The Absurd Mantra Guy

click on image to enlarge

click on image to enlarge

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “The Absurd Mantra Guy

  1. Fellow Christians who believe in the Creator, need to stop adding to the Bible which says nothing about the age of the earth. Listen to Augustine on Genesis:Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason?

    Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions”.

    Like

    • Thanks for taking the time to leave a message, Michael. As for your quote, the only thing I can honestly say is that I’ve never been a fan of Augustine. Given his premise that the ridicule from “infidels” should guide a Christian’s speech, it would be impossible to share the Gospel or even anything related to God or the supernatural with anyone these days. For example, I’m sure that if many (not all!) of our current contemporary biologist heard someone read Genesis 1 aloud, they’d laugh it to scorn and consider the author unlearned, as Augustine said. But does that mean the bulk of biologist who mostly adhere to a naturalistic explanation for everything — even in impossible circumstances such as the origin of life — would be right and that no one should, therefore, talk about that?

      Regarding the Age of the Earth

      How do we creationists derive the age of the Earth?

      Now, I don’t want to go on a tangent, but I’m well aware of the treatment of young Earth creationists such as myself receive from well-intentioned brothers and sisters. We’re treated like a mentally ill uncle; others can know about his condition, but you don’t want anyone to talk to him and definitely don’t let anyone see or hear him in public. But I think it is important to hear the biblical and non-biblical evidence we have that brought us to our conclusions, no? After all, there are a growing number of YEC scientists, like Dr. Jason Lisle, Dr. Russ Humphreys, Dr. John Hartnett, and many others, who have real reasons for being YECs. So that is why I’ve proposed the question above.

      Thanks!

      PS – If you could leave a citation for future quotes, I’d appreciate it. I know it’s the age of Google and people just tell me to “google it” all the time, but I consider citations an expression of sincerity and kindness, though not everyone does.

      Like

      • We’re treated like a mentally ill uncle; others can know about his condition, but you don’t want anyone to talk to him and definitely don’t let anyone see or hear him in public.

        By all means talk about it in public.
        Don’t let others treat you like a mentally ill uncle.
        Nor should you treat yourself like a mentally ill uncle.
        Let’s have the number.
        How old do you think the Earth is?

        Like

      • A lot of time was devoted to the age of the Earth in the Nye/Ham debate. Surely you heard Ken state the biblical creationist position on the age of the Earth being 6,000 to 10,000 years old?

        Like

  2. None of your background examples are what Nye and other scientists mean when they talk about a theory making testable predictions. Generally it means a specific prediction that you couldn’t know if the theory wasn’t true. This isn’t the same as merely predicting ‘evidence will be found that supports my theory’, and it’s certainly not ‘here’s a theory that explains things we already know’. It needs to be specific.
    For example, predicting that we’ll find a specific type of fossil at a particular strata of rock. This presupposes several different things must be true for evolutionary science to work: that the world is many millions of years old, that rock strata genuinely layer in such a way that we know when they formed, that we can predict what kind of creatures would have lived, say, 2 million years ago, and that we can go to certain rock strata to find fossils from specific time periods.
    Bill Nye gave such examples, incredibly specific predictions that proved to be accurate that have no explanation if evolution isn’t true and if we don’t have an old earth.
    Here’s another: mitochondrial DNA isn’t subject to the same replication errors that our normal DNA. Comparing mitochondrial DNA in chimps with ours, it’s possible to predict when we had shared a common ancestor. This enabled us to predict Australopithecus, and whereabouts we’d find its fossils, and how old it would test to be. And those predictions proved completely correct.
    I’m not saying creationists have no such examples, but the ones you put on the blackboard in the cartoon don’t qualify. eg The Towers of Babel predicts we’d find different languages… we’ve always known there are different languages. Babel explains something we already see.

    Like

    • I anticipated a comment similar to this, one that took issue with the predictions on the screen not really being predictions. That is why I hid the time stamp in the tags so that those interested could go to, hear the list, and then listen to a couple of specific examples. (There are only so many words I can cram into a cartoon.)

      See if those fit your criteria…

      Like

      • I did listen Joshua – the ‘Babel/we see different languages’ prediction was taken directly from the video. Specifically, he says that at 37:56. Another prediction was ‘we see just one race of humans’. Again, both of these are based on things we already observe – we see different languages, we see one race of humans. These aren’t predictions. Ham is offering an EXPLANATION for observations.
        [That’s leaving aside that saying ‘we see one race of humans’ is pretty much begging the question, as whether or not there actually HAS only been one race of humans is one of the points of dispute between Nye and Ham – Nye would point to Neanderthals, and similar as examples countering the claim that there’s only ever been one race of humans. Also leaving aside that for centuries people cited the ‘sons of Ham’ part of the bible specifically to back up the idea of different races of humans.]

        Like

      • Have you observed DNA with your own eyes? We can’t see it , so how can you say we observe that there’s only one race even at the genetic level? (Before modern times, we hadn’t the technology to discover DNA or observe it. But someone reading the Bible would conclude that there was only one human race. Then they could predict that whatever real evidence were to be uncovered in the future would support that.)

        There has been more research done on Neanderthals. I’ll leave that to you to read.

        Yeah, I don’t doubt that people have had wrong opinions seemingly based on the Bible. The same is true about science. In the case of the sons of Ham — don’t you mean the curse of Cain? To that I’d say that there’s nothing in the text to indicate anything about skin color or that the curse applied to anyone other than Cain himself. But that’s a different issue from predictions based on the Bible.

        Like

  3. “Then they could predict that whatever real evidence were to be uncovered in the future would support that”
    As I explained above, that’s not what is meant in science by ‘testable prediction’.
    “Yeah, I don’t doubt that people have had wrong opinions seemingly based on the Bible.”
    Ham making this ‘prediction’ AFTER we have the DNA evidence that we’re all the same. The whole point of a prediction is that it’s made before. This is no better than waiting till after an event has occurred to say that Nostradamus predicted it. And as I said before, it’s not a specific thing that we couldn’t have known before, like the placing in rock strata of a particular fossil. It’s just “I predict that evidence will support my claim”, even if it the claim wasn’t made after we already had the evidence’.
    “In the case of the sons of Ham — don’t you mean the curse of Cain?”
    No, I mean the sons of Ham, who was the son of Noah. But it was just an aside, so I won’t comment further on it.

    Like

    • I can understand your point (but that doesn’t mean I agree with it). Let’s move on to this: What about the section on speciation, where Ken cites a January 2014 research report that concluded one single origin for dogs (41:00 mark)? (I’m not sure how long the speciation orchard has been part of the creationist vocabulary, but I’m pretty sure that Ken didn’t make it up that night. The concept of modern creatures in all their limited variations is reproducing only after their kinds is classic biblical language that predates DNA discovery and Ken Ham.)

      I’d also be interested to know what other creationist predictions have you heard of, outside of these few examples in the debate? And if you haven’t heard of any, you have missed some, specifically those relating to astronomy and genetics, which were demonstrably made before the fact.

      Like

  4. I’d also be interested to know what other creationist predictions have you heard of, outside of these few examples in the debate?

    What predictions?
    Creationism has to stand on it’s own merits.
    If there’s no actual predictions, then it’s a dead turkey. There’s nothing to work with.
    A scientific theory has to be useful.

    Like

    • Well, I’ll give you one: A literal interpretation of Genesis would indicate a young solar system. There should be evidence within our solar system of its youthfulness. Specifically, this would mean that certain characteristics, like those of planets within it, would be evidence of that. In 1984, creationist astrophysicist Dr. Russell Humphreys published a paper (Humphreys, D.R., The Creation of planetary magnetic fields, Creation Research Society Quarterly 21(3):140–149, 1984* [ http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html ] ) with specific predictions that we would expect in a young solar system. Details included many specifics, like the magnetic fields of various planets. In 2008, 3 (!) of his predictions related to Mercury were verified by NASA’s Messenger probe that was sent to the planet.

      http://creation.com/mercurys-magnetic-field-is-young

      Read and compare his predictions with those who propose that Mercury is billions of years old.

      *Here are the actual predictions themselves from Dr. Humphreys’ 1984 paper:

      “Evolutionists often say that creationist theories are not ‘real science’ because, they claim, such theories make no predictions which can be tested. But in this theory we have a counterexample to their claim. Here are some specific predictions of the theory which could be tested by future data from space missions:

      1. Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon’s rocks do.

      2. Mercury’s decay rate is so rapid that some future probe could detect it fairly soon. In 1990 the planet’s magnetic moment should be 1.8 percent smaller than its 1975 value.

      3. The upcoming Voyager 2 encounters with Uranus and Neptune should show planetary magnetic moments less than the k = 1.0 limit: 8.2 x 1025 J/T for Uranus and 9.7 x 1025 J/T for Neptune.”

      Like

  5. “Evolutionists often say that creationist theories are not…

    Two problems here.
    “Evolutionists” (??) and Mercury? That’s just wierd.
    Then there’s “creationist theories.”
    What creationist theories?

    Read and compare his predictions with those who propose that Mercury is billions of years old.

    Ok.
    What’s the best methodology for doing that?
    How did you do it?

    In 2008, 3 (!) of his predictions related to Mercury were verified by NASA’s Messenger probe that was sent to the planet.

    The problem is that if everything is supposed to be 6000 years old or 60 years old or whatever, then you not expect only three predictions.
    Let’s assume that your analysis is perfectly correct.
    He got three right.
    That’s great but it doesn’t amount to much. You have to also look at the tonnes of other stuff that doesn’t fit. Otherwise you are cherry picking and cherry-picking some very obscure stuff at that.
    That’s not me making up some special rule just to be nasty nor am I arbitrarily applying only in the case of the creationist.

    It’s not enough to find something that fits and then declare victory.
    You’ve got to cover a wider area than that.
    There has to be consistancy.

    Check this out.
    See if you spot anything familiar.
    If your side does it then their side gets to do it too.

    Expanding Earth Theory in The Quran – Miracle of scientific predictions

    Like

    • Well, sorry, I’m not responding to any of the additional charges you’ve made; they move beyond the topic, which is creationists’ predictions. I’ve provide one (or 3) of many examples that creationist scientist do make predictions and that sometimes they are right. That is enough to show that the assertion by Bill Nye et al. that creationists don’t make predictions is false. And that’s all I wanted to do with this cartoon.

      Thank you for your time, Cedric.

      Like

  6. Well, sorry, I’m not responding to any of the additional charges you’ve made; they move beyond the topic, which is creationists’ predictions.
    Science makes predictions. It’s not a guessing game.
    A scientific theory has to be useful.
    Neither Andrew or myself accept that there’s any actual scientific predictions going on.
    Nor does the scientific community.
    It’s not your conclusions that are important; it’s your methodology.
    You seem to be very unwilling to reveal yours.
    Read and compare his predictions with those who propose that Mercury is billions of years old.
    No idea how you did this.

    Like

    • I showed you evidence of creationist making predictions. Your first reaction was, “Only three?” Now it is, “Those aren’t scientific predictions.” Then later, “Conclusions aren’t important”, contradictory statements which, I think, make a joke of this entire thread and Nye’s contention that creationists don’t make predictions. If they’re not important (and Nye would certainly disagree), then at the very least you’ve been shown that creationist do make predictions.

      But these responses show me that I’m engaged in a conversation where no evidence is going to be accepted and every explanation will be deemed evasion. I, for one, am not interested in such a dialog.

      Like

      • Joshua, you are not getting this whole prediction thing.
        Science makes predictions.
        Really.
        Your examples are flawed.
        I’m trying to explain that you. There’s no need to get snakey.
        You don’t have to accept my word for it, you know.
        The scientific community doesn’t accept them as predictions either.
        But these responses show me that I’m engaged in a conversation where no evidence is going to be accepted and every….
        You are prematurely reaching for martyrdom.
        There’s no need to deliberately short-circuit a civil dialogue like that.
        Why can’t you have an honest and open exchange of ideas?
        Are your beliefs that preciously fragile that you have to censor and run away?
        It sets a bad precedent and it will not get any better with time.
        (I couldn’t help but notice that my question to you on what you think the age of the Earth has yet to appear. What’s the deal with that? If Ken doesn’t have a problem with spitting out a number and if you agree with Ken, then…why not be honest about it? Either you sit next to the mentally ill uncle or you don’t.)

        Like

      • Claim: “Your examples are flawed.”

        OK, Cedric, prove it. As much as I hate to see someone drown virtually, let’s see you prove that Dr. Humphreys’ predictions are (1) not predictions; (2) not scientific.

        Note: I’m not running away from anything. What a dumb thing to say! I’ve got a bunch of work to do. So my apologies to your inflated sense of self-importance, but responding to spiteful, cynical comments isn’t high on my list of priorities.

        PS – I’ve already answered your age of the Earth question even after kindly reminding you that the thread is about creationists’ predictions. Sheesh!

        Like

      • OK, Cedric, prove it.

        It’s…your claim.
        I’m just the messenger that is pointing out that the scientific community doesn’t regard those “predictions” as actual scientific predictions.
        I’m willing to read your point of view and fairly examine your methodology.
        Only you have to give a little.

        I’ve got a bunch of work to do.

        Well, so do I.
        Shouldn’t you treat me with the same courtesy that you demand for yourself?
        Yet if that was the reason why I didn’t want to respond to you then I’d tell you that straight up. I wouldn’t just complain about how you are never going to accept any evidence.

        …responding to spiteful, cynical comments…

        Oh stop it. We both know that I have been very civil in this exchange.
        Haven’t said one harsh word to you.

        What I have done is ask you to share your methodology.
        You seem very unwilling to do that.

        Read and compare his predictions with those who propose that Mercury is billions of years old.

        Remember this?
        Well, I don’t see how his predictions even count as scientific predictions.
        I can understand how meteorological predictions work.
        Geological predictions too.
        Predictions in biology seem pretty straightforward too.
        They all work the same way.

        Dr Humphrey’s “predictions”? Not so much.
        Yet you accept them.
        You have clearly read and compared his predictions with the rest of the scientific community that says that Mercury and all the rest of it is billions of years old.

        So share.
        Share your comparisons.
        Share your methodology.
        I don’t see it myself.
        Yet maybe you can point out what the scientific community is missing.

        I’ve already answered your age of the Earth

        (checks thread)

        Can’t see it myself.
        You talked about Ken.

        I’m just asking you (as in “you Joshua”) how old you think the Earth is?
        Can you give a number?
        Or are you just going to make more of my posts vanish?

        Then later, “Conclusions aren’t important”, contradictory statements which, I think, make a joke of this entire thread…

        No. It seems you don’t understand why I wrote that “Conclusions aren’t important”. Let me help you with that.

        My full comment was…”It’s not your conclusions that are important; it’s your methodology.”

        Like

      • You could’ve used fewer words to tell us that you’re not going to provide any evidence for your claim that Dr. Humphreys’ predictions are neither predictions nor scientific. I’ve given you and readers evidence — in the form of predictions and methods recorded in a research paper and an article — that, contrary to the assertion, creationist scientists do make predictions and — Gasp! — sometimes they’re right.

        One more chance: Prove it. Let’s see you prove that Dr. Humphreys’ predictions are (1) not predictions; (2) not scientific.

        If you don’t won’t or can’t, then stop wasting yours and my time with half-hearted assertions and false accusations, OK?

        PS – Your two comments on the age of the Earth were thrown in the garbage bin. And, no, I’ve got nothing to hide. If I did, I wouldn’t mention it here. The idea is: To most reasonable people, once a question has been answered, they would stop asking it. (Look way up there in the thread!)

        Like

  7. …your claim that Dr. Humphreys’ predictions are neither predictions nor scientific.

    I’m rejecting the claim.
    I’m not making one of my own.

    I don’t see how Dr Humphrey’s “predictions” stack up.
    Neither does the scientific community.
    You can’t shift the burden of proof like that.
    It’s dishonest.

    ….in the form of predictions….

    No.
    That’s the claim.
    It’s not evidence of the claim.

    …in a research paper and an article…

    I don’t see it.
    Why do you give such a paper credibility? How do you know that it’s worth the paper that it’s written on?
    Predictions are not just wild guesses. You don’t seem to understand this.

    …stop wasting yours and my time with half-hearted assertions and false accusations, OK

    What are you talking about? If I’ve made false accusations then present them.
    Quote me.
    It’s the same thing with me being spiteful.
    Quote me being spiteful.
    I can’t be fairer than that.

    Read and compare his predictions with those who propose that Mercury is billions of years old.

    These are your words.
    I asked you to present your methodology so that I could “Read and compare his predictions with those who propose that Mercury is billions of years old”.
    Yet you don’t.
    Nothing spiteful there.
    Nothing that would suggest that I’m not willing to accept any “evidence or that every explanation will be deemed evasion”.
    You just clam up. It looks bad.

    If I’m wrong in my methodology then show me how you have the better method. It’s not like I’m deleting or ignoring your comments. I can leave that to you.

    Your two comments on the age of the Earth were thrown in the garbage bin. And, no, I’ve got nothing to hide.

    No, of course you don’t.
    People throw comments into the garbage bin all the time when they’ve got nothing to hide.
    Sure.
    Shame on you.

    All I asked you was what you though the age of the Earth was.
    That sets you off.

    (Look way up there in the thread!)

    Already did.
    You don’t seem to be able to just spit out a direct answer.
    Ken’s answer?
    That you give.
    But not yours.

    I can understand you not wanting to sound like a “mentally ill uncle” (your description-not mine) but…surely you should have the integrity to give a plain answer to what you truly belie about something so mundane as the age of the Earth?
    It can’t be that hard.

    Look, I’ll go first, ok?
    Ready?

    Q: Cedric, how old do you think the age of the Earth is?
    A: Oh, about 4.5 billion years. Just like the scientific community says so.

    See?
    Easy stuff.
    Heck, to show you what a good sport I am, I’ll even repeat my answer in plain English for you any time you want me to.
    No bother at all.

    (…waits patiently…)

    Like

    • OK, Cedric. Last response to you. Once again, you’ve made contradictory statements. You said:

      I don’t see how Dr Humphrey’s “predictions” stack up.
      Neither does the scientific community.

      Later on, after I pointed out that I left both a research paper and an article (both written by Dr. Humphreys) you candidly admitted (thanks for your honesty):

      I don’t see it.

      Really? You don’t see the links I left? Well, they’re both still up there in the thread. Are you being willingly ignorant or lazy or both? How can someone see that predictions “don’t […] stack up” when they don’t even read the predictions and their relevant data?!

      Now, I could make a list of your half-hearted assertions (you don’t really care what I’ve got to say, just be honest enough to admit it) and false accusations — like (1) I only told you Ken Ham’s stance on the age of the Earth (when, in fact, I told you what I and all YECs believe about the age of the Earth); (2) I’m running away (for some unknown reason); (3) there’s a conspiracy to hide “something” (whatever it is) because I deleted two of your comments in which asked the same question (about the age of the Earth after I had already answered it) — but that would be just a waste of time. I gave you considerate replies addressing the topic of the thread, which was creationists’ predictions, hoping to get the favor returned. Yet even after all that, you keep trying to hijack the thread and make it about other things. What a dishonest and disingenuous method of interaction!

      I don’t have time for such nonsense. Sorry, Cedric. You’ll have to go somewhere else to get that itch scratched.

      But enough of about you. Instead, I’ll encourage the more sincere among the readership to go investigate these matters. Find out what determines a scientific prediction. Read Dr. Humphreys’ predictions. Read other creationists’ predictions. Don’t just waste your time by leaving cynical, insincere comments and rants online. These things are too important.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s