.  If there happened to be a mutation, it would be this: the beasts would be physically less strong than the former ones and morally more degenerate, for, with all your methods and instruments, you would have destroyed that perfection of the monkey which My Father created for these quadrumans.

    Another question.  If man came from the monkey, how is it that man, even with grafts and repugnant forms of cross-fertilization, does not become a monkey again?  You would be capable even of attempting these horrors if you knew that it could give approvative sanction to your theory.  But you do not do so because you know that you would not be able to turn a man into a monkey.  You would turn him into an ugly son of man, a degenerate, perhaps a criminal.  But never a real monkey.  You do not try because you know beforehand that you would get a poor result and your reputation would emerge therefrom in ruins.

    For this reason you do not do so.  For no other.  For you feel no remorse or horror over degrading a man to the level of a beast to maintain a thesis of yours.  You are capbable of this and of much more.  You are already beasts because you deny God and kill the spirit, which distinguishes you from the beasts.

   Your science causes Me horror.  You degrade the intellect and like madmen do not even realize you are degrading it.  In truth, I tell you that many of the primitive are more men than you are." https://valtorta.org/darwin_and_monkeys_defaultpage.asp
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Kreuzritter on April 06, 2020, 02:15:35 PM
If this is God speaking, why doesn't he just provide a biochemical refutation of Darwinism based in genetics and information theory?
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Sempronius on April 06, 2020, 02:35:22 PM
Interesting that a spiritual message is about science (if its from God or not I cant say), but good point that secular scientists wont evolve a monkey, or turn him into a supermonkey.

The reason why God doesnt settle the matter about science (I think) is because He doesnt want to force people into believing certain things.

Thats why we will always have modernism in the Church because some people just cant reconcile science with faith. Even some traditional priests find it hard to believe that Adam was 900 years old.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Kreuzritter on April 06, 2020, 03:44:35 PM
I'm not ridiculing a straw man, I'm ridiculing your position.

No. You're ridiculing my position by means of a straw man.

Quote
You said

Quote
"Trustworthy source of information". You see, there is your problem, that you operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information" regarding claims that can and should in any case be scrutinised for evidence and arguments that can be logically analysed for validity.

Quote
So

1. You shouldn't operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information"
2. Rather than operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information," we should analyze each claim for validity via scrutiny for evidence.

Case in point of a straw man. I never stated 1, only that it's your mindset and that it's the problem underlying your entire approach to this issue, an approach that leaves you no wiser regarding the truth of any claim. As to 2, the only possible way of analysing such claims for veracity is by such means. Appeals to authority provide no basis for that. But I never made claim 2. Specifically, any child could see that I pointed out that you are the one looking at "trustworthiness" regarding claims that can be investigated, and should be if one is seeking to discover their truth; it is not that such claims "should" be investigated, much less all claims, but to point out the mindset that actually considers 1. as a replacement to this. That is to be contrasted with the mind that maintains skepticism in the absence of 2; that is the position of someone actually interested in truth, especially when it concerns matters that require no decision one way or the other to take action.

Quote
And I ridiculed this exact position; that while you can do that, it's fundamentally impossible to do that for every single claim someone makes to you, due to our limited time and resources.

And another straw man. I've never suggested it's necessary or desirable to check "every single claim someone makes to you", and it's neither necessary nor desireable to me to know the truth of "every single claim someone makes" to me. This is another stupidity of yours which you're projecting on me. I couldn't give a rats arse about the truth status of most claims or the bulk of claims of academics. But people who depend on "trustworthiness" of academics to come to their beliefs about something like evolution are self-deluding fools who are no closer to knowing the truth of the matter than the skeptic who makes no decision one way or the other because he hasn't or can't determine it for himself.

Quote
Quote
The claim you are making here is absolutely baffling.
What's absolutely baffling is that you think crying "layman" constitutes a refutation or "muh degree" evidence.

How funny is it that every single time someone attacks your position, you cry "stawman," but then you feel the need to ward off the crows by propping up your own strawman.

Not once, not once have I ever made a claim that an appeal to authority constitutes a refutation of claims. Nor have I engaged with any of the substance of his claims and appealed to authority to overturn them.

So you're njust unable to grasp logical implications, but informal implications of language and behaviour too.

Quote
I just made the claim that Kent Hovind is not worth your time not only because he's proven to be fraudulent and manipulative, and as people will inevitably take heuristic shortcuts (especially when people don't have a basic understanding of biological terminology to even contest the claims he makes), that you are better off finding someone more trustworthy to take heuristic shortcuts.

No. You said more than that.

Quote
If you want, I can go through this video and show why his claims in this video are absolutely retarded one by one, including his claim - made in this exact video that Xavier shared - that Catholics are secretly following the path of Eve and obeying Satan's will by holding onto the line of "God became man so men could become God," but thus far, I have not attacked anything regarding the substantive content.

Will you be making appeals to authority and trustworthiness in doing so?

Quote
If a Microbiologist with a PhD gave a lecture on the translation of ribosomes within a specific bacteria sample, who in their right mind would think "hmm...I need to make sure that every single claim this man has ever said in this lecture is verifiable.

Quote
Quote
What's so laughably ass-backwards about your entire line of thought is that this "trustworthiness" based in the acquisition of academic qualifications is built upon the premise that what this man has studied, learned and produced is, in fact, true. That you then appeal to academic qualifications to establish "trustworthiness" is order accept of dismiss these very things.

To the contrary, I believe that bacteria exist because I have seen them under a microscope.


Under the assumption that you actually saw then under a microscope and you perceived them to exist.

That's not an assumption. I've seen them under a microsope, and I know this to be absolutely true given what I mean by "have seen" and "bacteria". Now, you may have incoherent, magical metaphysical views by which you selectively dismiss the phenomenological world and contents of experience from being "real", whatever that means, but I really don't give a rat's arse about those either, and my dismissal of those as nonsensical is not based in assumptions but in the raw analysis of language and meaning.


Note also how you haven't responded ot this:

What's so laughably ass-backwards about your entire line of thought is that this "trustworthiness" based in the acquisition of academic qualifications is built upon the premise that what this man has studied, learned and produced is, in fact, true. That you then appeal to academic qualifications to establish "trustworthiness" is order accept of dismiss these very things.

This is question begging. It's why appeals to academic authority are so inane.

Quote
You cannot prove anything is definitively true without assumptions;

Horsecrap.

Proposition: The following argument is valid:

1.All men are mortal.
2.Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.


Proof:

Let Px mean x is mortal, Qx x is a man, and let a denote Socrates. In 1st order logic this argument is:

1. Ax(Px->Qx)
2. Pa
3. Qa (modus ponens)

3. follows from the definition of Ax(Px->Qx), namely, given any x, if x is a P, then x is a Q. In particular, for all the Dyerite morons, the rule of inference allowing B to be inferred from premises A and A->B is not a "presupposition" but the definition of the logical connective "->".

You've been listening to too much Jay Dyer.

By the way, is

You cannot prove anything is definitively true without assumptions

Absolutely proveable, only proveable with assumptions, or not proveable at all? If the first, it's incoherent; if the others, why would I accept it?

If you actually believe this kind of epistemological relativism, we can just stop right now and cease all further communication about "truth". In which case, we might as well stop talking.

Quote
you could believe Descarte's demon is manipulating you and everything you ever perceived is false, and nobody could disprove that.

This statement is, in context of Descartes's demon, nonsensical. "True" or "false" are predicated of propositions, not of what I experience; if by "perception" you mean propositions made about experience, that is another matter.

Quote
But you would go insane otherwise, so you would have to make assumptions that your experiences are real.

"Reality" is implied in "experience"; that is what I understand by these words and their referents. What exactly is an "unreal experience"? If you have different definitions of these words, by all means, please explain to me their cognitive content and point me to their referents, most particularly to this "reality" you're invoking.

Quote
Science, more narrowly, requires uniformitarian assumptions to a substantive degree, because you could not gather data or make predictions if a demon could manipulate your measurements from what it really is.

Yawn. This is a far weaker statement of the basic inductive problem, and one that introduces metaphysical assumptions by invocation of "manipulative" demons and the words "really is".

Quote
And human society as a whole has agreed to that.

Society is an inanimate abstraction, not an agent, and can't agree to anything.

Quote
Regardless if those uniformitarian assumptions are true or not as it pertains to evolution, we would not have iPhones without assuming that circuits would always be uniformitarian in how they behave.

But an iPhone's functioning doesn't depend upon anyone's beliefs, and its construction only on local assumptions.

Quote
I contend that people who actually understand the concepts they are discussing and have studied science under the purview that it is uniformitarian for at least enough years to receive an undergraduate degree in that field are much more trustworthy than people who have demonstrated they don't understand the concepts they are talking about, have intentionally and knowingly used false information, and don't have enough exposure to science with such an assumption to work within what we define "science" to be are not trustworthy, see my argument above.

And I contend I have absolutely no need to know Kent Hovind's "trustworthiness" to consider and evaluate his videos and that people who do for "heuristic" reasons are no closer to knowing that their beliefs about his claims are true or false.

Quote
If you disagree and want to define science as a search for a Leprechaun's gold or to unplug one's self from the Matrix, go ahead, but that is a facially foolish endeavour.

What?

Quote
Quote
The notion of "winning arguments", as if the truth were some sort of competition in persuading people, is absurd. But it again unmasks your mentality.

"If I only had a brain..."

I'm not contending that.

What? You used that very expression:

Quote
Truly, if people operated on this level, anybody could win any argument by just flooding the other side with an over quantity of information regardless of their validity or soundness.

That's such a non sequitur.

Quote
I am contending that people's ability to grasp truth is fundamentally limited; see Saint Augustine's beach story:
https://olmlaycarmelites.org/reflections/mystery-trinity

People's ability to grasp reality is fundamentally limited, not least of all because much or reality is essentially and absolutely not "graspable", reduceable to concept to be analysed and "understood" by an intellect. But a "truth"?

Quote
As such, people will accept information heuristically from a "higher source" without understanding it fully.

How on earth has one "accepted" what one doesn't understand?

"Muh, I don't really know what this setence means, but I believe it's true."

That's not assent to a truth but assent to a string of words.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: christulsa on April 06, 2020, 05:45:07 PM
Heinrich, what are we going to do with Kreutzritter?   Prescribe him a kettle bell work out?  Give him a wedgy?  Take him off gluten?   I’m starting to really worry about our resident troll.  :P
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Kreuzritter on April 06, 2020, 07:53:22 PM
Heinrich, what are we going to do with Kreutzritter?   Prescribe him a kettle bell work out?  Give him a wedgy?  Take him off gluten?   I’m starting to really worry about our resident troll.  :P

I see. Attacking logical fallacies and defending the possibility of knowledge against epistemological relativism is trolling.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: christulsa on April 06, 2020, 08:24:55 PM
What about calling every other person dumb, in every other thread, month after month, in a Catholic Christian forum, because they disagree with you, and then not understanding how that fits the definition of forum troll?
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Xavier on April 07, 2020, 02:57:08 AM
Evolution's influence on Communism - Stalin became an atheist after he read Darwin, Marx was a fervent admirer of Darwin, Mao loved Darwin etc etc etc - is enough for any serious Christian who is truly anti-Communist to be anti-Evolutionist as well. Those who don't understand the dangers of evolution and why all Christians should unite against evolution as against Communism - and the millions it has killed - are greatly misled.

Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: Xavier on April 07, 2020, 03:45:23 AM
This is one on the amazing discoveries of Ron Wyatt that completely confirm the Archaeological and Biblical Record of Inspired History:


(1) Noah's Ark discovered
(2) Sodom and Gomorrah
(3) Red Sea Crossing
(4) Elim from Exodus
(5) Rephidim of Exodus
(6) Mt. Sinai from Exodus
(7) Ark of the Covenant discovered

Everything God has revealed in His Word always checks out as true whenever humanity's true knowledge advances to a point to confirm it.

There are some who for some reason still do not believe in Noah's Ark; and some others who say the global flood was only local.

Well, the holy Fathers of the Church reject such a claim, always basing their analogy to the Church as the new Ark on the fact that the Ark was the only means of deliverance from the flood at the time. Read some of the Patristic Material on St. Kolbe's Centre and you'll see Creation, Young Earth, Noah's Flood etc is basic Biblical and Patristic Doctrine.

Evangelical Creationist Christians err in not believing God on His Word about the Holy Eucharist, which He declared plainly to be His own Body and Blood, just as He declared the facts of creation. So they say they take God at His Word; and on creation they do, but on Holy Communion, as yet they do not. Most probably many of them are poorly instructed.

Catholics should be well instructed on both matters. We ought to ask Evangelical Creationists, "You say you take God at His Word? Very good. Then why do you not take Him at His Word when He declares He will give us His true flesh to eat and His true blood to drink". Those who till now were claiming they take the Bible literally will struggle answering that!
Title: Re: Creation and the Age of the Earth:
Post by: TheReturnofLive on April 09, 2020, 09:10:55 PM
I'm not ridiculing a straw man, I'm ridiculing your position.
Quote
No. You're ridiculing my position by means of a straw man.

Case in point of a straw man. I never stated 1, only that it's your mindset and that it's the problem underlying your entire approach to this issue, an approach that leaves you no wiser regarding the truth of any claim. As to 2, the only possible way of analysing such claims for veracity is by such means. Appeals to authority provide no basis for that. But I never made claim 2. Specifically, any child could see that I pointed out that you are the one looking at "trustworthiness" regarding claims that can be investigated, and should be if one is seeking to discover their truth; it is not that such claims "should" be investigated, much less all claims, but to point out the mindset that actually considers 1. as a replacement to this. That is to be contrasted with the mind that maintains skepticism in the absence of 2; that is the position of someone actually interested in truth, especially when it concerns matters that require no decision one way or the other to take action.

"You never stated 1"...I literally quoted it, from you, nearly verbatim. As with two. Since you seem to be unable to read, I have boldened and underlined your quote to compare it to my 1 and 2.

Quote
You see, there is your problem, that you operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information" regarding claims that can and should in any case be scrutinised for evidence and arguments that can be logically analysed for validity.

Quote

1. You shouldn't operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information"
2. Rather than operate on the level of looking for "trustworthy sources of information," we should analyze each claim for validity via scrutiny for evidence.

The only difference is the word "each." However, as we are both talking about the best methodology for analyzing claims, it would make no sense for you to not imply your methodology for each claim, otherwise, you would not even bother arguing the point that the best means for determining the veracity of a claim is through scrutiny and evidence over other means, such as shortcuts.

Sure, analyze each claim and its veracity, but

1. Human beings don't operate at that level on every single piece of information thrown at them.
2. Some people are not capable of analyzing the veracity of claims when there are terms, concept, and ideas that are incomprehensible due to a lack of education in the field of the hard sciences.

Therefore, someone who has demonstrably been shown to utilize false claims repeatedly but still spreads it among people who believe in such false claims, should not be spread. This "therefore" is not a logical inference, but what a reasonable person would see.

Also, it's a non-sequitur to claim that you can infer from my arguments above that I am not interested in learning the truth insofar as I am able to.

Quote
And another straw man. I've never suggested it's necessary or desirable to check "every single claim someone makes to you", and it's neither necessary nor desireable to me to know the truth of "every single claim someone makes" to me. This is another stupidity of yours which you're projecting on me. I couldn't give a rats arse about the truth status of most claims or the bulk of claims of academics. But people who depend on "trustworthiness" of academics to come to their beliefs about something like evolution are self-deluding fools who are no closer to knowing the truth of the matter than the skeptic who makes no decision one way or the other because he hasn't or can't determine it for himself.

So for each of the claims you do care to know the truth about, you never take shortcuts at all?

Also, let me be more explicit, because apparently, you don't seem to get what I'm putting down. Academics are "trustworthy" insofar as they use a restricted language with words and that have meanings and concepts that they have assigned to it and they properly understand it by, to which most of the population does not. Regardless of how you cut it, even such simplistic concepts like the "Calvin Cycle" is not a concept which the ordinary every man easily has memorized off the top of their with the heads via the definitions created and applied by academics.

Thus, they will more readily be able to actually argue with the substance of the claims.

I am not suggesting an appeal to authority for the veracity of each claim; that if an academic institution or professor makes a claim, it must be right. I'm just saying that someone who is unable to grasp the substantive concepts by which they make an argument should not be making an argument. And someone who is not educated to engage with those substantive concepts is not trustworthy, especially if they demonstrate they don't understand what they are talking about.

Again, I can go through his claims one by one.

It's dangerous for our world that someone who doesn't understand the substantive concepts they are discussing is "teaching" others ideas that they don't understand, which will lead to, for those who don't spend the time or effort to verify the veracity of each claim (which experience has shown most people don't do), heuristic shortcuts connected to confirmation bias from a seemingly authoritative source.

Quote
So you're njust unable to grasp logical implications, but informal implications of language and behaviour too.

"Informal implications of language and behavior too..."

Lol okay.

Quote
No. You said more than that.
Again, lol, okay.


Quote
That's not an assumption. I've seen them under a microsope, and I know this to be absolutely true given what I mean by "have seen" and "bacteria". Now, you may have incoherent, magical metaphysical views by which you selectively dismiss the phenomenological world and contents of experience from being "real", whatever that means, but I really don't give a rat's arse about those either, and my dismissal of those as nonsensical is not based in assumptions but in the raw analysis of language and meaning.

Try again. Your perception of bacteria does not mean that the phenomenological world exists and isn't based strictly on the raw analysis of language and meaning.


Quote
Horsecrap.

Proposition: The following argument is valid:

1.All men are mortal.
2.Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.


Proof:

Let Px mean x is mortal, Qx x is a man, and let a denote Socrates. In 1st order logic this argument is:

1. Ax(Px->Qx)
2. Pa
3. Qa (modus ponens)

3. follows from the definition of Ax(Px->Qx), namely, given any x, if x is a P, then x is a Q. In particular, for all the Dyerite morons, the rule of inference allowing B to be inferred from premises A and A->B is not a "presupposition" but the definition of the logical connective "->".

You've been listening to too much Jay Dyer.


I don't listen to Jay Dyer and haven't for like a year.

Good luck proving to me, though, the soundness of that argument. Prove to me that all men are mortal. Prove to me that Socrate is a man.

Further, prove to me the soundness of the claim that the rule of inference is always valid.

Quote
If you actually believe this kind of epistemological relativism, we can just stop right now and cease all further communication about "truth". In which case, we might as well stop talking.

No, because you and I can make assumptions to which we both agree with and then go from there. It doesn't mean we can know with absolute certainty that such assumptions are sound.


Quote
But an iPhone's functioning doesn't depend upon anyone's beliefs, and its construction only on local assumptions.

Sure, and your beliefs are constructed on local assumptions as well.