Peanut Gallery for the Keys/RAZD Debate

The position that Simple has presented so far is somewhat confusing. A quick summary and I begin to find this reality to be very disturbing.

• Trees once grew rings that appear to represent years, but could in fact represent minutes/hours.
• Ice layers formed in such a way that they mimic yearly growth in seconds/minutes.
• Parent/Daughter elements where created in a perfect balance in a short time to exactly match decay rates found today.
• Ice and trees formed in such a way that some layers/rings appear to have experienced a similar event (eg. volcano) but did not.
• Pollen and dust settled differently in this past state. Though falling very rapidly it mirrored present day yearly patterns in the previously rapid forming glaciers.
• Some different form of light was able to travel at miraculous speeds across the universe only to slow down to a paltry 3x10(8)m/sec as it got close to Earth. From this point it became actual light.
• This different light from a past state carries information to us about the present. Exploding stars that appear to be more than 4500 light years away must be visible to us via this different light, yet stars where eternal in this past state - so it must be a present state event carried by past state light.
• Molecules and atoms behaved differently in this past state. The "laws of physics" did not apply is this past state.

Though he asserts that this past state/present state boundary was around 4500 years ago this event could have happened at any time. The assertions he makes about Razd's evidence can also be made about his own.The most likely time of this past state/ present state event is 1976. I see no reason, based on Simples logic, to assume that reality existed before my birth. If it did exist, then it was likely a different reality meant only to establish a history for my reality to be based upon. I would prefer this to not be true, but Simple has shown that disproving evidence of the past is actually quite... simple

I agree with your sentiments entirely.I would be interested to see any evidence Simple thinks he has for the occurance of his so-called "past state". I don't recall him having advanced any. I may have missed it among the stuff he has posted.If he has none, he has a nerve criticizing any other accounts of the past.

Simple's latest reply is Message 66.Here's a good question, one that should have been answered before the debate started: how does one have a meaningful debate when both scientific and Biblical evidence are given equal weight?I'm not going to try to answer that question, but I do have a comment. If scientific evidence carries equal weight with implications drawn from the Bible, only a stalemate is possible.I'm not sure what Simple means when he keeps repeating that RAZD can't prove anything, and that his position is just a bunch of assumptions. If by this he means that RAZD can't demonstrate that his claims are inescapable and unassailable facts, then I agree, and so would RAZD. RAZD can only show that his positions are supported by evidence. That's what the process of science attempts to do.By the same token, Simple cannot demonstrate that his own claims are inescapable and unassailable, but unlike RAZD, he cannot support his position with evidence. This is the key difference that others have noted but that I think RAZD has failed to exploit. Having provided more than sufficient evidence in support his position, RAZD can now move on to drawing attention to the dramatic lack of evidence from Simple, and to inquiring of Simple as to its whereabouts.Simple's evidence will boil down to faith and the Bible, and to those for whom this is a persuasive argument nothing more can be said. Certainly providing more evidence to ignore isn't going to change any minds. I think this is why so many of us have concluded that there's little justification for continuing this debate.If Simple's arguments in his last message make sense, I was no more able to figure them out than I have been in the past, but I will note a few things of a factual nature.First, the article Simple cites, Supernova's light curve baffles scientists - supernova 1987A, is from the October 19, 1991, issue of Science News. I believe supernova 1987A is still a mystery today 16 years later, but we do understand far more now than we did then.Second, though Simple doesn't provide a citation, his next excerpt comes from Variable Star Of The Month - March, 2001: Supernova 1987A, an article at the website of the American Association of Variable Star Observers. This article is from about six years ago, and reflects the greatly improved understanding we have of 1987A in the 10 years since the 1991 Science News article.Simple makes it difficult to tell which are his own words and which are excerpts from the article, but his excerpt contains two errors, and the errors are the article's, not Simple's.

1. The half life of ⁵⁶Ni is 6 days, not 7.
   ​
2. The half life of ⁵⁶Co is 77 days, not 111.

I don't know why Simple thinks these excerpts support his position - he doesn't make that clear.--Percy

Simple hasn't made anything clear. I think RAZD should ask simple to explain in much more detail just what his hypothesis is. RAZD has touched on that a bit but hasn't focussed on it. simple makes things up from sentence to sentence and has no coherent thoughts on just what he is proposing.I think it comes down to this: (simple's proposal)
God twists and turns everything so it looks just like the scientific explanation is correct (rings, layers, decay etc.) but none of it was actually like it looks.
In other words, as we have seen over and over, when simple is pinned down he makes his little poltergeist god into a lying slight of hand artist. To a real Christian simple is blasphemer and a deluded follower of Loki.

RAZD has posted a response (Message 67), and it includes some good arguments, but I want to focus on his rebuttal of what Simple cited from the 1991 article Supernova's light curve baffles scientists - supernova 1987A. Simple's excerpt included speculations about ⁵⁷Co, and RAZD rebutted it, but I don't think there's any point to doing that because I doubt very much that Simple understood the article.Simple cited that article because he believes it supports his contention that science is all wet when it tries to analyze events from long ago and far away. Not understanding science, he thinks that scientific mysteries and changes in scientific opinions indicate that science is invalid for studying certain things, especially distant, ancient events. But stories like that about supernova 1987A are nearly perfect illustrations of the nature of scientific discovery, where we were very puzzled back in 1991, had learned much more by 2001, and by 2004 we understood the reasons for the previously unexplained drop off in visible light. The need for the speculated neutron star back in 1991, the fact that it hadn't been found being something Simple had complained about, had disappeared by 2004.On the frontiers of science there will always be puzzles and mysteries, and reporters and authors will always seek out the unusual, because the reading public seeks novelty. Simple will always have a wealth of things we don't understand to offer up as examples proving that, in his mind, science is bogus, but that to everyone else only indicate what was already obvious, that we don't know everything and we never will. Science has never promised instant answers to all questions, which is what Simple seems to want. All science does is ensure that we know more than yesterday but not as much as tomorrow, and it's ironic that Simple chose an example in supernova 1987A that makes this so very clear.--Percy

Percy/All,I think another point not pursued hard enough by RAZD was that he produced evidence that corroborated dates with methods based upon different assumptions. This is evidence that the laws of physics were the same as today at least at those dates.In other words, RAZD has produced evidence that simple's ad hoc bollocks is exactly that. Simple has produced nothing but ad hoc argumentation that is grossly hypocritical in that it actually is based on no evidence whatsoever, let alone evidence with question marks over other assumptions made.Absolutely shameful.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This is the crux of Simple's argument! Discussing anything with him is really a wasting of time. Anytime RAZD demonstrates a convincing conclusion based on different lines of reasoning and evidence, Simple will predictably duck down this rabbit hole with his fingers firmly rammed into ear canal shouting his mantra "the past was different and you can't prove it". Short of having a time machine you may as well bang your head against the wall.His premise is that if you cannot observe past conditions directly you can never make any conclusions of past or predict the future. Of course this is false, we know all sorts of things about the past based on the evidence and not direct experience. . We know the earth experienced an ice age recently (geologically speaking) based on evidence not direct observation. We know that Yellowstone area is one giant caldera based on examined evidence, not directly observation, and that it sits on a hot spot that is moving north-east based on assembled evidence. We know that very very distantly in the past earth days were shorter and there were more days in the years past based on tidal tidal rhythmites and coral rings and not direct observation.Simple is just arguing for the sake of arguing and for some misplaced allegiance and pride. It is ironic that Creationist routinely deny the creation.

Raz has produced reams and reams and reams of independently corroborated evidence that all lead to the conclusion that the earth and the universe are very old.Although this is indisputably the correct method from any scientific point of view I can't help thinking that it is not the best way of tackling the creationist viewpoint purely in terms of debating tactics.The detailed presentations of evidence are frankly a bit wasted on Simple, and more generally his fellow, often scientifically illiterate, creationist colleagues as well.Yes - Any such debate can be considered a spectacle for the viewing public and Raz's tactics have led to some exceptionally educational material being presented. However I think with his highly detailed presentations of evidence he is effectively preaching to the converted.Most creationists will not wade through the lengthy and detailed arguments. As such Simple's protestations that all of Raz's data is based on the assumption that things in the past were the same as they are now and that this cannot possibly be known, will seem a perfectly legitimate complaint.How can Raz make simply and concisely clear that all the different independently corroborated evidences he has already presented point to the same conclusions - both regarding the ages of the Earth/universe and the constancy of the physical factors involved??Purely as a debating tactic I think Raz should keep it simple (no pun intended) and stick to the evidences already presented from this point on.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I agree. There's no point in continuing to add to the pile of ignored evidence.You ask this question: Not possible in my opinion. RAZD should recognize that the debate is essentially over, that it was never actually a debate in the first place, and should instead simply offer a short summary noting that Simple hasn't been able to offer any evidence to support his claims.--Percy

You are correct. If the purpose of the debate is to be a recorded public spectacle, then just keep it simple as the typical YECer will not read past several posts and the mud slinging.RAZD had him on the ropes with the "countable tree rings". I think he needed to just keep repeating the facts .... There are countable tree rings on a single tree that extend over 4 centuries past the biblical flood date. Simple asked for clarification at one point and I think he should have just repeated and clarified. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

I still think that there is an opportunity to expose Simple's position for what it is to a wider audience.A casual observer of the debate so far, I fear, would grasp the gist of Raz's various evidences but feel that all this overwhelming detail counts for little if, as simple asserts, it is all based on the implicit and unaccounted-for assumption that physical laws and phenomenon have remained constant and unchanged.As things stand it would take quite a lot of effort on the part of the reader to work out why this is not quite the case.Raz, as we all know from this thread and numerous others, is excellent at presenting detailed evidence and analysis.However what is now required, in my opinion, is a concise and simple explanation, referring to the evidence already presented where necessary, as to.....Why -1) It is reasonable to assume that physical laws and phenomenon have remained constant
2) Independently corroborated evidences point overwhelmingly to this conclusion and hence to the old age of the Earth/universe.
3) Predictions are the most rigorous test of any theory and that those discussed in the detailed evidences already presented point overwhelmingly both to the constancy of physical laws and the old age of the Earth/universe
4) The alternatives which have been implied, but not properly presented, by Simple lead to inherently contradictory physical laws which remain unobserved, uncorroborated and which are impossible to test by prediction.In this way Simple's position can be slowly chipped away until all he has left is undisguised denial.For the wider audience, if not the challenge of doing so, I think this would be worthwhile.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Simple's most recent reply is Message 76.Simple should be credited for his efforts to muster evidence for his position, but whereas before he offered an article from 1991, now he's offering one from 1988, less than a year after the discovery of supernova 1987A. Even less was known in 1988 than in 1991. He seems to believe that speculations offered in 1988 in some way invalidate the data gathered since that time, as well as the conclusions based upon that data. I think we can all agree with this. Simple's arguments are now following two tracks. One track, and it's the right track, is when he attempts to argue that evidence has been misinterpreted and actually points to a young universe. The problem with this approach is that he hasn't found any such evidence yet.But the other track is just, "The universe was different back then, in whatever ways necessary for the Biblical account to be true."--Percy