Answers in Genesis and technology
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2017, 11:27 AM
Answers in Genesis and technology
I was a bit shocked to see a congratulatory message to an Answers in Genesis employee in my Linkedin feed this morning. Evidently someone who has linked to me decided that the father of an AiG employee who congratulated his daughter on her promotion at the Creation Museum saw fit to post this fact on Linkedin.

I must say I thought this was the sort of thing you might see on Facebook rather than Linkedin but then nothing should surprise me these days.

Realising that AiG does have some of its employees on Linkedin I thought I'd do a bit of digging. It turns out they have SHEDLOADS of web developers and web content developers with profiles on Linkedin.

Funny isn't it. AiG want their followers to believe that all the scientists are wrong about the age of the earth even though the science that produces such data reliably powers all our amazing modern technology and provides so many AiG staff with jobs. How can modern technology work so well when the science behind it is all wrong?

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Silly Deity's post
09-02-2017, 11:46 AM
RE: Answers in Genesis and technology
Because they 'selectively' science? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 12:06 PM
RE: Answers in Genesis and technology
(09-02-2017 11:27 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Funny isn't it. AiG want their followers to believe that all the scientists are wrong about the age of the earth even though the science that produces such data reliably powers all our amazing modern technology and provides so many AiG staff with jobs. How can modern technology work so well when the science behind it is all wrong?

The science that produces our technology and the "science" that proves the earth is old are two entirely different things. Science produces hypotheses and tests them experimentally to see if they are correct. One result of this process is technology. This process doesn't work when trying to determine the age of the earth because there is no way to test the results. Scientists who say the earth is old assume that all of the physical processes we see going on today have always been going on and they calculate how long it would take to produce the earth we see today. They reject the belief that God has ever intervened in the processes. If this assumption is wrong then all of the conclusions based on it are wrong.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 12:27 PM
RE: Answers in Genesis and technology
(15-02-2017 12:06 PM)theophilus Wrote:  The science that produces our technology and the "science" that proves the earth is old are two entirely different things.
No they are not.

Technology is simply applied science. The proven explanatory framework known as the scientific theory of evolution has produced applied science of its own, which you benefit from on a daily basis. It is the basis of understanding things like antibiotic resistance, treating genetic disorders, and a slew of applications to computer technology. Evolutionary / natural selection principles are used widely in biology outside the realm of evolution itself.
(15-02-2017 12:06 PM)theophilus Wrote:  Science produces hypotheses and tests them experimentally to see if they are correct.
It tests them in a number of ways including experimentally. Not all things are amenable to laboratory experiments. We cannot conduct experiments inside black holes or within stars or directly examine the soil of exoplanets. That doesn't mean that the scientific method isn't being used to determine what is currently known about those things or that what is being studied is not constrained by the scientific method in order to control for confirmation bias and the like.
(15-02-2017 12:06 PM)theophilus Wrote:  This process doesn't work when trying to determine the age of the earth because there is no way to test the results.
By that logic, we can't know that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the US because we don't have time machine to go back and verify it.
(15-02-2017 12:06 PM)theophilus Wrote:  Scientists who say the earth is old assume that all of the physical processes we see going on today have always been going on and they calculate how long it would take to produce the earth we see today.
That is the more economical assumption that to assert without evidence either that the world was created to LOOK AS IF these processes have always gone on and at the same rates, or that these rates were somehow accelerated by the magic powers of an invisible being.
(15-02-2017 12:06 PM)theophilus Wrote:  They reject the belief that God has ever intervened in the processes. If this assumption is wrong then all of the conclusions based on it are wrong.
You are correct that they reject that belief, because it is unjustified and unsubstantiated in any way. But then you pivot to calling it an "assumption" that might be "wrong". It is of course the rational default not to afford belief to things that aren not substantiated (and often, not substantiatable) but it is not simply a haphazard assumption with no evidence in its favor either.

Like it or not, technology (applied science) works -- even the technology that arises from our understanding of evolution. Because it works, we can deduce reasonably that the underlying science is substantively correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like mordant's post
15-02-2017, 12:42 PM
RE: Answers in Genesis and technology
(15-02-2017 12:06 PM)theophilus Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 11:27 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Funny isn't it. AiG want their followers to believe that all the scientists are wrong about the age of the earth even though the science that produces such data reliably powers all our amazing modern technology and provides so many AiG staff with jobs. How can modern technology work so well when the science behind it is all wrong?

The science that produces our technology and the "science" that proves the earth is old are two entirely different things. Science produces hypotheses and tests them experimentally to see if they are correct. One result of this process is technology. This process doesn't work when trying to determine the age of the earth because there is no way to test the results. Scientists who say the earth is old assume that all of the physical processes we see going on today have always been going on and they calculate how long it would take to produce the earth we see today. They reject the belief that God has ever intervened in the processes. If this assumption is wrong then all of the conclusions based on it are wrong.

So when EVIDENCE is produced from multiple sources of the Earth having an age far older than then a few thousand years old, would it not be reasonable to assume that the book that implies this age isn't a very good source for truth?

When EVIDENCE shows that languages aren't of supernatural origin as portrayed in Genesis, wouldn't that be reasonable to assume that the book that implies this isn't a very good source of truth?

When EVIDENCE shows that it is impossible for a serpent to talk, wouldn't that be reasonable to assume that the book that implies this isn't a very good source of truth?

When EVIDENCE shows that it's impossible to have a mass extinction event (Noah's flood) around 4300 years ago and have the current diversity of life or populations in each of these groups in such short a time, wouldn't that be reasonable to assume that the book that implies this isn't a very good source of truth?

When the ENTIRE geologic column refutes the flood myth, wouldn't that be reasonable to assume that the book that states this isn't a very good source of truth?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
16-02-2017, 08:54 AM
RE: Answers in Genesis and technology
There is scientific evidence that shows the earth isn't as old as most people think, but most ignore it. You can find some of this evidence here:

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2016/0...ng-navels/

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 08:57 AM
RE: Answers in Genesis and technology
(16-02-2017 08:54 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There is scientific evidence that shows the earth isn't as old as most people think, but most ignore it. You can find some of this evidence here:

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2016/0...ng-navels/

Why isn't this evidence published in science? Why is that this sort of "evidence" is always published in blogs and through non-science and religious sources?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
16-02-2017, 12:24 PM
RE: Answers in Genesis and technology
(16-02-2017 08:54 AM)theophilus Wrote:  There is scientific evidence that shows the earth isn't as old as most people think, but most ignore it. You can find some of this evidence here:

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2016/0...ng-navels/

The first point in that article: Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

Ocean Floor Sediment as a Creationist Clock

Mainstream scientists contend that the present amount of sediment on the ocean floor does not conflict with the generally accepted age of Earth. According to David E. Thomasm (1998), Humphrey's proposed geologic clock is overly simplistic and involves a misunderstanding of sedimentary processes. He writes:

The depth of sediments on the ocean bottom is not a uniform 400 meters, but varies considerably. And much sediment never gets to the ocean floor, but is trapped instead on continental slopes and shelves, or in huge river deltas. Over the years, some of these continental slopes can accumulate several kilometers of sediment, while others can even become part of mountain ranges in continental plate-to-plate collisions. Neither erosion nor subduction are expected to be constant processes over millions of years, and they are simply not good clocks. Humphrey's strawman ocean floor does not prove the Earth is young.


The article referenced goes on to state:

An additional problem for the old-earth view is that no evidence exists of much sediment being subducted and mixed into the mantle.

This is simply a lie:

Crustal recycling

One group of researchers was able to estimate that between 5 and 10% of the upper mantle is composed of recycled crustal material.[16] Kokfelt et al. completed an isotopic examination of the mantle plume under Iceland and found that erupted mantle lavas incorporated lower crustal components, confirming crustal recycling at the local level.

Some carbonatite units, which are associated with immiscible volatile-rich magmas and the mantle indicator mineral diamond, have shown isotopic signals for organic carbon, which could only have been introduced by subducted organic material. The work done on carbonatites by Walter et al. and others further develops the magmas at depth as being derived from dewatering slab material.


And we see that the article that makes the claim that "no evidence exists of much sediment being subducted and mixed into the mantle. " was written by "Dr." Andrew Snelling, a creationist shill that plays deceptive games, hiding his own insane creationist views when it could be detrimental to his career.

Will the real Dr. Snelling Please Stand Up?

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
01-03-2017, 04:00 PM
RE: Answers in Genesis and technology
(15-02-2017 12:06 PM)theophilus Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 11:27 AM)Silly Deity Wrote:  Funny isn't it. AiG want their followers to believe that all the scientists are wrong about the age of the earth even though the science that produces such data reliably powers all our amazing modern technology and provides so many AiG staff with jobs. How can modern technology work so well when the science behind it is all wrong?

The science that produces our technology and the "science" that proves the earth is old are two entirely different things. Science produces hypotheses and tests them experimentally to see if they are correct. One result of this process is technology. This process doesn't work when trying to determine the age of the earth because there is no way to test the results. Scientists who say the earth is old assume that all of the physical processes we see going on today have always been going on and they calculate how long it would take to produce the earth we see today. They reject the belief that God has ever intervened in the processes. If this assumption is wrong then all of the conclusions based on it are wrong.

What a crock of shit; science is science. Only theists like yourself think there is some kind of "real" science and "faith" science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2017, 05:38 PM
RE: Answers in Genesis and technology
Quote: Science produces hypotheses and tests them experimentally to see if they are correct. One result of this process is technology.

You're still an idiot, Theo.

[Image: c49f35af689a07e582af1179f7de444f.jpg]

When science develops a principle it is engineers who turn it into technology. When religion does anything it usually involves a dead goat or a fucked altar boy.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: