NationStates Jolt Archive

You cannot rule out creation, at that rate, because who knows, perhaps science will find god, or the easter bunny!!!


The irony is - as Dem says, this is a 'god of gaps' argument.

You are claiming that the flaws in the established theory somehow open the door to something, and you constantly insist this 'something' might be either Biblical creationism or it's slightly dishonest pupper, Intelligent Design.

Ironic, because... since we are 'proving things' through absence.. the Easter Bunny is at least as likely as Jehovah God.

Until you get it, you are going to sound like you are deliberately not comprehending any other view point but your own.



You might want to take this on board yourself. You are the most intellectually dishonest debater I have ever come across.

The irony is - as Dem says, this is a 'god of gaps' argument.

You are claiming that the flaws in the established theory somehow open the door to something, and you constantly insist this 'something' might be either Biblical creationism or it's slightly dishonest pupper, Intelligent Design.

Ironic, because... since we are 'proving things' through absence.. the Easter Bunny is at least as likely as Jehovah God.

Or Vishnu :D

You seemingly have missed out on the whole theory of plate movements and modern geology. They explain why all of the above has happened.

Do they? So the arctic plate has moved there, carrying the oil with it? Which of your plate movement theories asserts that? Last time I checked, the arctic plate was supposed to be relatively stationary.


We shouldn't derive conclusions from one piece of evidence, but when independent measures of age match up then it's a fair bet that they're accurate; the only other possibilities are that they're both independently wrong while still coming to the same result (very unlikely) or that they're not independent (in which case the burden of proof is on the Young Earther to show how they're linked).

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.gif

The graph shows a tight correlation between C14 dating and varves; we wouldn't expect that if they were both independently wrong. The Young Earth Creationist doesn't just have to show how individual dating methods could be wrong, they also have to provide a plausible explanation for how they could all be wrong while getting the same result.

I would say that you have a fair point. The young earth creationist does have his work cut out for him. Of course, I can easily imagine that since both estimations are based on uniformitarian assumptions, we shouldn't be too surprised about the uniformitarian answers. And that's probably the first place the young earth scientist would look. But then again, I haven't personally looked at the data.


'Macro evolution' is simply 'micro evolution' over a long period of time. If a fossilised homo sapien, or a rabbit, or a porcupine, or just about anything other than a primitive jellyfish or a sponge was found in precambrian strata then this would conclusively falsify evolution.


I suggest that if a rabbit fossil was found in a precambrian strata, the strata would be reclassified, either as cambrian, or just hopelessly scrambled. That has already happened far too many times to falsify evolution.

That you are proposing that macroevolution is simply microevolution over a long period of time suggest that you think there is nothing wrong with the concept of lots of tiny little undirected mutations occurring over long periods of time producing elephants from yeast cells. If the experts also thought that, they wouldn't have come up with all sorts of speculative theories, such as punctuated equilibrium, which is pretty widely accepted (partly because it explains an incomplete fossil record), but which has zip evidence, an no mechanism which would explain it.


You've said several times that you're a scientist, so you should know that it isn't the quantity of claims that's important, it's the evidence behind them. However much Creationists complain, they have yet to explain why the fossil record shows such a clear progression from simple life to complex life.

It isn't complete. If it was, you would have every variant from a bacterium to an elephant. It's very much incomplete, with most of the species showing very little change, if any. Of course, that is all explained in terms of evolutionary theory, by such concepts as punctuated equilibrium and the rarity of fossilization. But that is precisely the objection of the creationists. The evolutionary explanations lack the support of evidence. True, the creationists are also finding it difficult to make sense of it all. Much of the origins will probably be always difficult to understand. But the claim that the fossil record shows a clear progression from simple to complex life just isn't true.


Why haven't homosapiens been found in the same layer as dinosaurs? Why is grass pollen found in every single layer after the Cretacious but in none of the layers before that?

People who have studied the layers have found that there is not even one location on earth that has each layer in exactly the right place, containing exactly the right fossils. When the layers appear to be disrupted, then things like ancient earthquakes or volcanos or floods are invoked as causes that have upset the disorder. If you have the impression that the layers are decidedly in support of the evolutionary theory, I suggest that you have probably only ever read pro-evolution literature. Read the other side.



These are all discoveries which evolution predicts and which conclusively falsify the Genesis Flood. We can also observe 'macro-evolution' through genetic comparisons such as the one I posted earlier and in the light of this overwhelming evidence it's entirely reasonable to extrapolate from an observed mechanism.

The Genesis Flood cannot be falsified. What can be falsified is predictions based on what you think a huge flood might do. If you falsify your own predictions, it might mean that you have failed to accurately predict what the flood would do. How would you know? The only way is to repeat it, and then observe it.

The mechanisms for microevolution are understood. It consists of mutations and natural selection. We can observe it, repeat it, manipulate it, etc. But we cannot find any good models by which the mechanisms for microevolution can be made to satisfy the requirements of macroevolution. It might work at the blackboard level. But if you look at the tiny molecular details, if falls hopelessly short.

Until such time, the extrapolation is unjustifiable. It lacks evidence.



Creationists say that geological strata were laid down by the Flood.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...-Horseshoe.jpg

So presumably the raging flood waters came pouring down, cutting an enormous groove in the Earth, before performing a hand-brake turn and heading back the way it came. Anyone care to explain this?

The trouble is that no one really knows exactly what to expect from a global flood. We have never observed one. For example, in some places there might have been a raging flood, in other places, it might have left a huge lake that leaked, and eventually the leak turned into a small flood, some time after the main event. That could easily have explained the horseshoe in your picture, particularly if the rushing water followed a fault line.

Have you ever wondered how the Grand Canyon formed? Since the late 1800s, the standard uniformitarian answer has been that primarily the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. If that happened,we would expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California. It's not there. Nor can geologists find it anywhere else. Where did it go?

The irony is - as Dem says, this is a 'god of gaps' argument.

You are claiming that the flaws in the established theory somehow open the door to something, and you constantly insist this 'something' might be either Biblical creationism or it's slightly dishonest pupper, Intelligent Design.

Ironic, because... since we are 'proving things' through absence.. the Easter Bunny is at least as likely as Jehovah God.

Rather, the flaws in the theory do no more than suggest a flawed theory. This should indicate a need for change. I don't insist that this change must be God simply on the basis of a hole. As I have clearly stated, and you seemed to have missed, the positing of intelligence must be based on rigorous testing, and tentative conclusions. The 'proving' is not based on the absence of evidence, the the positive evidence of design.

And as I also pointed out, such a position would place it well ahead of much of evolutionary speculation, which seems happy to invoke evolution simply because there 'isn't a better alternative'. That sounds very much like 'proving things' through absence, if you ask me. Only worse, because the absence is created through naturalistic philosophical assumptions, not science.

Or Vishnu :D

Nah, Vishnu is much more likely than Jehovah God - if for no other reason than better evidence.

(Comparison of Hebrew and Greek Testaments, versus Brahmanas, Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita. Vishnu is not only better represented, but also appears in earlier texts).

So the 1500's Christians were right!!Gravity isn't real!!!!:eek: If ine person doesn't like the idea of something, despite the opion of thousands of scientists,profesors,and school tachers (not to mention anyone with a little common sense) you can't teach it in public school.


Imagine if..... 'You can't prove gravity, I fall back to Earth everytime.So what?The airplane doessn't!?!?!' "Um sir you have to understand the physics behind air pressure and....' 'Buh hu ahhh....shut up I say it isn't real, IT ISN'T REAL!!!':rolleyes:
*scientist punches moron*

Did you...actually bother to read what I posted?

It has nothing to do with consensus. It has nothing to do with "falling back to earth."

Take classical mechanics, in relation to Isaac Newton's "Laws" of Gravity. Try applying that to an atom. We'll talk when you've successfully done so.

Can't? No shit. Now try applying it to macroscopic scales. What's that? Spacetime? Time warping around objects with large masses due to gravity? Whatever the fuck are you talking about? Oh, right. GENERAL RELATIVIITY.

This is why we have QM and General Relativitiy.

Secondary NEWS FLASH: The fact of an occurence of "falling to earth" as evidence for gravity does not make the theory of gravity as dictated by Newton correct. It merely makes it correct FOR THAT SITUATION.

*actual scientist smacks jackass*

Rather, the flaws in the theory do no more than suggest a flawed theory. This should indicate a need for change. I don't insist that this change must be God simply on the basis of a hole. As I have clearly stated, and you seemed to have missed, the positing of intelligence must be based on rigorous testing, and tentative conclusions. The 'proving' is not based on the absence of evidence, the the positive evidence of design.

And as I also pointed out, such a position would place it well ahead of much of evolutionary speculation, which seems happy to invoke evolution simply because there 'isn't a better alternative'. That sounds very much like 'proving things' through absence, if you ask me. Only worse, because the absence is created through naturalistic philosophical assumptions, not science.

Yes, I agree. And that need for change necessarily leads to the "I shat the universe out" theory of creation. Far more interesting than Christian Creationism.

You might want to take this on board yourself. You are the most intellectually dishonest debater I have ever come across.

Amusing. And I am not even aware of being dishonest. Out of interest, how do you come to the idea of 'dishonest'. What exactly is it that lead you to that conclusion?

At any rate, I sort of feel kinda special that I might be the MOST intellectually dishonest debater that you have EVER come across. Considering even NS and the debaters around here. I'm almost honoured.

But for the record, I have tried to be as honest on NS as I can be. And no, this is not a joke.

Nah, Vishnu is much more likely than Jehovah God - if for no other reason than better evidence.

(Comparison of Hebrew and Greek Testaments, versus Brahmanas, Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita. Vishnu is not only better represented, but also appears in earlier texts).

Yup. But now go and try convincing a hardline Christian that the Hindu holy texts not only outdate the oldest versions of the Old Testament, but are more internally consistent and more consistent with reality.

They have their flaws, contradictions, and innacuracies, but I'd be interested to see how they hold up against each other.

Yes, I agree. And that need for change necessarily leads to the "I shat the universe out" theory of creation. Far more interesting than Christian Creationism.

But surely, the idea of whether creationism is interesting or not is irrelevant, isn't it? Aren't we on about the quest for truth here? I mean, if you want to delve into something that is more interesting than the truth, why not study Tolkien's Middle Earth?

Incidently, if SETI was ever to discover an intelligence out there, who of us would claim to be disinterested?

But surely, the idea of whether creationism is interesting or not is irrelevant, isn't it? Aren't we on about the quest for truth here? I mean, if you want to delve into something that is more interesting than the truth, why not study Tolkien's Middle Earth?

Incidently, if SETI was ever to discover an intelligence out there, who of us would claim to be disinterested?

The problem is that Creationist argumentation intentionally sets up a false dilemna where none exists.
The Theory of Evolution is either true or false
Creationism is either true or false
If the Theory of Evolution is false, Creationism must be true
assertion> The Theory of Evolution must be false
_______________________________________________
Creationism is true


The problem being, of course, that from a scientific perspective, all naturalist explanations for the origin of the species would have to be investigated on equal footing before Creationism was even considered to be valid, largely because Science does not account for magical supernatural god-stardust explanations.

The problem is that Creationist argumentation intentionally sets up a false dilemna where none exists.
The Theory of Evolution is either true or false
Creationism is either true or false
If the Theory of Evolution is false, Creationism must be true
assertion> The Theory of Evolution must be false
_______________________________________________
Creationism is true


The problem being, of course, that from a scientific perspective, all naturalist explanations for the origin of the species would have to be investigated on equal footing before Creationism was even considered to be valid, largely because Science does not account for magical supernatural god-stardust explanations.

Actually, many creationists accept evolution, or at least some parts of it. (I am using the broad definition of creationists here.) Thus, even the theistic evolutionists are creationists, of anther kind. Thus it isn't an inherently creationist argument to set up a false dicotomy. Is isn't creation versus evolution. It is creation versus naturalism, with evolution being present on both sides of the debate. Personally, I have no trouble accepting that there is much truth within evolutionary theory. Neither do I have any trouble accepting that much of the ideas within creationism could be wrong. Heck, I know from past experience that my own ideas have been wrong, and are highly unlikely to be 100% correct even now.

It's a myth that science cannot allow for a magical god. You've probably heard the naturalists say it so many times that you haven't thought it out for yourself. Most of the science before the rise of naturalism was conducted by people who thought that the universe was created by a rational mind, and thus allowed a rational search for truth. Many scientists, including myself (there, I admitted it, I am a scientist) currently hold the same view. Does that mean that we cannot do science? You would be foolish to claim so.

Many scientists, including myself (there, I admitted it, I am a scientist) currently hold the same view. Does that mean that we cannot do science? You would be foolish to claim so.

A scientist of what exactly, because facts don't seem to be your forte.

But surely, the idea of whether creationism is interesting or not is irrelevant, isn't it? Aren't we on about the quest for truth here? I mean, if you want to delve into something that is more interesting than the truth, why not study Tolkien's Middle Earth?

Incidently, if SETI was ever to discover an intelligence out there, who of us would claim to be disinterested?

Tolkein's Middle Earth is at least as likely to be 'truth' as Biblical Creationism, though - isn't it?

Yup. But now go and try convincing a hardline Christian that the Hindu holy texts not only outdate the oldest versions of the Old Testament, but are more internally consistent and more consistent with reality.

They have their flaws, contradictions, and innacuracies, but I'd be interested to see how they hold up against each other.

My familiarity with... say... Bhagavad Gita, is nowhere near as 'in depth' as my familiarity with The Hebrew or Greek scriptures. Thus - the fact that I find the text much more consistent, less self-contradictory, and less 'conflicted with observable reality' could just be because I haven't delved as deep.

One of the things that killed the 'christian' scripture for me, was why I (as a Christian, at that time) SHOULD believe this book above all others, when many make the smae sorts of claims, and a number seemed to do so... better.

My familiarity with... say... Bhagavad Gita, is nowhere near as 'in depth' as my familiarity with The Hebrew or Greek scriptures. Thus - the fact that I find the text much more consistent, less self-contradictory, and less 'conflicted with observable reality' could just be because I haven't delved as deep.

One of the things that killed the 'christian' scripture for me, was why I (as a Christian, at that time) SHOULD believe this book above all others, when many make the smae sorts of claims, and a number seemed to do so... better.

That's one of the interesting things about Hinduism. You're encouraged to read scripture, but nothing about it is required to be a good Hindu. As long as you're solid on the basic concepts and lead a good life, you're a good Hindu. You don't even have to, technically, venerate the deities on their holidays.

One of the things I disagree with strongly in the Bhagvad Gita is its examination of just-war theory. I feel that for a religion that claims to be pacifist, it's a moral abridgement and a deeply inconsistent concept.

Note, this examination takes place a millenium (from the date of the text) and several millenia (from the date of the Mahabharata) before Augustine put pen to paper on the same subject.

... the Easter Bunny is at least as likely as Jehovah God.Well, what are the criteria for likelihood? Given the genesis of the biblical Jehova God, which rules out its/his existence, the Easter bunny is a lot more likely to exist than Jehovah God.

Tolkein's Middle Earth is at least as likely to be 'truth' as Biblical Creationism, though - isn't it?more likely :)

A scientist of what exactly, because facts don't seem to be your forte.

He's not a scientist. Maybe he has a degree, but that doesn't make one a scientist.

Iffy.




I love you.


That is all.
I approve greatly of this post.
Where's the fun in that? :p
True. Perhaps Asimov is god......

As far as I know, uranium and all the others (K, Th, Rb, Re, etc.) have half lives that are far too long to be useful for dating within the last 10,000 years--which is why I presumed that they would have stuck with carbon dating.
For objects in the up to about 50,000 years, carbon dating us used, as that's the range in which it is accurate.

Beyond that other dating methods are used.

The only other way to date such 'recent' things as human civilisations is to measure how deep the specimen is under the earth, and then to estimate how long it takes for the soil to accumulate on top, assuming uniformitarian rates.
Equally unsatisfactory.
Not true. You can measure seasonal layers in ice and trees, for example. Taking forests into account, we can date even further back.


What I work with is science that can deal with testible things. That means that even if there exists things in the natural world that I cannot test, I don't try to test them--at least until I find a way to test them. Therefore, while you are working with the natural/supernatural division, I would rather use the testable/nontestable division.
The supernatural is non-testable, by definition.


At least you sound pretty confident. What makes you think it is a small hole? And as for all the other evidence, what makes you so confident that the experts have got it right?
Or not a hole at all. As it goes.

Most radioactive dating depends on uniformitarian conditions (long ages, relatively few interruptions), uniform rates of decay, assumptions about daughter isotope levels, and even the depth of the rock in the earth. None of these can 'show the earth's age'. What we can do is measure the daughter isotope levels, and the parent levels, and when put together with the known decay rate, generate some numbers. The interpretation of the number and calculation of calendar years is the critical point. Yes, different methods and radioisotopes can be compared and numbers that agree in each case can be selected as 'reliable'. But in each case, so long as the uniformitarian assumptions are underlying each calculation, it isn't so surprising when they come out with the same answers. So, no, not even the most stable radioisotope (93Zr) which has a half life of 1.53 million years can 'show the earth's age'.
There is no reason that separate dating methods should yield agreeable results if they were as faulty as you claim.

I have been looking it up. It's actually not macroevolution. There appears to be a form of rapid mutation, an inbuilt function, somewhat analogous to antibody generation that allows adaptation. Clearly a microevolution phenomenon.
It is a totally novel gene, producing a totally novel enzyme. It is a new species of bacteria. That is macroevolution, no?


Do you mind if I just post links. Saves me lots of time. Try this one for starters.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/index.htm

Yay, another pretend-science website that tries to convince people the earth is really only a few thousand years old.

Actually, my experience tells me that the evolutionary answer is 'evolution just did it'. Real science does say 'we don't know how'. But most of the ardent supporters of evolution seem to think that while they cannot agree on the details, at least they do know that it was indeed evolution. But how do they know that it was through evolution? Not through the science, that's for sure. It really gets up my nose when they accuse the religious people of doing the very thing they themselves are doing. I can only call it blindness.
I've never seen a scientist claiming "evolution just did it". Could this be a pretty strawman you're building here? I hear they burn well.

And ID, so far as I understand it, takes precautions against saying 'God just did it'. In fact, a lot of their literature is devoted to exactly that point. One wonders how you missed it.
Their text books are creationists texts with the word "god" replaced with "designer".

Word for word.

But you're right. They don't say "God did it". They say something more like "And unknown designer (winkwink) did it. *CouighRhymesWithModCough*"

How would you know if it is science or isn't? So long as you consider any reference to God as being non-science, you will never really know if the methods are following good scientific procedure. That may mean that you will never learn the truth (wherever that is) simply because of a prejudice. It's like you have refused to even consider. Have you ever heard of creationism that is based on experiments, not the Bible?

And you dare to call something that starts with a conclusion, and cherry picks evidence that can be twisted to support it a science?

Pot meet kettle.


OK. That's good evidence for a real prejudice right there. Congratulations. Creationism, broadly defined, is the idea that God (or god) had something to do with the origins. That isn't necessarily based on the Bible.
Broadly defined, yes. That's what every religious person believes.

But that's not what people are arguing about.
They argue over young earth creationism, which is entirely based on genesis.

Crumbs! Now you ask! How about the idea that all the origins can be explained through natural causes? Do you hold a naturalistic assumption? Or do you reject it?
That assumption is not required for acceptance of evolution. Many religious people are willing to not close their eyes to the evidence and accept that evolution happens.

If you wish to believe in an inferior ID god, then so be it. But most religious people are willing to accept that their god is capable of making a universe where life evolves without constant intervention.

True. Perhaps Asimov is god......

And Lo,... out of dark and cold cosmos, did the descendant of Multivac,... Cosmic AC, said ; "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" And there was light—"

And Lo,... out of dark and cold cosmos, did the descendant of Multivac,... Cosmic AC, said ; "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" And there was light—"

I believe that was "The Last Question," a short story from Asimov's "Robot Dreams."

Have you ever wondered how the Grand Canyon formed? Since the late 1800s, the standard uniformitarian answer has been that primarily the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. If that happened,we would expect to find a gigantic river delta where the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California. It's not there. Nor can geologists find it anywhere else. Where did it go?

Arguing the evidence differently is one thing, but lying is something else. Now, as studied as you seem to be about this, you would obviously have, at one point, read the refutation (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html) of it. The fact that you still use said point is intellectually dishonest.

Arguing the evidence differently is one thing, but lying is something else. Now, as studied as you seem to be about this, you would obviously have, at one point, read the refutation (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html) of it. The fact that you still use said point is intellectually dishonest.

That's a common tactic among creationists, actually. "The answer to this isn't blatantly obvious, so I'm going to say that it is unproven, and say that nobody has an answer, even though I haven't looked very hard for the answer."

That's a common tactic among creationists, actually. "The answer to this isn't blatantly obvious, so I'm going to say that it is unproven, and say that nobody has an answer, even though I haven't looked very hard for the answer."

Sounds about right.

That's the only tactic among creationists, actually. "The answer to this isn't blatantly obvious, so I'm going to say that it is unproven, and say that nobody has an answer, even though I haven't looked very hard for the answer."

Fixed.

Fixed.

It's not the only tactic. Other tactics include:

"I don't understand science, so I'm going to argue semantics."

as well as:

"I'm going to ignore all evidence, and all explanations, regardless of how plausible they may be."

And the timeless:

"That's the devil trying to confuse us."

It's not the only tactic. Other tactics include:

"I don't understand science, so I'm going to argue semantics."

as well as:

"I'm going to ignore all evidence, and all explanations, regardless of how plausible they may be."

And the timeless:

"That's the devil trying to confuse us."
True, but I suppose those are all, to some extent, variations of:

"Lalalalalala, I can't hear you!"

Essentially, ignoring contrary evidence or somehow dismissing it without any rational reason.

:(:mp5: :(:gundge: :(:sniper: guns make me sad :(

A scientist of what exactly, because facts don't seem to be your forte.
Well, he's sure as hell not a geologist.
Do they? So the arctic plate has moved there, carrying the oil with it? Which of your plate movement theories asserts that? Last time I checked, the arctic plate was supposed to be relatively stationary.Like I said before, ever heard of changing climates?

Well, he's sure as hell not a geologist.
Like I said before, ever heard of changing climates?

Not to mention that there is no such thing as the "Arctic plate". The Arctic is in the middle of the North American plate, which has drifted north (once being part of Pangea near the equator). His point is moot.

EDIT: And because I know he'll try to refute this with the Antarctic plate, it was once attached to the land we call India, 650 million years ago in the Precambrian era, running parallel to the equator.

Not to mention that there is no such thing as the "Arctic plate". The Arctic is in the middle of the North American plate, which has drifted north (once being part of Pangea near the equator). His point is moot.

EDIT: And because I know he'll try to refute this with the Antarctic plate, it was once attached to the land we call India, 650 million years ago in the Precambrian era, running parallel to the equator.

Yep. Antarctica did have forests covering it during the Cretaceous, however - Glossopteris was a predominant tree, I believe.

Yep. Antarctica did have forests covering it during the Cretaceous, however - Glossopteris was a predominant tree, I believe.

Yep, had climates similar to Alaska at the time, if I remember correctly. Temperate during the summer months, cooler during the winter. Not the frozen wasteland it is today. Which also provides evidence of warmblooded dinosaurs... but that's a different story for another time.

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2007-06-14.gif

from one ID person (me) to the hardcore Creationists out there... :p

ok, back to the debate/discussion already in progress. :D

http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2007-06-14.gif

from one ID person (me) to the hardcore Creationists out there... :p

ok, back to the debate/discussion already in progress. :D

My main problem with ID is not with the idea in and of itself, but instead with it being considered a theory on the same grounds as Evolution. It is not, nor can it even be science. They have presented no falsifiable hypothesis', no testing or experimentation has been done, nor has any evidence actually been presented for it. Only opinions on the nature of life, which isn't science. More like philosophy. I have no problems with it in that regard, but once people start spouting it should be taught as science, that's where I get annoyed.

And that is hilarious.

My main problem with ID is not with the idea in and of itself, but instead with it being considered a theory on the same grounds as Evolution. It is not, nor can it even be science. They have presented no falsifiable hypothesis', no testing or experimentation has been done, nor has any evidence actually been presented for it. Only opinions on the nature of life, which isn't science. More like philosophy. I have no problems with it in that regard, but once people start spouting it should be taught as science, that's where I get annoyed.

And that is hilarious.
you're thinking Creationist.

IDers think that "yes, God did create everything, and that Evolution is the how."

We don't discount Evolution, but we do say that those who discount Evolution are... well I use "fanatics."

However, on the flip side... Evolution does not discount the presence of God nor the Idea (not theory) of a Designer working 'behind the scenes'.

Science and Religion can work hand in hand. that's why there are alot of Christian Scientists.

o.0

Err... make that Scientists who are also Religous. :cool:

you're thinking Creationist.

IDers think that "yes, God did create everything, and that Evolution is the how."

We don't discount Evolution, but we do say that those who discount Evolution are... well I use "fanatics."

However, on the flip side... Evolution does not discount the presence of God nor the Idea (not theory) of a Designer working 'behind the scenes'.

Science and Religion can work hand in hand. that's why there are alot of Christian Scientists.

o.0

Err... make that Scientists who are also Religous. :cool:

Sorry for the confusion, but I was referring to ID as the "Creationism in Disguise" type of thing. You know, the Behe types, who claim it is viable theory, regardless of the fact that it has neither been tested nor even a hypothesis created.

Sorry for the confusion, but I was referring to ID as the "Creationism in Disguise" type of thing. You know, the Behe types, who claim it is viable theory, regardless of the fact that it has neither been tested nor even a hypothesis created.
Oh.

KK.


oh and for the record. If, and that is an IF, Creationism is to be taught in school, it should be in Theology. not Science.

you're thinking Creationist.

IDers think that "yes, God did create everything, and that Evolution is the how."

We don't discount Evolution, but we do say that those who discount Evolution are... well I use "fanatics."

However, on the flip side... Evolution does not discount the presence of God nor the Idea (not theory) of a Designer working 'behind the scenes'.

Science and Religion can work hand in hand. that's why there are alot of Christian Scientists.

o.0

Err... make that Scientists who are also Religous. :cool:

Right, but it's still not science. God has no place in science, even if it is in the context of saying that he was behind evolution - there's just no proof for or against it, and cannot therefore be taught as a scientific criteria.

This is where IDers are just as bad as Creationists - this is why most people consider ID to be Creationism in disguise. There's still no real science - if anything, it's more a philosophy or just something generally neat to think about, but it's definitely, 100%, not science, and it ticks me off to no end that it's actually being taught as such in some of our schools. It simply rattles my mind to believe we are that stupid to allow that to happen.

Oh.

KK.


oh and for the record. If, and that is an IF, Creationism is to be taught in school, it should be in Theology. not Science.

There you go. <3

I also wouldn't mind if they taught it in church, but that's just being hopeful and greedy. ^^

Argumentum ad nauseam.

Nitpick: evolutionary theory does not state that. It is stated by by a branch of physics which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

It just happens to fit with the timescales needed for it.

Ah, I see. Humphries lumped it in with "Evolution" probably because, to him, all the "Old Earth" arguments are "Evolutionary" in nature when they're not. You should still have a look at that paper. I couldn't stop laughing.

How does the ancient Mesopotamian civilization fit in with a universe 6,000 years old and had a big flood

Many civilizatizations- including those in Mesopotamia- have their own version of the "Flood Myth" that serves as a "moral story" that if humans don't clean up their act, the gods will clean them out of the world. Some of the better known Flood Myths- in addition to the Story of Noah's Ark- are the Flood of Deucalion and the Epic of Gilgamesh. One of the most widely-held theories was as the eruption of Thera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thera_eruption) that *did* cause higher-than-normal flooding, while more recently there are suggestions that state that Mesopotamia is a high-flood area anyway, meaning that the locals are simply in tune with their surroundings. Scholars note that in areas where there isn't a lot of flooding there are no Flood Myths, so this assertion holds some credibility.

'Macro evolution' is simply 'micro evolution' over a long period of time. If a fossilised homo sapien, or a rabbit, or a porcupine, or just about anything other than a primitive jellyfish or a sponge was found in precambrian strata then this would conclusively falsify evolution.

You've said several times that you're a scientist, so you should know that it isn't the quantity of claims that's important, it's the evidence behind them. However much Creationists complain, they have yet to explain why the fossil record shows such a clear progression from simple life to complex life. Why haven't homosapiens been found in the same layer as dinosaurs? Why is grass pollen found in every single layer after the Cretacious but in none of the layers before that? These are all discoveries which evolution predicts and which conclusively falsify the Genesis Flood. We can also observe 'macro-evolution' through genetic comparisons such as the one I posted earlier and in the light of this overwhelming evidence it's entirely reasonable to extrapolate from an observed mechanism.

To be fair, if we found a human inside a dinosaur it wouldn't invalidate Evolution- we'd just have to alter the theory in some way. To invalidate Evolution you'd have to prove that change does not happen, because that's the basis of Evolutionary Theory- that species change. Now, if there was a completely random specimen discovery- such as human bones found in Cambrian rock- it'd might question our current notions of change but it wouldn't destroy the idea that "species do change".

It's also worth noting that "bigger" creatures have lived before us and died out- the dinosaurs- yet no one's crying that they're "out of sequence".

It is only your view point that convinces you that Evolution is the best possible theory, because you have accepted the philosophical assumptions upon which the theory rests.

If nylon-eating bacteria and the peppered moth are "philosophical assumptions", then yes I am. They're not. They're observable, scientific data that cannot be ignored. Won't tell the complete story but it's sure more convincing than any argument I've ever seen put forward by a Creationist (who puts forward nothing besides "it's in the Bible").

I do understand your point. Just working with the best possible theory is recommended. The trouble is that you cannot assume that I also think that evolution is the best possible theory. In some cases, perhaps most, the facts fit better with creation, in my view. Does that mean I am stupid, or dishonest? Or does it mean that I have a different view point to you? Which view point is correct? Shouldn't we agree to respect each other's view points and recognise the limitations to our understanding?

This isn't about a lack of respect for each other- this is about a debate on ideas; and I think you are incorrect. You probably think the same way about me. However, this particular point you're raising is irrelevant to the discussion, because that's never what I've said in the first place.

That's like saying, 'I once ate an apple, and found the center was rotten, thus all apples have rotten centers.' If I was to take the same treatment to a number of papers on evolution, I would come away thinking that there was no proof for evolution. Actually, there isn't any proof, just data which can be interpreted as supporting or not supporting. You can forget the 'proof' word here. If you go looking for proof on the origins, you will probably never find it. You will, however, find arguments.

I don't know how your apple statement has anything to do with my essay on Creationism, but I am going to say that I wrote it with the specific goal to find tangible proof of any kind of science in Creationism. I found nothing. It has nothing to do with Evolution being "right or wrong" because that was not what I was after- I was researching the idea that Creationism could be considered science and I have conclusively said it does not. Evolution doesn't come anywhere near that discussion.

I have been looking it up. It's actually not macroevolution. There appears to be a form of rapid mutation, an inbuilt function, somewhat analogous to antibody generation that allows adaptation. Clearly a microevolution phenomenon.

You do understand that "macroevolution" is simply many different microevolutionary processes extrapolated over a wider space of time, right? It's not like a monkey becomes a man overnight.

I would say that you have a fair point. The young earth creationist does have his work cut out for him. Of course, I can easily imagine that since both estimations are based on uniformitarian assumptions, we shouldn't be too surprised about the uniformitarian answers. And that's probably the first place the young earth scientist would look. But then again, I haven't personally looked at the data.

That's like saying that because I'm looking for two numbers that add to even numbers that "1+1" cannot equal "2"- it always does. You can't say that because the data corroborates an assumption it's somehow wrong- scientific data is always taken "as is", and the apparti used to obtain that data is inanimate and thus does not know what a bias is anyway- it just spits out a result. It is true that a scientist *does* have their own biases and conducts experiments looking to corroborate assumptions- but a good scientist is able to change their assumptions if the data obtained is different than anticipated. However the data itself isn't right or wrong simply because it fits a theory (in fact, that's what a scientist is ultimately after anyway)- it's just a bunch of numbers that you're required to take or leave.

Now, it's also worth mentioning that because radiometric dating techniques vary widely that not everything can be dated with precision. I personally don't know that much about this particular subject, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are objects that are vaguely dated simply because radiometric results vary too much on that particular object. As far as the reliability of radiometric techniques- well, oil companies use rock layer data to find oil, and if they're convinced of its reliability then it's pretty safe to say that it's accurate to some degree at least.

The Genesis Flood cannot be falsified. What can be falsified is predictions based on what you think a huge flood might do. If you falsify your own predictions, it might mean that you have failed to accurately predict what the flood would do. How would you know? The only way is to repeat it, and then observe it.

Sure it can. All you need to find is evidence that a massive flood *did not* take place, such as the shale formations common to Cretaceous and Ordovician rock that require a long, slow process of sedimentation that simply cannot happen in a catastrophic flood. Sedimentation at that kind of level requires a long period (millions of years) where the water rests on the same level so it can deposit and compact the rocks to form a new shoreline- you can see an example of "mini-sedimentation" whenever you drain a pool because the outline of the water remains- and a catastrophic flood cannot produce that kind of sedimentation because the water leaves too quickly. I could also go into the logisitical nightmare that it would be for the Story of Noah's Ark to have occurred in reality- especially if we are to extrapolate that to the millions of years required for sedimentation- because the boat needed would be prohibitively massive, not just to store Noah and his family, but also all of the animals' families as well as their food and drinking water (since the floodwaters would be contaminated because of decaying remains). I also find it curious that Noah never saved the dinosaurs when the Bible quite clearly tells him to take two of every kind of animal, "clean and unclean" (Genesis 7:2-4). If the Story is to be believed literally, then Noah clearly missed an assignment because the dinosaurs are no longer here when they should be.

Look at the poll results... in the first video(The intro one) the Bible actually says that people would give up God for evolution. Did it happen? Ya pretty sure it did. So the Bible is right in that regard, and that was thousands of years ago, much earlier than Darwin and his theory. And since we haven't seen a fish become a land animal I think we can safley say that evolution takes faith to believe.

I did not see you write that post. Does that mean I have faith you did? Or did a lizard run across you key board, and randomly typed that?

Look at the poll results... in the first video(The intro one) the Bible actually says that people would give up God for evolution. Did it happen? Ya pretty sure it did. So the Bible is right in that regard, and that was thousands of years ago, much earlier than Darwin and his theory. And since we haven't seen a fish become a land animal I think we can safley say that evolution takes faith to believe.

So the Bible specifically says "Evolution" and mentions "Darwin"? Or are you just pulling things out from where the sun don't shine now?

I did not see you write that post. Does that mean I have faith you did? Or did a lizard run across you key board, and randomly typed that?

Exactly, so how could you believe a theory that no one has seen proof of? Everyone knows that people can type on a keyboard. And no the Bible doesn't say "Evolution" and "Darwin", I was obviusly inserting that to shorten what I was saying. Just watch the intro video and see what I'm talking about. And if you don't then you are purly just against Creation no matter what and have no place in a debate.

Exactly, so how could you believe a theory that no one has seen proof of? Everyone knows that people can type on a keyboard. And no the Bible doesn't say "Evolution" and "Darwin", I was obviusly inserting that to shorten what I was saying. Just watch the intro video and see what I'm talking about. And if you don't then you are purly just against Creation no matter what and have no place in a debate.

:confused: The lizard was supposed to be an obvious no, I'm absolutly sure you did.... Or was god making you?:eek:

Ok you obviously evaded my question and had to get your rediculous sarcasm in, your not even debating anymore.

Ok you obviously evaded my question and had to get your rediculous sarcasm in, your not even debating anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Read. Learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Read. Learn something.

:D

I got through about half of the first video before the stupidity overwhelmed me.

On a stranger note.... has anyone noticed the weird link between being a female Bible-thumper and the wearing of extreme amounts of make-up? The chick in this vid has it caked on like a circus clown or 70's whore. Why is this so often the case? What is it in the evangelical community that makes them tart up their women up like side-show bettys? I'll bet this chick is wearing a half pound of lipstick alone. She must idolize Tammy Faye Baker. What are these creationists trying to cover up anyway?

I got through about half of the first video before the stupidity overwhelmed me.

On a stranger note.... has anyone noticed the weird link between being a female Bible-thumper and the wearing of extreme amounts of make-up? The chick in this vid has it caked on like a circus clown or 70's whore. Why is this so often the case? What is it in the evangelical community that makes them tart up their women up like side-show bettys? I'll bet this chick is wearing a half pound of lipstick alone. She must idolize Tammy Faye Baker. What are these creationists trying to cover up anyway?

They're all secretly liches.

Something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, etc.

And yet still nobody has answered my question, I'm serious answer it, instead of ganging up on me and throwing Wikipedia, (which can be edited by just about anyone) at me. Just becuase I challenge your opinion in a fair debate allows you to just say that I'm wrong? I never even said that Creation is right, so wouldn't you want to inform me? Seriously

They're all secretly liches.

Zombies, more likely.

Look at the poll results... in the first video(The intro one) the Bible actually says that people would give up God for evolution. Did it happen? Ya pretty sure it did. So the Bible is right in that regard, and that was thousands of years ago, much earlier than Darwin and his theory. And since we haven't seen a fish become a land animal I think we can safley say that evolution takes faith to believe.

Exactly, so how could you believe a theory that no one has seen proof of? Everyone knows that people can type on a keyboard. And no the Bible doesn't say "Evolution" and "Darwin", I was obviusly inserting that to shorten what I was saying. Just watch the intro video and see what I'm talking about. And if you don't then you are purly just against Creation no matter what and have no place in a debate.

Where in the intro does it say the Bible says anything about evolution? The Bible says nothing about evolution as you go on to admit. So what's your question exactly?

And yet still nobody has answered my question, I'm serious answer it, instead of ganging up on me and throwing Wikipedia, (which can be edited by just about anyone) at me. Just becuase I challenge your opinion in a fair debate allows you to just say that I'm wrong? I never even said that Creation is right, so wouldn't you want to inform me? Seriously

I did inform you. That wikipedia article which can be edited so easily has all the information on Trog's argument that you need. Read it. Understand it. Maybe you'll finally understand that we've been arguing your point, and you've already lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Read. Learn something.


Looked like you were talking to me, no? Telling me to learn something and that my comment was wrong in some way. And no I haven't lost becuase no one can answer my question that was stated many posts ago. If anything, I have proposed an idea that nobody can counter yet.

And Trog's argument in the first place was about faith, read the previous posts, learn something before you put in your two bits please.

Look at the poll results... in the first video(The intro one) the Bible actually says that people would give up God for evolution. Did it happen? Ya pretty sure it did. So the Bible is right in that regard, and that was thousands of years ago, much earlier than Darwin and his theory. And since we haven't seen a fish become a land animal I think we can safley say that evolution takes faith to believe.

Yet we have seen speciation. And since we know things don't just magically appear, and since we know that variation exists, and since we have seen evolution, I'm going to give the point to Darwin.

And where the hell does it say in the bible that people will give up the Bible for evolution? Honestly now... I've seen asinine claims... but this just... wow...

Looked like you were talking to me, no? Telling me to learn something and that my comment was wrong in some way. And no I haven't lost becuase no one can answer my question that was stated many posts ago. If anything, I have proposed an idea that nobody can counter yet.
What idea? You posted that people would turn from God, this is not an argument for the validity of the Bible.

The second point, your actual 'question' has been answered, repeatedly, within this thread. It has been answered far too many times to count on this forum and this board. It has been answered in every biology book that deal with the theory of evolution. So, Trog's counterpoint, that your question isn't even worth a hill of beans, is pretty fair.

Or do you really want a full run down on evolution, again?

What idea? You posted that people would turn from God, this is not an argument for the validity of the Bible.

The second point, your actual 'question' has been answered, repeatedly, within this thread. It has been answered far too many times to count on this forum and this board. It has been answered in every biology book that deal with the theory of evolution. So, Trog's counterpoint, that your question isn't even worth a hill of beans, is pretty fair.

Or do you really want a full run down on evolution, again?


Ok let me lay this out, we aren't even talking about the Bible-straying from God idea. My original question to Trog (since he engaged my quote with his own ideas) was "Exactly, so how could you believe a theory that no one has seen proof of?". He never personally answered me correct? Sorry if I don't want to read 30+ pages of other people's comments, and sorry if all you do is stare at forums all day and can't stand the site of more than one of the same opinion. And his counter point had nothing to further the debate. Not an answer just a sarcastic remark. And don't tell me that Biology books have answered my question becuase guess what? Theories change, and they aren't perfectly sure about anything.

Ok let me lay this out, we aren't even talking about the Bible-straying from God idea. My original question to Trog (since he engaged my quote with his own ideas) was "Exactly, so how could you believe a theory that no one has seen proof of?". He never personally answered me correct? Sorry if I don't want to read 30+ pages of other people's comments, and sorry if all you do is stare at forums all day and can't stand the site of more than one of the same opinion. And his counter point had nothing to further the debate. Not an answer just a sarcastic remark. And don't tell me that Biology books have answered my question becuase guess what? Theories change, and they aren't perfectly sure about anything.

THAT is your question.

Jesus chirst, boy, you need to learn yourself up good.

We have seen it.

I could drag out the nylon bacteria, for an example, the new species of flies produced in laboratory conditions, new species of plants arising in gardens, etc.

Yet, somehow, I think you'd be one of those "That isn't really evolution, it's blah blah blah I don't understand evolution blah blah blah Bible Bible Bible blah blah blah" type people.

THAT is your question.

Jesus chirst, boy, you need to learn yourself up good.

We have seen it.

I could drag out the nylon bacteria, for an example, the new species of flies produced in laboratory conditions, new species of plants arising in gardens, etc.

Yet, somehow, I think you'd be one of those "That isn't really evolution, it's blah blah blah I don't understand evolution blah blah blah Bible Bible Bible blah blah blah" type people.

Why is it that evolutionists hate Christians so much? Why do you hate me so much? What did I ever do? Question your proof? (Laboratory Conditions aren't natural by the way). And why do you say "Jesus Christ" anyway? If you believe he was just a man or not even that, what's so special about him that you use him in your language? Your response sounds pretty angry why is that? Just curious...

Oh and answer my question while you are at it, been waiting a while now...

And don't tell me that Biology books have answered my question becuase guess what? Theories change, and they aren't perfectly sure about anything.

Of course evolutionary theory changes; if it didn't, it'd be creation. :P

Of course evolutionary theory changes; if it didn't, it'd be creation. :P

So how am I going to learn about if it isn't fully known yet? I would be being lied to, becuase its not a fact yet.

Oh and answer my question while you are at it, been waiting a while now...

Question: "Exactly, so how could you believe a theory that no one has seen proof of?".

Answer: We have seen it. I could drag out the nylon bacteria, for an example, the new species of flies produced in laboratory conditions, new species of plants arising in gardens, etc.

Are you blind?

Ok let me lay this out, we aren't even talking about the Bible-straying from God idea. My original question to Trog (since he engaged my quote with his own ideas) was "Exactly, so how could you believe a theory that no one has seen proof of?". He never personally answered me correct? Sorry if I don't want to read 30+ pages of other people's comments, and sorry if all you do is stare at forums all day and can't stand the site of more than one of the same opinion. And his counter point had nothing to further the debate. Not an answer just a sarcastic remark. And don't tell me that Biology books have answered my question becuase guess what? Theories change, and they aren't perfectly sure about anything.
If you're THAT ignorant, read and be enlightned.

Evolutionary Biology

PBS/WGBH "Evolution" Website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ (Loaded with information and interactive resources - highly recommended.)
"The Talk Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy": http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html (Offers introductory articles on key topics in biology and evolutionary theory. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html for an "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology"
Saint Anselm College "Evolutionary Biology Resources": http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/jpitocch/resevol.html (Links page with fairly complete coverage of Anthropology, Darwin, Evolution and Creationism, Paleontology, Taxonomy, and Conservation Biology. Note: some of the links may be non-functional.)
Harvard University Biology and Evolution Links: http://www.mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html
Non-Technical Introduction to Evolution: http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/
A Science Primer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/phylo.html
"Evolution by Natural Selection": http://www.thinking-aloud.org/evolution-by-natural-selection/current.htm (a short online book)
"Evolution Links" http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/links/links.html
Jie Yin's "Evolution and Behavior" Resources: http://geocities.com/jieyin98/evolution.html

Natural History, Evolution, and Paleontology

UC Berkley Museum of Paleontology: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html (Evolution wing has nice timelines and history of evolutionary thought…but also check out the entire museum: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/index.html)
Burgess Shale Fossils: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/Burgess_Shale/
"Tree of Life Web Project": http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/phylogeny.html (Easy to navigate, nice layout, offers photos and lots of relevant links).
Geological Time Scale: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html

Human Evolution

"The Talk Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/. (This site offers a great overview of the fossil evidence for human evolution. It includes pictures of major hominid fossils, descriptions, timelines, and current topics in Physical (Biological) Anthropology. In addition, it surveys the Creationist counter-arguments to each major fossil explanation and provides a thorough discussion of “What is Evolution.")
"Institute for Human Origins": http://www.becominghuman.org/

(Thanks http://www.evolutionandmedicine.org/ for the list).
There, there's your answer.

evolution is what the world needs to understand.. the bible may be fascinating.. amzing even.. but dinosaurs then people then whales, wow.. god is really busy what with running heaven.. i will leave religion up to myself when the time comes then i will make a descision.. i am athesit

Are you blind?

Anyone can type something, give me a link to a video or something. To me, your the blind one cuase I don't even know if you have seen it yourself. I could also say (On the side of Creation), God came down from the heavens and told me evolution is a bunch of malarky. Would you just assume that it happened?

So how am I going to learn about if it isn't fully known yet? I would be being lied to, becuase its not a fact yet.

It changes because evidence changes as we discover more facts about our origins. Just as one can never learn about everything, one can never know everyone about evolution because it changes as we learn more, just as your knowledge of your world around you changes as you grow older. Just because it's not fully known yet is no reason to disregard the current information as fact.

Are you blind?

Anyone can type something, give me a link to a video or something. To me, your the blind one cuase I don't even know if you have seen it yourself. I could also say (On the side of Creation), God came down from the heavens and told me evolution is a bunch of malarky. Would you just assume that it happened?

Are you blind?

Anyone can type something, give me a link to a video or something. To me, your the blind one cuase I don't even know if you have seen it yourself. I could also say (On the side of Creation), God came down from the heavens and told me evolution is a bunch of malarky. Would you just assume that it happened?

Oh, and not to contradict myself. To answer your question - No, I'm not blind. If I were blind I wouldn't be able to read your post.

Why is it that evolutionists hate Christians so much? Why do you hate me so much? What did I ever do? Question your proof? (Laboratory Conditions aren't natural by the way). And why do you say "Jesus Christ" anyway? If you believe he was just a man or not even that, what's so special about him that you use him in your language? Your response sounds pretty angry why is that? Just curious...

Maybe, just maybe, it's because the same exact questions get brought up all the freaking time, and those who do pull the same "Gotchya!" bullshit every freaking time, EVEN THOUGH THEIR QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED SO MANY TIME BEFORE, and when the question is answered they revert to semantics and portray the Theory of Evolution to say something it most certainly does not, or completely ignoring it, just to bring up the same tired old questions again down the road when they think people have forgotten they brought it up in the first place. It is a case of being severely annoyed at having to answer the same questions over and over again by people who think they are being witty and original with their questions, thinking they pulled a fast one on the science crowd. I would have zero problem with these questions if they were actually original, haven't been answered before, or merely semantic bullshit, but unfortunately that seems to be a tall order to ask for these days.

Sorry I blew up at you personally, but I've answered that question countless times in the past, only to have it turned around with people saying "It's not really evolution", due to their complete ignorance of evolution.

As well, even though the flies species arose in laboratory conditions, it is very strong evidence none the less. Anything that can be produced in labratory conditions can occur in nature, after all. You might have a point if that's the only evidence of it occurring, but it is not. The nylon bacteria, for example, is a case in which an entirely new, completely different species has arisen outside of laboratory conditions(Which later were reproduced in laboratory conditions), as well as noted new species arising in nature that have been proven to be direct descendants of older populations. If it can occur in insects(which is where most evidence of evolution arises, due to Insects having a very fast reproduction rate, being easily observable), there is no reason to believe it infact can, or even does, occur in mammals, reptiles, and other "higher" organisms, as the process is essentially exactly the same.

Why is it that evolutionists hate Christians so much? Why do you hate me so much? What did I ever do? Question your proof? (Laboratory Conditions aren't natural by the way). And why do you say "Jesus Christ" anyway? If you believe he was just a man or not even that, what's so special about him that you use him in your language? Your response sounds pretty angry why is that? Just curious...

Oh and answer my question while you are at it, been waiting a while now...

Irrelevant. It still shows that multiple microevolutions (and I hate that term, because... well, there's no such thing as a micro/macro divide) can cause a new species to emerge. Now, these small changes were intentionally selected for, but, here's the key, if there was no such thing as "macroevolution," then there'd have been some magic barrier preventing them from making changes big enough for a new species to emerge.

You might want to take this on board yourself. You are the most intellectually dishonest debater I have ever come across.
QFF'nT.
*bows*

So how am I going to learn about if it isn't fully known yet? I would be being lied to, becuase its not a fact yet.

You do know that Theories never become fact, do you not? Only more accurate, or completely replaced by one that is.

Anyone can type something, give me a link to a video or something. To me, your the blind one cuase I don't even know if you have seen it yourself. I could also say (On the side of Creation), God came down from the heavens and told me evolution is a bunch of malarky. Would you just assume that it happened?

Oh, and not to contradict myself. To answer your question - No, I'm not blind. If I were blind I wouldn't be able to read your post.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12771682&postcount=569

This is the last in a long thread of many links and more. You're showing yourself to be lazy by not going back and reading them and just asking for people to do your work for you. It's been done for you again and again.

The fact is that many different areas of study, from chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy and more all point to the same thing. On your side you have the Bible, that's it.

I could also say (On the side of Creation), God came down from the heavens and told me evolution is a bunch of malarky. Would you just assume that it happened?

That's exactly what you do do. That's your entire argument in a nutshell.

So how am I going to learn about if it isn't fully known yet? I would be being lied to, becuase its not a fact yet.

Do you seriously have no fucking clue how Science works? You know that even gravity isn't fully understood yet? Do you object to teaching it, too?

A scientist of what exactly, because facts don't seem to be your forte.
Political science. :rolleyes:
http://www.prehistoric.org.uk/general/images/SQUONK.GIF

Maybe, just maybe, it's because the same exact questions get brought up all the freaking time, and those who do pull the same "Gotchya!" bullshit every freaking time, EVEN THOUGH THEIR QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED SO MANY TIME BEFORE, and when the question is answered they revert to semantics and portray the Theory of Evolution to say something it most certainly does not, or completely ignoring it, just to bring up the same tired old questions again down the road when they think people have forgotten they brought it up in the first place. It is a case of being severely annoyed at having to answer the same questions over and over again by people who think they are being witty and original with their questions, thinking they pulled a fast one on the science crowd. I would have zero problem with these questions if they were actually original, haven't been answered before, or merely semantic bullshit, but unfortunately that seems to be a tall order to ask for these days.

Sorry I blew up at you personally, but I've answered that question countless times in the past, only to have it turned around with people saying "It's not really evolution", due to their complete ignorance of evolution.

As well, even though the flies species arose in laboratory conditions, it is very strong evidence none the less. Anything that can be produced in labratory conditions can occur in nature, after all. You might have a point if that's the only evidence of it occurring, but it is not. The nylon bacteria, for example, is a case in which an entirely new, completely different species has arisen outside of laboratory conditions(Which later were reproduced in laboratory conditions), as well as noted new species arising in nature that have been proven to be direct descendants of older populations. If it can occur in insects(which is where most evidence of evolution arises, due to Insects having a very fast reproduction rate, being easily observable), there is no reason to believe it infact can, or even does, occur in mammals, reptiles, and other "higher" organisms, as the process is essentially exactly the same.


Nobody said that you had to answer scientific questions and be "The Science Guy". So answer questions you actually want to, that's fair enough. I understand what you mean when you say "EVEN THOUGH THEIR QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED SO MANY TIME BEFORE", cuase that would annoy we if i "had" to do it. Also don't think that you are right and everyone else is wrong, just give an explanation like your last paragraph, and maybe i'll go study it. Not like I'm an expert by any means but it gives credibilty to your comments. Sorry for the lecture :)

Do you seriously have no fucking clue how Science works? You know that even gravity isn't fully understood yet? Do you object to teaching it, too?

Teaching it as fact yes, shouldn't teach it as a fact. As a theory, sure teach it if you want. The thing is people are dedicating to believing evolution is true when in fact it is still a theory. And don't tell me about the Scientific Way with your comment "Do you seriously have no fucking clue how Science works?" Do scientists really talk to each other like that?

And you dare to call something that starts with a conclusion, and cherry picks evidence that can be twisted to support it a science?It worked as a "rationale" for war a few times, even quite recently. :(

Pot meet kettle.World, meet Bush administration/CFR/PNAC. :(

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12771682&postcount=569

This is the last in a long thread of many links and more. You're showing yourself to be lazy by not going back and reading them and just asking for people to do your work for you. It's been done for you again and again.

The fact is that many different areas of study, from chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy and more all point to the same thing. On your side you have the Bible, that's it.



That's exactly what you do do. That's your entire argument in a nutshell.

My argument is that it takes as much faith to believe in God and Creation as it does organisms evolving Billions of years ago. No one saw either of them. That was my point, which has somehow started a tangent of no-reason angry people to jump on my back.

When did I ever say I was on the side of Creation? I'm just using that as an example of faith. I guess that's why you hate me right? Assumptions

I did not see you write that post. Does that mean I have faith you did? Or did a lizard run across you key board, and randomly typed that?Lizard, or monkey?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

On a stranger note.... has anyone noticed the weird link between being a female Bible-thumper and the wearing of extreme amounts of make-up?YES, I have!!!!!!!!
What are these creationists trying to cover up anyway?

Evidence contrary to their beliefs ... anything that might fracture the visage of perfection after one resigns one's soul and responsibilities to some kind of god, made up as they mostly appear to be.
Strand askew of a musty tapestry, if you will.

I'll make weapons of my imperfections.

You do know that Theories never become fact, do you not? Only more accurate, or completely replaced by one that is.

Exactly, so don't teach or preach like its fact if it isn't fact yet.

My argument is that it takes as much faith to believe in God and Creation as it does organisms evolving Billions of years ago. No one saw either of them. That was my point, which has somehow started a tangent of no-reason angry people to jump on my back.

When did I ever say I was on the side of Creation? I'm just using that as an example of faith. I guess that's why you hate me right? Assumptions

There is an undeniable and huge amount of evidence pointing to evolution being right, so much in fact that it's hard for any rational person to say that there is any viable alternative.

There is no evidence for the existence of God whatsoever - it's purely on faith.

It's like saying that simply because no one saw the actual murder, we should discount all the fingerprint evidence, the blood samples, the motive, the knife found in the murderers hand, a hand that's covered in the blood of the victim, the confession by the murderer, all this means that the conclusion must be....

God did it.

Why is it that evolutionists hate Christians so much?
For starters, it could be that "-ist" bullsh*t. Seriously.

But for the most part, it's pretty simple.
They've had their run. A long, complicated, twisty, convoluted run, that cost a lot of people a lot more than it was worth, many undeserving, a few meriting.
That run - now that people don't need to be cloaked in a miasma of fear, loathing, hypocrisy and vindictiveness - is at its overdue end.
Get over it. Adopt, adapt, and improve. Risk a little. Curse the sky, the earth, the darkness, the light. See how much you change as compared to reality.

Teaching it as fact yes, shouldn't teach it as a fact. As a theory, sure teach it if you want. The thing is people are dedicating to believing evolution is true when in fact it is still a theory. And don't tell me about the Scientific Way with your comment "Do you seriously have no fucking clue how Science works?" Do scientists really talk to each other like that?

Well, you say it's "still" a theory as if a theory is lower than a fact. But it isn't. At least, not in science. Anybody who tells you otherwise is a liar and you shouldn't trust another word they say.

My argument is that it takes as much faith to believe in God and Creation as it does organisms evolving Billions of years ago. No one saw either of them. That was my point, which has somehow started a tangent of no-reason angry people to jump on my back.

When did I ever say I was on the side of Creation? I'm just using that as an example of faith. I guess that's why you hate me right? Assumptions

No, it doesn't take faith to "believe" in evolution anymore than it takes faith to "believe" in gravity or in germ theory (note that germs are a THEORY, too?), or any other scientific theory.

There is an undeniable and huge amount of evidence pointing to evolution being right, so much in fact that it's hard for any rational person to say that there is any viable alternative.

There is no evidence for the existence of God whatsoever - it's purely on faith.

It's like saying that simply because no one saw the actual murder, we should discount all the fingerprint evidence, the blood samples, the motive, the knife found in the murderers hand, a hand that's covered in the blood of the victim, the confession by the murderer, all this means that the conclusion must be....

God did it.


Well, since life according to evolution or the theory that allows evolution to be true happened by chance since there was no creator, maybe that person died by total chance. But if that person was killed by another person then that was just murder and has no relevance to creation of life.

Something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, something, etc.

... I sense you are trying to say something... give me a moment and I'll figure out what you're trying to say... :p :D :D

Well, since life according to evolution or the theory that allows evolution to be true happened by chance since there was no creator, maybe that person died by total chance. But if that person was killed by another person then that was just murder and has no relevance to creation of life.

It's not hard to debate like you do.

Since apples are not oranges then keyboards are aeroplanes because windows have no relevance to iguanas and if iguanas are not apples then God must exist.

Exactly, so don't teach or preach like its fact if it isn't fact yet.

Once again, you seem to be under the notion that the purpose of theories are to become fact, which isn't true. Theories state not that something happens, but instead how that something happens. They provide accurate models of predictions, that are repeatable, consistent, and importantly falsifiable.

Immensely so.

NEWS FLASH: It's impossible to "prove" a theory true. It is only possible to prove a theory false, or to show that all attempts to disprove a theory have failed.

The fairy tale notion of "proving" evolution is about as ludicrous as claiming that years of application of Newtonian mechanics "proved" Newtonian mechanics. Guess what, it's wrong, or at the very fucking least DAMNED incomplete.

This is why we have such things as "General Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics"

I suggest you read on them, and I suggest you also read on exactly what "Science" is before preaching Intelligent Design to a forum full of intelligent people and expecting to be taken even remotely seriously.

Rome guy: READ.

Rome guy: READ.

So in other words you yourself just said that evolution is not true but not false. So why should I believe it's true?

Ok this isn't going anywhere, so I put my last words in and I'm leaving. Put your last thoughts in as accurate and as clear as possible into one post and I'll get to them later. Sounds like a plan. See you peeps later, and thanks for the debate. You showed me that "Intelligent People" really get angry when you challenge them and for some reason sit on these forums instead of posting ideas and answers where they might count. They really want to abolish open-minded people, which is pretty sad but makes sense when you think you are the smartess person to grace the earth that just by chance appeared and therefore should just be happy that you are alive.

So in other words you yourself just said that evolution is not true but not false. So why should I believe it's true?

If you're going to make that assertion, gravity, thermodynamics, and ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL science is false.

So where in the bible does it tell you how to figure out the free fall velocity of a penny dropped from the empire state building after 3 seconds of free fall? Because guess what we use to figure that out? UNPROVABLE THEORIES!!!1!1oneeleven

Jesus fucking wept.

Ok this isn't going anywhere, so I put my last words in and I'm leaving. Put your last thoughts in as accurate and as clear as possible into one post and I'll get to them later. Sounds like a plan. See you peeps later, and thanks for the debate. You showed me that "Intelligent People" really get angry when you challenge them and for some reason sit on these forums instead of posting ideas and answers where they might count. They really want to abolish open-minded people, which is pretty sad but makes sense when you think you are the smartess person to grace the earth that just by chance appeared and therefore should just be happy that you are alive.
Sand in the vasoline, mmhmmm.
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumbimg_2/1100527262LPlol3.jpg

There is an undeniable and huge amount of evidence pointing to evolution being right, so much in fact that it's hard for any rational person to say that there is any viable alternative.

There is no evidence for the existence of God whatsoever - it's purely on faith.

It's like saying that simply because no one saw the actual murder, we should discount all the fingerprint evidence, the blood samples, the motive, the knife found in the murderers hand, a hand that's covered in the blood of the victim, the confession by the murderer, all this means that the conclusion must be....

God did it.

Well, since life according to evolution or the theory that allows evolution to be true happened by chance since there was no creator, maybe that person died by total chance. But if that person was killed by another person then that was just murder and has no relevance to creation of life.

Ok... Time out... Wait just a bloody moment (yes pun is intended. :p)

This thread is supposed to be about Evolution vs. Creationism. not whether God exists or not.

Just as it was said, there is NO proof that God exists, you cannot prove that God does NOT have a hand in Evolution, nor can you prove God does NOT exist.

I am Pro-Evolution but I also believe that God exists. (which is counter to whomever said that acepting Evolution means turning from God.) so I really, REALLY don't want this to turn into a "God does/does not exist" thread. God knowns that there are enough of those. :rolleyes:

Now, Disproving Creation does not prove God doesn't exist. It only proves that perhaps, How it was stated in the Bible, was only one or a few person's interpretation.


so here's my theory of what really happened... :p

God tends to work in visions. Sending dreams and so forth. Sure he spoke though birds, bushes and other mediaries... but he also used dreams.

So imagine this. He shows one or maybe even a couple of people how he created life on Earth. however, he doesn't show it year by year (billions of years would still take billions of nights... expecially if its one year per night.) so he does what most camera men do today. SPEED UP THE FILM! so in one night, these people who he commissioned to start writing the Bible, get the WHOLE damn thing in 6 nights...

And these recipients, put down to pen... er... quill... whatever... their vision the next day.

However, since each step is done one a night. each record would be...

"On the first Day/Night... "

"On the second Day/Night..."

And so forth. Six nights of visions, six days to create the world.

and since science was... well... very, VERY primative back then. instead of seeing each phase of evolution, they saw a blob form a shape and become... a horse. not seeing each step of the evolutionary process... they only understood the end product... animals

they saw a plant spring out of the ground. and missing the fact that it was first moss/alge that then shaped the primative flora, then settled into what they reconized as plants... trees, shrubs, bushes...

They saw a figure seemingly rise out of the dirt and turn into a human... completely mis-understanding all the evolutionary steps inbetween.

Dunno what vision would show the rib turning into woman... perhaps it may be that if the first... human shaped creature was closer to animal than human in their biological cycle. Then they would be thin and no womanly shape until they were with child. Thus it would seem that what made a woman a woman could be seen as sprouting from the ribs (as their breasts became milk laden during pregnancy.) And Hark... a woman springs from the ribs of Man... or so it might have been seen... and recorded.

Thus Creationism was... er... created...

Ok... Time out... Wait just a bloody moment (yes pun is intended. :p)

This thread is supposed to be about Evolution vs. Creationism. not whether God exists or not.

Just as it was said, there is NO proof that God exists, you cannot prove that God does NOT have a hand in Evolution, nor can you prove God does NOT exist.

I am Pro-Evolution but I also believe that God exists. (which is counter to whomever said that acepting Evolution means turning from God.) so I really, REALLY don't want this to turn into a "God does/does not exist" thread. God knowns that there are enough of those. :rolleyes:

Now, Disproving Creation does not prove God doesn't exist. It only proves that perhaps, How it was stated in the Bible, was only one or a few person's interpretation.


so here's my theory of what really happened... :p

God tends to work in visions. Sending dreams and so forth. Sure he spoke though birds, bushes and other mediaries... but he also used dreams.

So imagine this. He shows one or maybe even a couple of people how he created life on Earth. however, he doesn't show it year by year (billions of years would still take billions of nights... expecially if its one year per night.) so he does what most camera men do today. SPEED UP THE FILM! so in one night, these people who he commissioned to start writing the Bible, get the WHOLE damn thing in 6 nights...

And these recipients, put down to pen... er... quill... whatever... their vision the next day.

However, since each step is done one a night. each record would be...

"On the first Day/Night... "

"On the second Day/Night..."

And so forth. Six nights of visions, six days to create the world.

and since science was... well... very, VERY primative back then. instead of seeing each phase of evolution, they saw a blob form a shape and become... a horse. not seeing each step of the evolutionary process... they only understood the end product... animals

they saw a plant spring out of the ground. and missing the fact that it was first moss/alge that then shaped the primative flora, then settled into what they reconized as plants... trees, shrubs, bushes...

They saw a figure seemingly rise out of the dirt and turn into a human... completely mis-understanding all the evolutionary steps inbetween.

Dunno what vision would show the rib turning into woman... perhaps it may be that if the first... human shaped creature was closer to animal than human in their biological cycle. Then they would be thin and no womanly shape until they were with child. Thus it would seem that what made a woman a woman could be seen as sprouting from the ribs (as their breasts became milk laden during pregnancy.) And Hark... a woman springs from the ribs of Man... or so it might have been seen... and recorded.

Thus Creationism was... er... created...

Not a new idea. An interesting idea, but one science can't touch. You just can't back supernatural explanations with a naturalistic analysis. That doesn't make the supernatural explanation wrong, as long as the supernatural explanation matches observed phenomena. I still don't find it useful, but I'm not going to judge you based on that, because you're at least intelligent enough to see the science and accept the science as sound despite your religious beliefs. Now. That being said, the belief and the argument CAN be attacked on theological grounds, by anyone foolish enough to bend to a literalist view of the Bibble.

Also: Waaaaay too many puns.

Also also: Please inform Lief Webster that I just don't have time right now to play in the D&D game. I'm going to have to sit it out.

Not a new idea. An interesting idea, but one science can't touch. You just can't back supernatural explanations with a naturalistic analysis. That doesn't make the supernatural explanation wrong, as long as the supernatural explanation matches observed phenomena. I still don't find it useful, but I'm not going to judge you based on that, because you're at least intelligent enough to see the science and accept the science as sound despite your religious beliefs. Now. That being said, the belief and the argument CAN be attacked on theological grounds, by anyone foolish enough to bend to a literalist view of the Bibble. Science isn't meant to touch this. That's what Faith is!

Now, Faith isn't supposed to be Science Free, nor is Science supposed to be Faith-free, both can work hand in hand. Science, the intellect. Religion, the wisdom (Generally speaking.) You can be a) smart and foolish, b) Wise but stupid, or C) both Smart and Wise. it's only those that choose either A or B that continue this argument.

Science hasn't disproven God. It hasn't proven his existance, but it also hasn't disproven his existance. so again, why can't the idea of a Superior Being watching us, nudging things from time to time, co-exist with Evolution? Why does Evolution HAVE to prove God's Non-Existance?

Also: Waaaaay too many puns.sorry... trying to lighten the mood. some of the posts are getting... heated IMHO.

Also also: Please inform Lief Webster that I just don't have time right now to play in the D&D game. I'm going to have to sit it out. sure... who are you there?

*snip*

I'm really not debating whether God exists or not, I'm merely pointing out that's there's no evidence for God whereas there's plenty of evidence for evolution.

I agree that if my post were to cause a descent into a God/no god debate then perhaps I should have phrased it better.

Science isn't meant to touch this. That's what Faith is!

Now, Faith isn't supposed to be Science Free, nor is Science supposed to be Faith-free, both can work hand in hand. Science, the intellect. Religion, the wisdom (Generally speaking.) You can be a) smart and foolish, b) Wise but stupid, or C) both Smart and Wise. it's only those that choose either A or B that continue this argument.

Science hasn't disproven God. It hasn't proven his existance, but it also hasn't disproven his existance. so again, why can't the idea of a Superior Being watching us, nudging things from time to time, co-exist with Evolution? Why does Evolution HAVE to prove God's Non-Existance?

sorry... trying to lighten the mood. some of the posts are getting... heated IMHO.

sure... who are you there?

I disagree that religion is wisdom-- that implies that the nonreligious are inherently unwise, and I really don't think that, though I might be biased.

Science isn't meant to touch this. That's what Faith is!

Now, Faith isn't supposed to be Science Free, nor is Science supposed to be Faith-free, both can work hand in hand. Science, the intellect. Religion, the wisdom (Generally speaking.) You can be a) smart and foolish, b) Wise but stupid, or C) both Smart and Wise. it's only those that choose either A or B that continue this argument.

Science hasn't disproven God. It hasn't proven his existance, but it also hasn't disproven his existance. so again, why can't the idea of a Superior Being watching us, nudging things from time to time, co-exist with Evolution? Why does Evolution HAVE to prove God's Non-Existance?

sorry... trying to lighten the mood. some of the posts are getting... heated IMHO.

sure... who are you there?

I agree, but at that point doesn't it make it a moot point? At some point when you drift into theology, science has to go "alright guys, I'm out" and walk away from the situation and let it resolve itself philosophically.

Jaske Archaiah

I agree, but at that point doesn't it make it a moot point? At some point when you drift into theology, science has to go "alright guys, I'm out" and walk away from the situation and let it resolve itself philosophically.

Jaske Archaiah
Science vs Religion is always a moot point. just as people see Religious people grasping at the Phantom in the sky when they have something unexplainable, you also have Test Tube Fanboys grasping at any theory to explain the unexplainable.

Two sides... same coin. and you know what? those sides co-exist without meeting.

God created the world. What's to say that Evolution isn't the How (ignoring the literallist here... )

As for the Literallists here... you still have to disprove the science that proves that the Bible isn't 100% accurate facts.

Oh I can hear it now... The Devil Planted Those Evidence... PROVE IT! ;)

and will do. I'll suggest that you are just 'tagging' along until you can rejoin the group.

This thread is supposed to be about Evolution vs. Creationism. not whether God exists or not.well, if no god exists, then the world was not created. and if the bible is a book of lies (which it in fact is) then the world was at least not created by the jewish god. evolution on the other side apparently (and in fact observably) exists with or without god.

Science vs Religion is always a moot point. not if the religion is one based on the bible. in those cases religion always fails.

For objects in the up to about 50,000 years, carbon dating us used, as that's the range in which it is accurate.

Beyond that other dating methods are used.

As I explained before, carbon dating is only as accurate as far back and known history. Beyond that, any effects such as volcanos and limestone deposits and changes in the magnetic field (anything that upsets the balance between 14C and 12C) has to be accounted for an corrected during the conversion into calendar years. Small changes to the balance can upset the ratio by a good deal. But if we don't know the history, how can we make the corrections? Carbon dating is only theoretically reliable up to 50,000 years, since it has a half life of about 5,700 years, and after 50,000 years, it is mostly depleted. Practically, though, dating through carbon relies heavily on the correction factors.


Not true. You can measure seasonal layers in ice and trees, for example. Taking forests into account, we can date even further back.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've read about rather disputable methods for estimating layers. As you will see if you look at the methods, there are many assumptions. If the tree is petrified and buried, then the death date of the tree is calculated by the depth under the ground, and the cross sectional growth layers are counted and added on to the date. But this is an estimate, and if the estimate is based on uniformitarian assumptions, it would not surprise anyone if the dates came out to be rather old. Otherwise, I'm not sure how tree layers can be used to date ancient civilisations, or ice layers for that matter. As far as I know, they have been used to demonstrate that the earth is older than 6,000 years, but not to date civilisations.



The supernatural is non-testable, by definition.


But that is useless, because we have no way of determining what the supernatural is.


Or not a hole at all. As it goes.


So, an observation that cannot be currently explained by evolutionary theory is not a hole?



There is no reason that separate dating methods should yield agreeable results if they were as faulty as you claim.


Yes there is. As I pointed out, each of the dating methods uses basic assumptions to come up with the numbers, and only the numbers in agreement are selected as 'most likely'. That is hardly an objective way to date the rocks, since the basic assumptions are the same, and the numbers are selected.


It is a totally novel gene, producing a totally novel enzyme. It is a new species of bacteria. That is macroevolution, no?


No, it is more like a frameshift mutation, just one of which is sufficient to change the properties of the transcripted and translated product completely. Upon demand, the organism can repeat it in liquid cultures supplied with plastic as a carbon source in just days. That is either a miracle or a mechanism. I would go with the mechanism.


Yay, another pretend-science website that tries to convince people the earth is really only a few thousand years old.


As opposed to all the other pretend-science websites that try to do the opposite. 'Convincing' is part of science too.


I've never seen a scientist claiming "evolution just did it". Could this be a pretty strawman you're building here? I hear they burn well.


Really, so you have never read the editorials where the chap says that while they disagree on the mechanisms, they all agree that it came about through evolution?


Their text books are creationists texts with the word "god" replaced with "designer".

Word for word.

But you're right. They don't say "God did it". They say something more like "And unknown designer (winkwink) did it. *CouighRhymesWithModCough*"


I don't deny that it has been done. But isn't that irrelevent? I personally don't care that much for the distinction between ID and creationism. Both are creationists. Here's the thing, though--there is quite a lot of varying approaches within creationism. I define a creationist as anyone who holds that God had anything to do with the origins. That includes people who accept evolution, but, for example, think that God created the first life form, or helped it form. So you get the creationists who are not scientists, who simply read the Bible, interpret it, and then look at nature and explain it according to the Bible. And then you get at the other extreme of the spectrum, the scientists who don't deny evolution, but don't necessarily accept that every observation in nature must be explained through natural causes.


And you dare to call something that starts with a conclusion, and cherry picks evidence that can be twisted to support it a science?

Pot meet kettle.


Are you saying that evolutionary theory doesn't do the same thing. For example, chimps and man are related through common ancestry, therefor let us look at the genome to investigate how it happened. Millions of dollars and euros are poured into exactly this approach. No question of whether there really is any common ancestry. The common design approach is not disproven, just not considered, despite the evidence. Why not? Because it is ruled out on grounds that creation is not observable, and thus not science. Nevermind that none of the past is not observable!


Broadly defined, yes. That's what every religious person believes.

But that's not what people are arguing about.
They argue over young earth creationism, which is entirely based on genesis.


I suggest that people are arguing about everything. Here on this thread, I have stated my position several times as saying that I do not know how old the world is. It could be only 6,000 years, but it doesn't have to be. I'm willing to follow the evidence.


That assumption is not required for acceptance of evolution. Many religious people are willing to not close their eyes to the evidence and accept that evolution happens.

I can also accept that evolution happens, but only on the basis of good evidence, not a philosophical argument.


If you wish to believe in an inferior ID god, then so be it. But most religious people are willing to accept that their god is capable of making a universe where life evolves without constant intervention.

What you claim to be inferior or not is entirely subjective, and probably quite irrelevant to this topic.

As I explained before, carbon dating is only as accurate as far back and known history. Beyond that, any effects such as volcanos and limestone deposits and changes in the magnetic field (anything that upsets the balance between 14C and 12C) has to be accounted for an corrected during the conversion into calendar years. Small changes to the balance can upset the ratio by a good deal. But if we don't know the history, how can we make the corrections? Carbon dating is only theoretically reliable up to 50,000 years, since it has a half life of about 5,700 years, and after 50,000 years, it is mostly depleted. Practically, though, dating through carbon relies heavily on the correction factors.


As I explained before you are misrepresenting the truth about this...

Arguing the evidence differently is one thing, but lying is something else. Now, as studied as you seem to be about this, you would obviously have, at one point, read the refutation (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD210.html) of it. The fact that you still use said point is intellectually dishonest. I hadn't read that refutation, so I thank you for that link. I readily admit, it is possible that the Colorado river delta is the huge one of which they speak. The thing is, such a delta doesn't seem to fit so well with millions of years of slowly cutting away of the canyon. The huge area and depth of the delta is better explained, in my view, by a large flood. Precisely my original point. By the way, aren't you being a bit too quick to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? How the hell would you know what I have read and haven't read? It makes you look like you are eager to paint people with dishonesty. That is a rather shitty attitude, if you ask me.

As I explained before you are misrepresenting the truth about this...

Please explain. Just making such a claim is quite inadequate. You need to provide some reasons, at least so I can judge whether you are right or not.

Why is it that evolutionists hate Christians so much? Why do you hate me so much? What did I ever do?

I, like JuNii, am a Christian who supports Evolution (well, I'm non-denominational- I have yet to find a Christian institution that analogous to my beliefs, but that's just semantics). Anyway, I am going to say that the issue is not "Evolution hates Christians", it's more the fact that Creationists trumpet the Bible as their sole proof of their theory when:

1) The Bible was never written to be a scientific text, but as a religious text- if you read the Biblical passages concerning Creation, it's more about why God created the species the way that He did and not how. You can't read Genesis and find out about blood circulation or the respiratory patterns of fish because it's not in there and that's by choice- the Bible is there to teach a moral lesson, not a scientific one.

2) The Bible applies solely to Christians and Jews and not to members of other faiths; and science is supposed to be applicable to all faiths. Thus, Biblical proof here is not even proof at all, because it's not applicable to Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, etc. who are just as interested in learning about science as Christians and Jews are.

The problem with Creationism- from my standpoint anyway- is not that it's faith-based it's because they're claiming they're "scientific" when they ignore completely the fundamentals of the scientific method. I have yet to see a Creationist posit anything that could be remotely considered "science" (as in a new theory based on new, tangible, data that can be falsifiable and is obtained through experimental observations) and think that by attacking Evolution they automatically have a better theory. Something doesn't become right because something else is wrong- the other side still has to prove it's right first, and the Creationists have yet to do that.

So how am I going to learn about if it isn't fully known yet? I would be being lied to, becuase its not a fact yet.

It's been said once and I'll say it again- *no* scientific theory is *complete*. In fact, if you're going to teach only the theories that are "the most complete", you have a scientific textbook that's bare. There's many, minor details that you can easily prove but "bigger pictures" (the "theories" such as evolution) that provide the application of those minor details are not so easy to define, because the picture is always changing as new data emerges. For example, light travels at 3x10^8 metres per second and is the fastest mode of transmitting radio signals in the Universe. Now, it's easy to "prove" the speed of light- just measure it and you have a number- but it's impossible to "prove" (as you put it) that light is the fastest transmitting object in the Universe. We don't know *all* the objects in the Universe so we can't know *for certain* that light is the fastest object in the Universe- yet science, which uses what we know (to this point), has concluded at this stage in our understanding of the Universe that light *is* the fastest transmitting object in the Universe and will continue to do so until a faster object is observed.

Furthermore, the goal of scientific education is to teach the body of scientific knowledge that is known at the time- and if that body includes the Theory of Evolution, then it's being taught. Considering that no alternates have been provided scientifically, then no other theory can be taught.

Ok this isn't going anywhere, so I put my last words in and I'm leaving. Put your last thoughts in as accurate and as clear as possible into one post and I'll get to them later. Sounds like a plan. See you peeps later, and thanks for the debate. You showed me that "Intelligent People" really get angry when you challenge them and for some reason sit on these forums instead of posting ideas and answers where they might count. They really want to abolish open-minded people, which is pretty sad but makes sense when you think you are the smartess person to grace the earth that just by chance appeared and therefore should just be happy that you are alive.

You answered this yourself here:

Anyone can type something, give me a link to a video or something. To me, your the blind one cuase I don't even know if you have seen it yourself. I could also say (On the side of Creation), God came down from the heavens and told me evolution is a bunch of malarky. Would you just assume that it happened?

If you're not going to bother what's being presented to you then of course you will not gain anything out of this thread. The facts are there if you want them. Read them. Otherwise, don't claim they're malarky until you've actually read them.

Ok... Time out... Wait just a bloody moment (yes pun is intended. :p)

This thread is supposed to be about Evolution vs. Creationism. not whether God exists or not.

Just as it was said, there is NO proof that God exists, you cannot prove that God does NOT have a hand in Evolution, nor can you prove God does NOT exist.

I am Pro-Evolution but I also believe that God exists. (which is counter to whomever said that acepting Evolution means turning from God.) so I really, REALLY don't want this to turn into a "God does/does not exist" thread. God knowns that there are enough of those. :rolleyes:

Now, Disproving Creation does not prove God doesn't exist. It only proves that perhaps, How it was stated in the Bible, was only one or a few person's interpretation.


so here's my theory of what really happened... :p

God tends to work in visions. Sending dreams and so forth. Sure he spoke though birds, bushes and other mediaries... but he also used dreams.

So imagine this. He shows one or maybe even a couple of people how he created life on Earth. however, he doesn't show it year by year (billions of years would still take billions of nights... expecially if its one year per night.) so he does what most camera men do today. SPEED UP THE FILM! so in one night, these people who he commissioned to start writing the Bible, get the WHOLE damn thing in 6 nights...

And these recipients, put down to pen... er... quill... whatever... their vision the next day.

However, since each step is done one a night. each record would be...

"On the first Day/Night... "

"On the second Day/Night..."

And so forth. Six nights of visions, six days to create the world.

and since science was... well... very, VERY primative back then. instead of seeing each phase of evolution, they saw a blob form a shape and become... a horse. not seeing each step of the evolutionary process... they only understood the end product... animals

they saw a plant spring out of the ground. and missing the fact that it was first moss/alge that then shaped the primative flora, then settled into what they reconized as plants... trees, shrubs, bushes...

They saw a figure seemingly rise out of the dirt and turn into a human... completely mis-understanding all the evolutionary steps inbetween.

Dunno what vision would show the rib turning into woman... perhaps it may be that if the first... human shaped creature was closer to animal than human in their biological cycle. Then they would be thin and no womanly shape until they were with child. Thus it would seem that what made a woman a woman could be seen as sprouting from the ribs (as their breasts became milk laden during pregnancy.) And Hark... a woman springs from the ribs of Man... or so it might have been seen... and recorded.

Thus Creationism was... er... created...

I like that idea- I never quite thought of the Creation Story that way but it does make a lot of sense. I am going to postulate that there may be more in God's Message that the writer did not understand, so the writer wrote the story as best that they could given what they received. I'm of the firm belief that the Bible's many contradictions are intentional- so God tells us to think, which I think is pretty clever.

well, if no god exists, then the world was not created. and Prove it.
if the bible is a book of lies (which it in fact is) then the world was at least not created by the jewish god. evolution on the other side apparently (and in fact observably) exists with or without god. the one fallacy in this statement. you are making the claim that the bible contains NOTHING but lies. Thus if one truth can be found, JUST one, then you will admit and believe that the world was... as you said.. "created by the Jewish God."

not if the religion is one based on the bible. in those cases religion always fails.
oh so a Religion baised off of the Koran, or any text other than the Bible won't fail? Thanks for proving that you have a persecution complext against Christianity.

But... To humor you... Let's test this. The Bible states that God exist. Use Science to PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST. There... your Religion Vs. Science. (awaits all the exscuses that will be used in defense of his claim that Religion always fails to Science.)

or even better... since it's along the topic of this thread... SHOW HOW EVOLUTION DISPROVES THE EXISTANCE OF GOD.

As I explained before, carbon dating is only as accurate as far back and known history. Beyond that, any effects such as volcanos and limestone deposits and changes in the magnetic field (anything that upsets the balance between 14C and 12C) has to be accounted for an corrected during the conversion into calendar years. Small changes to the balance can upset the ratio by a good deal. But if we don't know the history, how can we make the corrections? Carbon dating is only theoretically reliable up to 50,000 years, since it has a half life of about 5,700 years, and after 50,000 years, it is mostly depleted. Practically, though, dating through carbon relies heavily on the correction factors.
Hence margins of error. Most of the possible sources of error can be calculated to within a reasonable degree of accuracy and corrected for. There is, for example, a relatively constant amount of C14 produced annually, and globally the effect of volcanoes is more or less constant in the long term. The same is more true of longer term radioactive elements, as carbon moves around a lot more than uranium.


I'm not sure what you mean here. I've read about rather disputable methods for estimating layers. As you will see if you look at the methods, there are many assumptions. If the tree is petrified and buried, then the death date of the tree is calculated by the depth under the ground, and the cross sectional growth layers are counted and added on to the date. But this is an estimate, and if the estimate is based on uniformitarian assumptions, it would not surprise anyone if the dates came out to be rather old. Otherwise, I'm not sure how tree layers can be used to date ancient civilisations, or ice layers for that matter. As far as I know, they have been used to demonstrate that the earth is older than 6,000 years, but not to date civilisations.
The assumption is not that a certain number of cm of depth = a certain age. It's matching up the environment between tree rings of different trees allows you to age them relative to one another. For example, if a volcano goes off in the region, there chemical structure of the rings will be noticeable different, if you find two trees with rings with that then those rings can be reliably assumed to be from the same year. Matching rings you can date further than from simple rings in trees of known age. You can use this to then calibrate carbon dating techniques against the carbon composition of the trees at that point in time.

And if by uniformitarian assumptions you mean things like the universe worked the same way in the past as now, yes. That is an assumption... based on sound information, because it sure looks like it did.

But that is useless, because we have no way of determining what the supernatural is.
If it can't be tested we call it supernatural. You seem to be arguing that we cannot know things about the supernatural, well, yeah, that's the point.

So, an observation that cannot be currently explained by evolutionary theory is not a hole?
Not really, no.

At least not in the sense I am using the term "holes in the theory".


Yes there is. As I pointed out, each of the dating methods uses basic assumptions to come up with the numbers, and only the numbers in agreement are selected as 'most likely'. That is hardly an objective way to date the rocks, since the basic assumptions are the same, and the numbers are selected.
You over simplify the issue. They do not simply select the data that agrees with their assumed age.

No, it is more like a frameshift mutation, just one of which is sufficient to change the properties of the transcripted and translated product completely. Upon demand, the organism can repeat it in liquid cultures supplied with plastic as a carbon source in just days. That is either a miracle or a mechanism. I would go with the mechanism.

A mutation which results in a novel gene and a novel enzyme not previously present in the bacteria.
Based on this mutation, a new bacteria splits from the old one and a new species is born.

Macro-evolution.

As opposed to all the other pretend-science websites that try to do the opposite. 'Convincing' is part of science too.
Except those are actual science, not a conclusion cherry picking data to support itself.

Really, so you have never read the editorials where the chap says that while they disagree on the mechanisms, they all agree that it came about through evolution?
I've read ones where there is disagreement over what precise mechanisms were involved, but that doesn't equate to "evolution just did it".

I don't deny that it has been done. But isn't that irrelevent? I personally don't care that much for the distinction between ID and creationism. Both are creationists. Here's the thing, though--there is quite a lot of varying approaches within creationism. I define a creationist as anyone who holds that God had anything to do with the origins. That includes people who accept evolution, but, for example, think that God created the first life form, or helped it form. So you get the creationists who are not scientists, who simply read the Bible, interpret it, and then look at nature and explain it according to the Bible. And then you get at the other extreme of the spectrum, the scientists who don't deny evolution, but don't necessarily accept that every observation in nature must be explained through natural causes.
Not a definition everyone else uses in these discussions. There is need to distinguish between those who accept evolution and those who do not. Creationist is used a shorthand for those who do not.
Those who do make up the majority of people in the world.
This debate is only ever between those who do not, and those who do.

Are you saying that evolutionary theory doesn't do the same thing.
I am.

For example, chimps and man are related through common ancestry, therefor let us look at the genome to investigate how it happened. Millions of dollars and euros are poured into exactly this approach. No question of whether there really is any common ancestry. The common design approach is not disproven, just not considered, despite the evidence. Why not? Because it is ruled out on grounds that creation is not observable, and thus not science. Nevermind that none of the past is not observable!
The past is observable, through the evidence it leaves behind.
And there is no quantum of design, no measurement of it. How exactly do you propose that it be tested?

Common ancestry, though, can be, retro-viral insertions in DNA, for example, are a pretty good indication. As well as the joined chromosomes, including the telomeres in the middle of the chromosome still. Wtf kind of lazy ass design is that?
As well as the myriad fossils of previous hominids. You say there is no question as to whether there is a common ancestry? Well, it has been more or less proven at this point. Beyond all reasonable doubt, certainly.

I suggest that people are arguing about everything. Here on this thread, I have stated my position several times as saying that I do not know how old the world is. It could be only 6,000 years, but it doesn't have to be. I'm willing to follow the evidence.
All I've seen is that you dispute the evidence.

Either the universe is old, or it was created old, in either case the only rational conclusion is that it is old.


I can also accept that evolution happens, but only on the basis of good evidence, not a philosophical argument.
Observed instances aren't good enough for you?

What you claim to be inferior or not is entirely subjective, and probably quite irrelevant to this topic.
Creationism is bad theology, dude. And is quite relevant.

what is this nerd fight about? bitching over the details although creationism doesn't even get the broad stokes right?
when will you get it? the bible was made up and the god described therein fabricated. there is no basis for discussion. the theory of evolution is the ONLY explanation for the current number of species. there is no alternative theory right now.

If nylon-eating bacteria and the peppered moth are "philosophical assumptions", then yes I am. They're not. They're observable, scientific data that cannot be ignored. Won't tell the complete story but it's sure more convincing than any argument I've ever seen put forward by a Creationist (who puts forward nothing besides "it's in the Bible").

Firstly, the nylon eating bacteria and peppered moth are examples of evolution that nobody disputes, not even the creationists. The dispute is over what they mean. For example, does the nylon eating bacteria mean that a novel gene has arisen through the humble mutation process that we commonly observe today? Yes. Does this falsify a prediction made be the creationists regarding that we have never observed the arising of new genes? Yes? Does that falsify a creationist prediction? Yes. (Sound almost like science.) Does that falsify the creation concept? Pfffffft....I should think not. What it means is that these organisms have a mechanism for allowing rapid mutations. But this falls a long way short of macroevolution. We are talking about a new gene here, not a totally new cell phenotype.

Creationists also have good explanations for these observations, so they cannot be used as proof for the natural origin of all the variation in life today. That being said, most creationists don't rule Darwin's idea of the emergence of the species out of hand. What they do rule out is the philosophical assumption that everything must be explainable through natural causes. It's that word 'must' that we reject. It doesn't need to be there. It certainly is not put there through science. It is a barrier to the search for truth.

You seem to have this idea that all creationists do is read the Bible and weave explanations. Let me tell you. That is completely wrong. Only a minority of creationists do that.



This isn't about a lack of respect for each other- this is about a debate on ideas; and I think you are incorrect. You probably think the same way about me. However, this particular point you're raising is irrelevant to the discussion, because that's never what I've said in the first place.

OK. Then what exactly is it that I'm saying that is incorrect, regarding the origins. Do you still think that I have ruled out evolution?



I don't know how your apple statement has anything to do with my essay on Creationism, but I am going to say that I wrote it with the specific goal to find tangible proof of any kind of science in Creationism. I found nothing. It has nothing to do with Evolution being "right or wrong" because that was not what I was after- I was researching the idea that Creationism could be considered science and I have conclusively said it does not. Evolution doesn't come anywhere near that discussion.


So your little paper on Creationism found nothing. Fine, but you might as well know that that also proves nothing. The 'nothing' that you found can easily be explained by your prejudice. Hence the apples argument.


You do understand that "macroevolution" is simply many different microevolutionary processes extrapolated over a wider space of time, right? It's not like a monkey becomes a man overnight.


That microevolution is macroevolution is an item of belief. It has to be belief because it has never been observed or repeated--two basic tenants of the scientific method.


That's like saying that because I'm looking for two numbers that add to even numbers that "1+1" cannot equal "2"- it always does. You can't say that because the data corroborates an assumption it's somehow wrong- scientific data is always taken "as is", and the apparti used to obtain that data is inanimate and thus does not know what a bias is anyway- it just spits out a result. It is true that a scientist *does* have their own biases and conducts experiments looking to corroborate assumptions- but a good scientist is able to change their assumptions if the data obtained is different than anticipated. However the data itself isn't right or wrong simply because it fits a theory (in fact, that's what a scientist is ultimately after anyway)- it's just a bunch of numbers that you're required to take or leave.


Right. All that is generated is a bunch of numbers. But how those numbers are generated depends greatly on the methodology. And the methodology used depends greatly upon the opinion of the person choosing the methodology. The underlying assumptions are then used to interpret the numbers. Perhaps when the numbers are converted to calendar years. Sure, good scientists are able to change their assumptions. But what if they rigidly refuse to? That would make them poor scientists, right?
Creationism allows for both evolution and creation. Naturalism allows for only evolution. You tell me which one is more rigid.



Now, it's also worth mentioning that because radiometric dating techniques vary widely that not everything can be dated with precision. I personally don't know that much about this particular subject, but it wouldn't surprise me if there are objects that are vaguely dated simply because radiometric results vary too much on that particular object. As far as the reliability of radiometric techniques- well, oil companies use rock layer data to find oil, and if they're convinced of its reliability then it's pretty safe to say that it's accurate to some degree at least.


Right again. We certainly have a long way to go with our precision. For example, 50 years ago, about 10% of the drills for oil found oil. The other 90 were dry. Nowadays, we have improved this to 20%.
The problem with the radiometric dating is not that the measurements are so inaccurate. It has to do with the assumptions underlying the method. These include levels of the parent isoform, levels of the daughter isoform, that the rock being tested is a 'sealed container' (no leakages), and that the rock was formed from molten rock and that the earth originally came together from a swirling gas (i.e. homogenous mixture). If any of these assumptions are wrong, then the measurement is still right, but the calculation of calendar years would be completely wrong. Furthermore, if the world is only 6,000 years, the conversions would be complete nonsense, since they are based on the assumption that the world is far older.


Sure it can. All you need to find is evidence that a massive flood *did not* take place, such as the shale formations common to Cretaceous and Ordovician rock that require a long, slow process of sedimentation that simply cannot happen in a catastrophic flood. Sedimentation at that kind of level requires a long period (millions of years) where the water rests on the same level so it can deposit and compact the rocks to form a new shoreline- you can see an example of "mini-sedimentation" whenever you drain a pool because the outline of the water remains- and a catastrophic flood cannot produce that kind of sedimentation because the water leaves too quickly.


But that is all based on estimations, and estimations do not prove that a massive flood did not take place. At best, they can demonstrate that our impressions of what massive flood might look like are wrong. For example, how are we to know if such a flood allowed for slow sedimentation in some parts? Or if some land areas before the flood were underwater for many years before finally being lifted by movements in the earth's crust to become dry land once again? It all degenerates into speculation, hardly evidence.


I could also go into the logisitical nightmare that it would be for the Story of Noah's Ark to have occurred in reality- especially if we are to extrapolate that to the millions of years required for sedimentation- because the boat needed would be prohibitively massive, not just to store Noah and his family, but also all of the animals' families as well as their food and drinking water (since the floodwaters would be contaminated because of decaying remains). I also find it curious that Noah never saved the dinosaurs when the Bible quite clearly tells him to take two of every kind of animal, "clean and unclean" (Genesis 7:2-4). If the Story is to be believed literally, then Noah clearly missed an assignment because the dinosaurs are no longer here when they should be.

Yes, it does seem to be a logistical nightmare, based on our perceptions from reading the Bible. Does that mean it never happened? The boat was massive. The flood waters could have been boiled before drinking. And it is possible that some dinosaurs survived the flood. When the Bible says that the whole world was covered, was it referring to the whole globe, or just the whole known world? Obviously, it was referring to the whole known world, since Moses or whoever the writer(s) was could hardly be called globe trotters. But does that mean that the whole globe was affected by the same flood? Possibly. The Bible is silent on that point. It does tell us that the mountains of the known world was covered, and that all the humans and animals of the known world were destroyed. But that doesn't mean that the mountains of the unknown world were all covered, or that the animals of the unknown world were all destroyed, even if the flood affected the whole globe.

My tentative conclusion on the matter is that I think a global flood was possible, despite a number of puzzling observations. Puzzling does not equal proof, because if it did, evolutionary theory would have been disproved a long time ago.

If science was always right, it would have no need to exist because all the answers would be there. Science needs to be wrong eventually in order for us to better understand our world. If science was never wrong, we'd never learn anything new.

Science is theories and ideas that are always tested and tested again under new circumstances. It provides answers then looks to see if those answers can be proven again. Until they are proven wrong, they are accepted as valid answers.

Anything that science tells us is valid until it is proven otherwise.

We are not lied to or mislead until the evidence changes the facts that are currently known to us and considered to be relevant and true. When the facts change, the knowledge changes and with it, theories change, giving us a better grasp of the truth.

If science stopped researching how germs mutated, we would be unable to fight off the simple diseases that we are able to today because it would accept it as fact that those germs are going to kill us and there is nothing we can do about it.

Example, in 1917, there was a massive outbreak of Spanish Influenza. People didn't know how to control the spread of germs or for that matter, how the germs spread so millions died. Simply because many of the common practices we have today that prevent the spread of germs on such a large scale come from scientific research into how germs and bacteria evolve and change in order to subsist.

If science had simply stopped when it discovered the first method to fight disease, our life spans would be significantly shorter.

Science has to be wrong eventually for theories to become more accurate or change to better represent our world.

The unknown doesn't have to necessarily be explained by the existence of a god, goddess or some variation, it can simply be accepted as yet to be known and that makes our world interesting and allows for theories to flourish.

Please explain. Just making such a claim is quite inadequate. You need to provide some reasons, at least so I can judge whether you are right or not.

Radiocarbon dating is calibrated against other methods of dating - for example dendrochronology, so the factors that you claim make it inaccurate are taken into account. It is generally accepted that it can be used with an acceptable level of accuracy to date items up to about 30,000 years ago. There are numerous academic papers on this - have a look on Ingenta.
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/567/

What you judge right or not is of no interest to me compared to what is generally accepted by most scientists.

How about some evidence to back up you claim - simply stating the well known limitations that need to be taken into account and then pretending that this means that radiocarbon dating cannot go back more than 6,000 years is either ignorance or deliberate misrepresention.

Sorry to keep you waitn', Roma. I just felt it was best to leave, on what I felt was, a high note.

And I take blame for faith being brought into this, Though I don't hold it irrelavent. Both are the only two explanations (I said two, but both have many internal differences) to the begining, the now, and the concievable ends(If any).

But religion is entirely faith based, no physical evidence. Evolution, on the other hand, is an and/or situation. I respect the belief the two could coexist as a well balanced and non polarizing concept, and have no intention of debunking it.

Religion, straight, though is unadaptable, everything is written as fact, no lineancy. Evolution, is only a theory, and is refining with the gathering of knowledge, of the secrets the natural world is willing to give. That is the way I prefer life, no absolute answers, It makes the abstract unoriginal, life even more the story told a billion times before. perhaps life couldn't exist if there was no flux. mabye the answer would drive you insane.

I accept I could be wrong, but thus far each side cancel each other out. Evolution makes the most sense to me, more than anything presented at this time. Call me wishy-washy, but adaptation is key.

Radiocarbon dating is calibrated against other methods of dating - for example dendrochronology, so the factors that you claim make it inaccurate are taken into account. It is generally accepted that it can be used with an acceptable level of accuracy to date items up to about 30,000 years ago. There are numerous academic papers on this - have a look on Ingenta.
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/567/

What you judge right or not is of no interest to me compared to what is generally accepted by most scientists.

How about some evidence to back up you claim - simply stating the well known limitations that need to be taken into account and then pretending that this means that radiocarbon dating cannot go back more than 6,000 years is either ignorance or deliberate misrepresention.

dendrochronology does not work. the growth of tree rings depends very much on micro climate. even trees growing 50 meters apart can have completely different ring patterns.

dendrochronology does not work. the growth of tree rings depends very much on micro climate. even trees growing 50 meters apart can have completely different ring patterns.

You are very much on your own with this opinion.

You are very much on your own with this opinion.Then just cut down two trees and look for yourself.

And the point is that taking any tree from any time within the last five thousand years and try to puzzle a coherent overall ring pattern together is completely subject to the subjective interpretation of the person doing the comparisons.

Then just cut down two trees and look for yourself.

And the point is that taking any tree from any time within the last five thousand years and try to puzzle a coherent overall ring pattern together is completely subject to the subjective interpretation of the person doing the comparisons.

It is widely accepted as a very accurate method of dating - can you point me towards some articles from peer reviewed journals that support what you say?

That's an awful lot of objections to a more greatly empirically proven case such as science.

Why, it would seem as though....you almost weren't allowing anything to count against you.

My. Sounds like the Falsification Prinicple. Easy philosophy- don't allow anything to count evidentially against you, and you no longer really have an argument. Rejection of empirical, accurate evidence....replaced by this nonesense pseudo-science that has the audacity to claim doctrates, and the possibility of a 5000 year old dinosaur skeleton.

Jesus. Haven't seen this much regression since 1815.

Radiocarbon dating is calibrated against other methods of dating - for example dendrochronology, so the factors that you claim make it inaccurate are taken into account. It is generally accepted that it can be used with an acceptable level of accuracy to date items up to about 30,000 years ago. There are numerous academic papers on this - have a look on Ingenta.
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/567/

Allow me to copy paste from a website: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i10f.htm
I've copied below the most relevant parts and put them in quotation marks.

''As you may know, carbon 14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic radiation interacts with nitrogen gas, converting nitrogen 14 to carbon 14. These carbon 14 atoms combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide gas, which is absorbed by plants. The plants use the carbon in the carbon dioxide to make sugar and other edible stuff. Animals eat the plants, ingesting the carbon 14. As long as the plant or animal is alive, it keeps ingesting carbon, which is a mixture of stable carbon 12 and radioactive carbon 14. When the plant or animal dies, it stops eating carbon-containing food, so its earthly remains no longer absorb carbon 14. The carbon 14 that it had when it died, however, slowly decays into nitrogen gas. So, by measuring the amount of carbon 14 left in the specimen, one can tell how long it has been since it died.''

''The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%). ''

That's an uncertainty of 10 to 1 for carbon dioxide, by the way.

''....the atmosphere is made up of 0.03% carbon dioxide, and 0.00000000010% of that carbon dioxide is carbon 14.''

''Because the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is so small, and since the amount of carbon 14 is just a small fraction of that, ratios involving carbon are very sensitive.''

''Since about 1890, the use of industrial and fossil fuels has resulted in large amounts of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere. Because the source of the industrial fuels has been predominantly material of infinite geological age ( e.g coal, petroleum), whose radiocarbon content is nil, the radiocarbon activity of the atmosphere has been lowered in the early part of the 20th century up until the 1950's. The atmospheric radiocarbon signal has, in effect, been diluted by about 2%. Hans Suess (1955) discovered the industrial effect (also called after him) in the 1950's. 8''
''Since about 1955, thermonuclear tests have added considerably to the C14 atmospheric reservoir. This C14 is 'artificial' or 'bomb' C14, produced because nuclear bombs produce a huge thermal neutron flux. The effect of this has been to almost double the amount of C14 activity in terrestrial carbon bearing materials (Taylor, 1987). 9''
''Radiocarbon samples which obtain their carbon from a different source (or reservoir) than atmospheric carbon may yield what is termed apparent ages. A shellfish alive today in a lake within a limestone catchment, for instance, will yield a radiocarbon date which is excessively old. The reason for this anomaly is that the limestone, which is weathered and dissolved into bicarbonate, has no radioactive carbon. Thus, it dilutes the activity of the lake meaning that the radioactivity is depleted in comparison to 14C activity elsewhere. The lake, in this case, has a different radiocarbon reservoir than that of the majority of the radiocarbon in the biosphere and therefore an accurate radiocarbon age requires that a correction be made to account for it. 10''

Thus the bottom line is:
''The point is that there is so little carbon dioxide in the water and atmosphere, that comparatively small changes in amounts of carbon cause large percentage changes. Consequently, there are known correction factors which are used to convert radiocarbon years to calendar years, which work quite well for the last 5,000 years or so. But we don’t know what the correction factors are for dates older than 5,000 years because we have no historical data to use for calibration.''

''The discovery of tropical fossils in arctic places implies a time when the Earth was warmer, which might have been the result of more carbon dioxide (and therefore more carbon 12) in the atmosphere. If there was more carbon 12 in the atmosphere earlier than 5,000 years ago, then all radiocarbon dates would appear to be much older than actual calendar years.''

''The myth is that radiocarbon dating can accurately establish exact dates of the death of organic remains almost as far back as 50,000 years. The reality is that one would have to know the 14C/12C ratio in the environment at the time of the death of the sample. The fact is that we can only infer that ratio for the past 5,000 years or so using historical records. The inference is that the ratio changes sufficiently so that calibration factors have to be used to convert radiocarbon years to actual calendar years. Since the ratio is known to have changed in historic times, it is irrational and unscientific to think that it was constant before historic times.''




What you judge right or not is of no interest to me compared to what is generally accepted by most scientists.

Maybe so, but it still is rather helpful to post your reasons on a debate thread rather than just leveling accusations.


How about some evidence to back up you claim - simply stating the well known limitations that need to be taken into account and then pretending that this means that radiocarbon dating cannot go back more than 6,000 years is either ignorance or deliberate misrepresention.

See the copy/paste above, or if you are really interested, I would encourage you to read the original article.

Allow me to copy paste from a website: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i10f.htm
I've copied below the most relevant parts and put them in quotation marks.



How about something peer reviewed rather than from a website with a clear creationist agenda?

Allow me to copy paste from a website: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i10f.htm
Allow me to reply: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

How about something peer reviewed rather than from a website with a clear creationist agenda?

Even peer reviewed websites have agenda's, or do you think there is such a thing as pure science? Everyone has an agenda. And if all your peers have the same agenda as you, they will probably never criticise you for it.

What you have the opportunity to do here is to respond to the arguments made by this creationist. If you don't like the arguments, provide good reasons.

Allow me to reply: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

What? A link? What about addressing the arguments? You can copy and paste the relevant parts if you like. But just posting a link like that doesn't support your case. Do your own homework.

Even peer reviewed websites have agenda's, or do you think there is such a thing as pure science? Everyone has an agenda. And if all your peers have the same agenda as you, they will probably never criticise you for it.

What you have the opportunity to do here is to respond to the arguments made by this creationist. If you don't like the arguments, provide good reasons.

I am simply asking for something from a respected scientific journal that supports any of your arguments.

I am simply asking for something from a respected scientific journal that supports any of your arguments.

Sigh......

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/602/ (your link)
''The delta C-13(carb) and Sr-87/Sr-86 secular variations in Neoproteozoic seawater have been used for the purpose of 'isotope stratigraphy' but there are a number of problems that can preclude its routine use. In particular, it cannot be used with confidence for 'blind dating'. The compilation of isotopic data on carbonate rocks reveals a high level of inconsistency between various carbon isotope age curves constructed for Neoproteozoic seawater, caused by a relatively high frequency of both global and local delta C-13(carb) fluctuations combined with few reliable age determinations.''

Basically, these authors are saying that there is too much inconsistency due to both global and local fluctuations. Just like the creationist site was saying.

The problem with this debate is that most people are closed minded, and most of the people on this forum are already atheists. So, no matter what is said, people won't listen. If it was mostly creationist, it would be the same issue.
One of my major qualms with the whole fossil record thing is that most people know nothing about how they date fossils. Carbon dating has been proven to be wildly inaccurate after 1500 years. I honestly can't site that except that most of my friends have science degrees and have informed me of the basics. Also, we date fossils based on the soil they are in and the soil based on the fossils that are in it. A bit too circular. Also where are all of the partially evolved people? Wouldn't there have been millions of them if they evolved over the span of millions of years but we have 6-7 of them? We have tons of dinosaur fossils but very few humanoid fossils.
Also, creation doesn't claim to be based completely on fact, but on faith, though evolution does. I do agree that being a creationist does not make you an idiot, because I have know several very brilliant men who had some very compelling evidence and are still alive and kicking. But I've also met some very brilliant evolutionists. So intelligence doesn't seem to correlate to belief. And, no one's ever seen the Big Bang, so it's not empirically proven. Evidence of a previous act is not enough to prove the act if it cannot be witnessed. But it is an interesting theory.
We've also never recorded any positive form or mutation which, as I understand it, is a precursor to evolution. And, the very idea of evolution clashes with the second law of thermodynamics.

Sigh......

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/602/ (your link)
''The delta C-13(carb) and Sr-87/Sr-86 secular variations in Neoproteozoic seawater have been used for the purpose of 'isotope stratigraphy' but there are a number of problems that can preclude its routine use. In particular, it cannot be used with confidence for 'blind dating'. The compilation of isotopic data on carbonate rocks reveals a high level of inconsistency between various carbon isotope age curves constructed for Neoproteozoic seawater, caused by a relatively high frequency of both global and local delta C-13(carb) fluctuations combined with few reliable age determinations.''

Basically, these authors are saying that there is too much inconsistency due to both global and local fluctuations. Just like the creationist site was saying.

They are saying that there is a problem under particular circumstances - they are hardly backing up your assertion that radiocarbon dating is so innaccurate that it cannot be used for anything older than 6,000 years (I wonder why you chose that particular figure). As I have been pointing out to you understanding the problems associated with radiocarbon dating is an essential part of using it in a way that give meaningful dates - and not a means to simply dismiss because it doesn't fit with some religious viewpoint.

The problem with this debate is that most people are closed minded, and most of the people on this forum are already atheists. So, no matter what is said, people won't listen. If it was mostly creationist, it would be the same issue.
One of my major qualms with the whole fossil record thing is that most people know nothing about how they date fossils. Carbon dating has been proven to be wildly inaccurate after 1500 years. I honestly can't site that except that most of my friends have science degrees and have informed me of the basics. Also, we date fossils based on the soil they are in and the soil based on the fossils that are in it. A bit too circular. Also where are all of the partially evolved people? Wouldn't there have been millions of them if they evolved over the span of millions of years but we have 6-7 of them? We have tons of dinosaur fossils but very few humanoid fossils.
Also, creation doesn't claim to be based completely on fact, but on faith, though evolution does. I do agree that being a creationist does not make you an idiot, because I have know several very brilliant men who had some very compelling evidence and are still alive and kicking. But I've also met some very brilliant evolutionists. So intelligence doesn't seem to correlate to belief. And, no one's ever seen the Big Bang, so it's not empirically proven. Evidence of a previous act is not enough to prove the act if it cannot be witnessed. But it is an interesting theory.
We've also never recorded any positive form or mutation which, as I understand it, is a precursor to evolution. And, the very idea of evolution clashes with the second law of thermodynamics.

Umm..........what?

Er...no it doesn't?

How, pray tell, does it clash with the second law of thermodynamics?

I'm a creationist simply because I was brought up that was and I find it hard to believe that everything in the universe came out from an explosion of a marble sized super-molecule. (aka Big Bang)

Its easier to believe God made everything that theory...

However I do belive evolution is reality and that organisms do change and whatnot. But not as dramatic as we are told in Biology about people being related in a sense to bacteria since we all originated from "pre-cells."

Umm..........what?

Er...no it doesn't?

How, pray tell, does it clash with the second law of thermodynamics?
Ooooh, I know this one!

The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."

Confusion can arise when the 2nd law is said in another way (which is pretty common): "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy. It often corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists love to misinterpret the 2nd law to say that all things must progress from order to disorder, and thus the increasing "order" seen during evolution is impossible!

This, of course, requires that we forget that life is not a closed system, and that order from disorder is common among NON-living systems, too!

This is one of my favorite pieces of Creationist bunk, because it demonstrates a complete failure to understand both evolutionary theory AND thermodynamics. It's a two-fer!

At least he's honest. It's easy to believe in Goddidit, and that's what he's been fed. It's hard to learn real science, and obviously he doesn't want to bother ("marble sized super-molecule"??).

Marble-seized super molecule... What supposedly everything in the universe came out of. Frankly that's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard.

EDIT: Damn timewarp...

They are saying that there is a problem under particular circumstances - they are hardly backing up your assertion that radiocarbon dating is so innaccurate that it cannot be used for anything older than 6,000 years (I wonder why you chose that particular figure).

Sure, because they are only looking at a particular set of circumstances. They are far too cautious to make the claim that the same problems are everywhere. Nevertheless, their finding is consistent with my conclusion. I didn't expect anything more than that.

I have already explained why this figure (approx. 6000 years) came about. It is because that is approximately the limit of recorded history. I suppose you are suggesting that I got it from the Bible, and you probably won't believe me if I claim otherwise. Like all the rest, you are probably eager to accuse me of dishonesty. Believe what you will.



As I have been pointing out to you understanding the problems associated with radiocarbon dating is an essential part of using it in a way that give meaningful dates - and not a means to simply dismiss because it doesn't fit with some religious viewpoint.

I haven't dismissed carbon dating. I simply don't use consider the data generated from it as proof or even good evidence that the world is older than something like 10,000 years. Nor am I claiming that the world is so young. That has never been my position. I came into this thread by declaring that I have not yet found anything in any published paper that has convinced me that the world is old. The best evidence for an old world is the fact that so many of the experts think it is old. Depending on who you are, that may or may not be very persuasive. It doesn't go very far with me, because I have seen how frequently the experts have got things wrong.

However, as soon as I discover some good evidence, I will allow it to convince me. Currently, though, as I read about things like supposed dinosaur fossils which contain red blood cells and other tissues and hear the experts stumbling over how such specimens could be so well preserved for over 30 million years in soft sediments that are not even hardened into stone, I am far from impressed.

I'm a creationist simply because I was brought up that was and I find it hard to believe that everything in the universe came out from an explosion of a marble sized super-molecule. (aka Big Bang)

Its easier to believe God made everything that theory...

At least he's honest. It's easy to believe in Goddidit, and that's what he's been fed. It's hard to learn real science, and obviously he doesn't want to bother ("marble sized super-molecule"??).

Ooooh, I know this one!

The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."

Confusion can arise when the 2nd law is said in another way (which is pretty common): "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy. It often corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists love to misinterpret the 2nd law to say that all things must progress from order to disorder.

This, of course, requires that we forget that life is not a closed system, and that order from disorder is common among NON-living systems, too!

This is one of my favorite pieces of Creationist bunk, because it demonstrates a complete failure to understand both evolutionary theory AND thermodynamics. It's a two-fer!

Thanks for explaining that.

My head hurts now. I just took Thermo (Physicists thermo, not that watered down shit Mechanical Engineering and Chemistry majors have to take), and as the entropy is an important part of stat. thermo I just couldn't wrap my head around how someone could apply that to evolution and say that order can't come from disorder. It's a gross and somewhat intellectually dishonest oversimplification.

Not to mention that it only holds in a closed system, and the earth is FAR from a closed system.

Marble-seized super molecule... What supposedly everything in the universe came out of. Frankly that's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard.

EDIT: Damn timewarp...

That's another gross oversimplification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#The_very_early_universe

Very helpful. It wasn't a marble-sized supermolecule. In fact, it was probably far tinier, and it wasn't a molecule. It wasn't even an atom.

Sure, because they are only looking at a particular set of circumstances. They are far too cautious to make the claim that the same problems are everywhere. Nevertheless, their finding is consistent with my conclusion. I didn't expect anything more than that.

I have already explained why this figure (approx. 6000 years) came about. It is because that is approximately the limit of recorded history. I suppose you are suggesting that I got it from the Bible, and you probably won't believe me if I claim otherwise. Like all the rest, you are probably eager to accuse me of dishonesty. Believe what you will.




I haven't dismissed carbon dating. I simply don't use consider the data generated from it as proof or even good evidence that the world is older than something like 10,000 years. Nor am I claiming that the world is so young. That has never been my position. I came into this thread by declaring that I have not yet found anything in any published paper that has convinced me that the world is old. The best evidence for an old world is the fact that so many of the experts think it is old. Depending on who you are, that may or may not be very persuasive. It doesn't go very far with me, because I have seen how frequently the experts have got things wrong.

However, as soon as I discover some good evidence, I will allow it to convince me. Currently, though, as I read about things like supposed dinosaur fossils which contain red blood cells and other tissues and hear the experts stumbling over how such specimens could be so well preserved for over 30 million years in soft sediments that are not even hardened into stone, I am far from impressed.

So essentially you are saying that you will dismiss anything as proof if it disagrees with you?

So essentially you are saying that you will dismiss anything as proof if it disagrees with you?
No, no, it's far more silly than that.

He will "allow" evidence to convince him, once he decides the evidence is convincing enough.

Dizzy yet?

This, of course, requires that we forget that life is not a closed system, and that order from disorder is common among NON-living systems, too!


In other words, in order for order to develop, the order of disorder to order is ordered.

Just had to say that.

No, no, it's far more silly than that.

He will "allow" evidence to convince him, once he decides the evidence is convincing enough.

Dizzy yet?

Very dizzy - especially as Bruarong claims to be a scientist.

Very dizzy - especially as Bruarong claims to be a scientist.

And China claims to be a People's Republic.

So essentially you are saying that you will dismiss anything as proof if it disagrees with you?

Absolutely not. What sort of nut do you take me for? OK. You don't need to answer that one.

Seriously, like I have been saying all along. As a creationist, I can easily allow for both evolution and creation, both long ages and a young earth. Essentially, I'm prepared to go where the evidence leads. But this means I have to be very very careful with the evidence. The advantage is that I get to have a more neutral position when it comes to interpreting the evidence. I'm not committed to naturalistic explanations, nor a six day creation. That means the opposite of what you are claiming. I don't dismiss anything without convincing evidence. The down side to that is that it all depends on what I find convincing--and that is rather subjective. But actually, that is one of the biggest limitations in all of science.

In conclusion, if I am a whole lot more careful than you are, how in the heck can you be accusing me of 'dismissing anything as proof if it disagrees with you'? You are the one that has already dismissed creation, I'm guessing. On what basis? Arguments? Philosophy? Or do you know about some science that I don't?

No, no, it's far more silly than that.

He will "allow" evidence to convince him, once he decides the evidence is convincing enough.

Dizzy yet?

And if you don't do the same, you cannot be a scientist.

That's another gross oversimplification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#The_very_early_universe

Very helpful. It wasn't a marble-sized supermolecule. In fact, it was probably far tinier, and it wasn't a molecule. It wasn't even an atom.

Thank you for clearing that up... So everything in the universe came from something smaller than an atom...

That's even harder to believe :p

The problem with this debate is that most people are closed minded, and most of the people on this forum are already atheists. So, no matter what is said, people won't listen. If it was mostly creationist, it would be the same issue.
One of my major qualms with the whole fossil record thing is that most people know nothing about how they date fossils. Carbon dating has been proven to be wildly inaccurate after 1500 years. I honestly can't site that except that most of my friends have science degrees and have informed me of the basics. Also, we date fossils based on the soil they are in and the soil based on the fossils that are in it. A bit too circular. Also where are all of the partially evolved people? Wouldn't there have been millions of them if they evolved over the span of millions of years but we have 6-7 of them? We have tons of dinosaur fossils but very few humanoid fossils. How long were dinosaurs around? A couple hundred million years or so. How long were humans and hominids around? Not very long at all. The relatively large number of dinosaur fossils compared to the very few hominid fossils is exactly what you would expect.
Also, creation doesn't claim to be based completely on fact, but on faith, though evolution does. I do agree that being a creationist does not make you an idiot, because I have know several very brilliant men who had some very compelling evidence and are still alive and kicking. But I've also met some very brilliant evolutionists. So intelligence doesn't seem to correlate to belief. And, no one's ever seen the Big Bang, so it's not empirically proven. Evidence of a previous act is not enough to prove the act if it cannot be witnessed. But it is an interesting theory. Scientific theories can't appeal to a supernatural agent. Thus yeah, big bang and evolution are theories. Creation, however, is theology.
We've also never recorded any positive form or mutation which, as I understand it, is a precursor to evolution. And, the very idea of evolution clashes with the second law of thermodynamics.Yeah we have. The nylon bug was pointed out by someone else earlier. I'm sure someone's pointed out that sickle cell trait protects from malaria, allowing people to live in some of the most swampy tropical areas. European humans, thanks to a mutation, remain tolerant to lactose even after childhood, thus giving them access to milk as a food item.

Thank you for clearing that up... So everything in the universe came from something smaller than an atom...

That's even harder to believe :p

It may be conceptually, but that's because you don't understand the math and physics behind it.

It's very easy to say something is hard to believe or makes no sense when you have next to no information on it, and your information (as you've shown) is inaccurate. Once you've understood the science and the math, it's probably considerably harder to say it's hard to believe, because at that point it's not about belief, it's about acknowledging the evidence.

And if you don't do the same, you cannot be a scientist.

Incorrect. Science isn't about forming an opinion based on the evidence. It's about actually USING the evidence to see what it can and can't show you. Dismissing, off-hand, evidence because of some mystical reason isn't being a scientist, it's being a fraud.

Absolutely not. What sort of nut do you take me for? OK. You don't need to answer that one.

Seriously, like I have been saying all along. As a creationist, I can easily allow for both evolution and creation, both long ages and a young earth. Essentially, I'm prepared to go where the evidence leads. But this means I have to be very very careful with the evidence. The advantage is that I get to have a more neutral position when it comes to interpreting the evidence. I'm not committed to naturalistic explanations, nor a six day creation. That means the opposite of what you are claiming. I don't dismiss anything without convincing evidence. The down side to that is that it all depends on what I find convincing--and that is rather subjective. But actually, that is one of the biggest limitations in all of science.

In conclusion, if I am a whole lot more careful than you are, how in the heck can you be accusing me of 'dismissing anything as proof if it disagrees with you'? You are the one that has already dismissed creation, I'm guessing. On what basis? Arguments? Philosophy? Or do you know about some science that I don't?

Doesn't science have to be commited to natural explanations? Otherwise wouldn't saying "god causes cancer because he hates you" be an acceptable scientific explanation of cancer?

Doesn't science have to be commited to natural explanations? Otherwise wouldn't saying "god causes cancer because he hates you" be an acceptable scientific explanation of cancer?

Or god shat the universe out. Or really god did anything. At that point you don't have science, you have mystical magical belief in the sparkly man in the sky.

Edit: sorry, but this shit is SERIOUSLY getting out of hand.

How long were dinosaurs around? A couple hundred million years or so.
Not counting birds, we have fossils from 228 mya to 65 mya, or around 163 million years.

How long were humans and hominids around? Not very long at all.
Around five or so million years, I believe. Maybe longer, I'm not sure. Keep in mind that Hominidae includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

I hadn't read that refutation, so I thank you for that link. I readily admit, it is possible that the Colorado river delta is the huge one of which they speak. The thing is, such a delta doesn't seem to fit so well with millions of years of slowly cutting away of the canyon. The huge area and depth of the delta is better explained, in my view, by a large flood. Precisely my original point. By the way, aren't you being a bit too quick to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? How the hell would you know what I have read and haven't read? It makes you look like you are eager to paint people with dishonesty. That is a rather shitty attitude, if you ask me.

No, no it really doesn't. A "great flood" would not carve out a canyon like that in a short order of time. Erosion of such a grand scale takes a great deal of time. As well, if there were a great flood, we would see a very large stratum about 5000-6000, as the sediment moved by such a flood would deposit it as such. Yet, we do not. At all. Period. Ad-infinitum.

Not counting birds, we have fossils from 228 mya to 65 mya, or around 163 million years.


Around five or so million years, I believe. Maybe longer, I'm not sure. Keep in mind that Hominidae includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

Ok. So wouldn't one expect to see a shitload more dinosaur fossils than hominid fossils?

Ok. So wouldn't one expect to see a shitload more dinosaur fossils than hominid fossils?

By a factor of around 32, yes, ignoring erosion and the fact that dinosaur bones are sturdier than mammal bones and thus are more likely to fossilize.

How long were dinosaurs around? A couple hundred million years or so. How long were humans and hominids around? Not very long at all. The relatively large number of dinosaur fossils compared to the very few hominid fossils is exactly what you would expect.

Not to mention that dinosaurs are found in older stratum, whereas hominids and are found in later stratum. Or the very fact that not one single specimen of hominid has been found in the same stratum as the dinosaurs, nor has any evidence arisen that hominids were around then.

Let us forget, as well, that there are no modern humans in the stratum that shows, say, Australopithicenes, and that the closer you get to modern day, the more "modern" all hominids(And hell, all animals) appear to be.

Now then, let's put this together:

1.No modern specimens are found in earlier strata.
2.As you move closer to modern day in the strata, you find that the further you go, the more modern specimens get.

Now then, what possible conclusion does this lead to, considering that yes, the Theory of Evolution is infact accurate(Which it is-if you say it is unproven, or is merely conjecture, you are woefully ignorant of what the ToE entails or even states).

Around five or so million years, I believe. Maybe longer, I'm not sure. Keep in mind that Hominidae includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

Well, depends on the specific hominid, and how you go about defining it.

The split off of the human line and the orangutan line was give or take about 14 or so million years. Gorillas split off around 10 million-ish years(give or take a million years or so), and Chimps have been placed anywhere from 4 million to around 6 million-ish years ago.

i help but to think that at some point something came out of nothing (with regards to the beginning of the universe) which, i agree can be viewed as the work of a 'creator'. however, i do think that humans are driven by a need to explain things they do not understand, which manifests itself in religion. furthermore, there is the arrogance of humans to suggest that they are somehow the apex of the evolutionary tree. our particular species, Homo sapiens sapiens has only been in existence for c.40,000 years, when an animal such as the shark has retained its skeletal structure for some 60 million years largely because it has had no need to evolve because it is extremely good at what it does. be under no illusions, evolution is happening, has happened and will continue to do so.

As Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss observed "the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we come to wear spectacles"

Likewise Humans are formed to ask why, therefore we come to believe in deities.

Being a devout atheist, i cannot justify the existence of a God, however, i cannot also justify intolerance, or extremism (yes there is such a thing as a Catholic extremist) and religious bigotry. maybe one we will realise that we are one species and through means of evolution, everything on the planet shares a single common ancestor, and therefore, we are all at some level, related. the only thing we have in common, is that we are all different

The problem with the radiometric dating is not that the measurements are so inaccurate. It has to do with the assumptions underlying the method. These include levels of the parent isoform, levels of the daughter isoform, that the rock being tested is a 'sealed container' (no leakages), and that the rock was formed from molten rock and that the earth originally came together from a swirling gas (i.e. homogenous mixture). If any of these assumptions are wrong, then the measurement is still right, but the calculation of calendar years would be completely wrong. Furthermore, if the world is only 6,000 years, the conversions would be complete nonsense, since they are based on the assumption that the world is far older.
You do realise that you're effectively rubbishing the idea that observation can lead to conclusion, right? Also, the only definition of an Isoform I can find in the tubes is this (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=38302):

Isoform: A protein that has the same function as another protein but which is encoded by a different gene and may have small differences in its sequence. For example, transforming factor beta (TGF-B) exists in three versions, or isoforms (TGF-B1, TGF-B2, and TGF-B3), each of which can set off a signaling cascade that starts in the cytoplasm and terminates in the nucleus of the cell.
The word you are looking for is isotope. Please try and get the terminology right if you want to be taken seriously.
But that is all based on estimations, and estimations do not prove that a massive flood did not take place. At best, they can demonstrate that our impressions of what massive flood might look like are wrong. For example, how are we to know if such a flood allowed for slow sedimentation in some parts? Or if some land areas before the flood were underwater for many years before finally being lifted by movements in the earth's crust to become dry land once again? It all degenerates into speculation, hardly evidence.
Its estimate, not estimation.
When we talk about slow sedimentation, we mean slow. As in millions of years to form 20 cm of shale slow. Sedimentation rates are well established, and again, to say they are not valid evidence is to say that observation cannot lead to conclusion.

Yes, it does seem to be a logistical nightmare, based on our perceptions from reading the Bible. Does that mean it never happened? The boat was massive. The flood waters could have been boiled before drinking. And it is possible that some dinosaurs survived the flood. When the Bible says that the whole world was covered, was it referring to the whole globe, or just the whole known world? Obviously, it was referring to the whole known world, since Moses or whoever the writer(s) was could hardly be called globe trotters. But does that mean that the whole globe was affected by the same flood? Possibly. The Bible is silent on that point. It does tell us that the mountains of the known world was covered, and that all the humans and animals of the known world were destroyed. But that doesn't mean that the mountains of the unknown world were all covered, or that the animals of the unknown world were all destroyed, even if the flood affected the whole globe.
Mt Ararat is 5000m high, Noah supposedly grounded on top of that at the end of the flood. That is 5 vertical km of water that had to come from somewhere, and I'd be interested to know where from, particularly with the water shortages we have these days. If the 'known world' consists of modern day Iraq, just for simplicity's sake, thats 438,317 km² X 5 vertical km, thats 2191 585 km^3 of water that had to come from somewhere, and go somewhere else.
Do tell.

And if you don't do the same, you cannot be a scientist.
So what sort of scientist are you? I'm genuinely curious here. To get the ball rolling, I'm a 2nd Year Geological Sciences student at the University of Leeds, England.

I hadn't read that refutation, so I thank you for that link. I readily admit, it is possible that the Colorado river delta is the huge one of which they speak. The thing is, such a delta doesn't seem to fit so well with millions of years of slowly cutting away of the canyon. The huge area and depth of the delta is better explained, in my view, by a large flood. Precisely my original point. By the way, aren't you being a bit too quick to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? How the hell would you know what I have read and haven't read? It makes you look like you are eager to paint people with dishonesty. That is a rather shitty attitude, if you ask me.

I find it hard to believe that you've never come across that refutation in some form or another. It's very common in any evolution debate, and a link from that website (very of then that specific one) is posted in almost all debates about the subject. Now, why debate this subject if you haven't even attempted to study it? I know I've extensively read the common Creationist arguments, but, it seems, you have not done the same for arguments in favor of evolution.

I've been loling at this thread for the last ten pages or so.

The sad thing is, I doubt Bruarong is just trolling, rather, he really believes everything he's telling us.

But I lol nonetheless.

I've been loling at this thread for the last ten pages or so.

The sad thing is, I doubt Bruarong is just trolling, rather, he really believes everything he's telling us.

But I lol nonetheless.the sad thing is that in the poll the number of creationists has climbed from 14 to almost 17 percent in the last two days or so.

I disagree that religion is wisdom-- that implies that the nonreligious are inherently unwise, and I really don't think that, though I might be biased.

Not my intent. it's my RPG side showing. ;)

And if you don't do the same, you cannot be a scientist.
Huh, that's funny. My thesis committee seems to think I can be a scientist even if I don't engage in circular reasoning.

But what could five PhD/MD biomedical researchers with 120 years of research experience between them possibly know about science?

Oh, and did I guess right about where you were going with that thermodynamics claim?

Firstly, the nylon eating bacteria and peppered moth are examples of evolution that nobody disputes, not even the creationists. The dispute is over what they mean. For example, does the nylon eating bacteria mean that a novel gene has arisen through the humble mutation process that we commonly observe today? Yes. Does this falsify a prediction made be the creationists regarding that we have never observed the arising of new genes? Yes? Does that falsify a creationist prediction? Yes. (Sound almost like science.) Does that falsify the creation concept? Pfffffft....I should think not. What it means is that these organisms have a mechanism for allowing rapid mutations. But this falls a long way short of macroevolution. We are talking about a new gene here, not a totally new cell phenotype.

Creationists also have good explanations for these observations, so they cannot be used as proof for the natural origin of all the variation in life today. That being said, most creationists don't rule Darwin's idea of the emergence of the species out of hand. What they do rule out is the philosophical assumption that everything must be explainable through natural causes. It's that word 'must' that we reject. It doesn't need to be there. It certainly is not put there through science. It is a barrier to the search for truth.

You seem to have this idea that all creationists do is read the Bible and weave explanations. Let me tell you. That is completely wrong. Only a minority of creationists do that.

First of all, "falsifying a concept" is not the same thing as "science". No, I'm after new data that has the ability to be proven wrong. Creationists don't provide new data- they just attack the old and claim that their theory is automatically better by default when a new theory requires evidence, of which Creationism is sorely lacking.

As for macroevolution, I'll say it again- "macroevolution" is microevolution on a grander scale. I would trot out the many transitional fossils that show this, but you said that because you can't see it, you can't prove it. I'll let what was said before cover this, because it's the best explanation I can come up with:

It's like saying that simply because no one saw the actual murder, we should discount all the fingerprint evidence, the blood samples, the motive, the knife found in the murderers hand, a hand that's covered in the blood of the victim, the confession by the murderer, all this means that the conclusion must be {that the murder didn't happen}

(I inserted the part with the "{}" for clarification purposes)

I think it's been said before, but science is inherently atheist. It doesn't mean that scientists themselves have to be atheists as well, it just means that when they're studying science, they have to discount any explanation that simply says "God did it" and find out what happened as if there is no God. If science simply said "God did it" then we'd be finding nothing new because we'd never have any reason to find anything new given that explanation.

Now, I am not an atheist- I'm a non-denominational Christian (I have yet to find an institution analogous to my beliefs, but that's just semantics- I will not discuss that here) and I, like other Christian scientists, view science as discovering God's process. It's not enough to say He did it- we want to know how.

Finally, having read a lot of Creationist texts, I can safely say that a lot of them *do* use the Bible as the basis for their claims. They might not extensively quote the Bible but they don't have to- they know their readers know the Bible, and will only use it if it's relevant (Humphries' text that I posted earlier quotes the Bible to back up his assertions quite frequently). I'm fully aware that Creationist literature isn't simply Bible quotes- however, Creationist literature provides no proof besides Biblical literature, because the majority of their research is spent refuting Evolution instead of coming up with a new theory like they should be.

OK. Then what exactly is it that I'm saying that is incorrect, regarding the origins. Do you still think that I have ruled out evolution?

For the purposes of answering your question, yes you're discrediting evolution and any evidence presented in its favour by positing that it's all "philosophical". Hard data isn't philosophy.

So your little paper on Creationism found nothing. Fine, but you might as well know that that also proves nothing. The 'nothing' that you found can easily be explained by your prejudice. Hence the apples argument.

Baseless. You don't know me so you can't tell me that I wrote that paper with a prejudice. I wrote the paper last year. This thread has only been around for a week (I think).

That microevolution is macroevolution is an item of belief. It has to be belief because it has never been observed or repeated--two basic tenants of the scientific method.

See earlier point.

Right. All that is generated is a bunch of numbers. But how those numbers are generated depends greatly on the methodology. And the methodology used depends greatly upon the opinion of the person choosing the methodology. The underlying assumptions are then used to interpret the numbers. Perhaps when the numbers are converted to calendar years. Sure, good scientists are able to change their assumptions. But what if they rigidly refuse to? That would make them poor scientists, right?

I addressed this myself earlier- scientists have their own biases, yes. However, your argument was that the two graphs are similar simply because I want them to be similar, when that is not correct. One graph doesn't care if the other posts similar numbers because "data" does not know what "similar" means- it's just a number. Obviously, scientists *are* looking for everything to produce a similar date but not everything does that- something I also addressed earlier. I don't know that much about that particular aspect of science, but I do know that in History- which also requires dating- has plenty of objects that are only roughly dated because the dating methods just don't work out. In other words, scientists are aware of each method's limitations and work around them, and besides, every date that is tested and retested thoroughly- and you can't tell me that the entire scientific community has the same biases, especially when those dating techniques were constructed long before this whole "Evolution-Creation" debate came out.

Creationism allows for both evolution and creation. Naturalism allows for only evolution. You tell me which one is more rigid.

I've never met a Creationist that allows for the Theory of Evolution, and it's not my position that Evolution (or science, for that matter) is atheistic. Please don't misunderstand my position.

Right again. We certainly have a long way to go with our precision. For example, 50 years ago, about 10% of the drills for oil found oil. The other 90 were dry. Nowadays, we have improved this to 20%. The problem with the radiometric dating is not that the measurements are so inaccurate. It has to do with the assumptions underlying the method. These include levels of the parent isoform, levels of the daughter isoform, that the rock being tested is a 'sealed container' (no leakages), and that the rock was formed from molten rock and that the earth originally came together from a swirling gas (i.e. homogenous mixture). If any of these assumptions are wrong, then the measurement is still right, but the calculation of calendar years would be completely wrong. Furthermore, if the world is only 6,000 years, the conversions would be complete nonsense, since they are based on the assumption that the world is far older.

I've seen you state many times that scientists are after calendar years when that's not true. I don't think I've ever met a scientist that has said "Dinosaurs died out on October 25, 65,672,890 BC". Obviously if you can get that far, great, but if not, you take the best that you can do, and that range covers centuries (I think- someone who knows more about radiometric dating can back me up here because I don't know that much about radiometric accuracy). Again, I think you're misunderstanding how scientists arrive at dates- they don't just use one method and stick to it, they use many and if many corroborate a said date it gets accepted. I'm fully aware rock dating has its own faults, but I do think that if oil companies are going to use them- dating that's already been accepted by the vast majority geologists- then I think it's safe to say they're fairly accurate. You yourself even admitted that the measurements are right (I've bolded that area).

For the next two quotes, I'll let Turquoise Days cover it because he knows more than I do.

But that is all based on estimations, and estimations do not prove that a massive flood did not take place. At best, they can demonstrate that our impressions of what massive flood might look like are wrong. For example, how are we to know if such a flood allowed for slow sedimentation in some parts? Or if some land areas before the flood were underwater for many years before finally being lifted by movements in the earth's crust to become dry land once again? It all degenerates into speculation, hardly evidence.

You do realise that you're effectively rubbishing the idea that observation can lead to conclusion, right? Also, the only definition of an Isoform I can find in the tubes is this (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=38302):

Isoform: A protein that has the same function as another protein but which is encoded by a different gene and may have small differences in its sequence. For example, transforming factor beta (TGF-B) exists in three versions, or isoforms (TGF-B1, TGF-B2, and TGF-B3), each of which can set off a signaling cascade that starts in the cytoplasm and terminates in the nucleus of the cell.
The word you are looking for is isotope. Please try and get the terminology right if you want to be taken seriously.
Its estimate, not estimation.
When we talk about slow sedimentation, we mean slow. As in millions of years to form 20 cm of shale slow. Sedimentation rates are well established, and again, to say they are not valid evidence is to say that observation cannot lead to conclusion.

Yes, it does seem to be a logistical nightmare, based on our perceptions from reading the Bible. Does that mean it never happened? The boat was massive. The flood waters could have been boiled before drinking. And it is possible that some dinosaurs survived the flood. When the Bible says that the whole world was covered, was it referring to the whole globe, or just the whole known world? Obviously, it was referring to the whole known world, since Moses or whoever the writer(s) was could hardly be called globe trotters. But does that mean that the whole globe was affected by the same flood? Possibly. The Bible is silent on that point. It does tell us that the mountains of the known world was covered, and that all the humans and animals of the known world were destroyed. But that doesn't mean that the mountains of the unknown world were all covered, or that the animals of the unknown world were all destroyed, even if the flood affected the whole globe.

My tentative conclusion on the matter is that I think a global flood was possible, despite a number of puzzling observations. Puzzling does not equal proof, because if it did, evolutionary theory would have been disproved a long time ago.

Mt Ararat is 5000m high, Noah supposedly grounded on top of that at the end of the flood. That is 5 vertical km of water that had to come from somewhere, and I'd be interested to know where from, particularly with the water shortages we have these days. If the 'known world' consists of modern day Iraq, just for simplicity's sake, thats 438,317 km² X 5 vertical km, thats 2191 km^3 of water that had to come from somewhere, and go somewhere else.
Do tell.

I am also going to add that the Bible quite clearly says that the whole Earth is going to be covered and that every living creature would be wiped out (Genesis 7:4). So again, if you're taking a literalist viewpoint, the dinosaurs should have been saved. I will also address that if Noah's going to be boiling the flood waters, he's still going to need a massive container for it- some animals are massive drinkers- as well as aquariums large enough for the sea creatures (who can't live in the flood waters anyway).

I have already explained why this figure (approx. 6000 years) came about. It is because that is approximately the limit of recorded history. I suppose you are suggesting that I got it from the Bible, and you probably won't believe me if I claim otherwise. Like all the rest, you are probably eager to accuse me of dishonesty. Believe what you will.

That is incorrect. There's no "lower limit" to recorded history- just because there is a "earliest recorded document" does not mean there can't be something earlier (the earliest known written document, for the record, are the Sumerian scripts from c. 4000 BC, not "6,000 years" as you state. In fact, some believe that the Jiahu Script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiahu_Script), dated c. 6600 BC, is also writing but it's not universally accepted). This is something I like to call the "Completion Paradox" (I'm sure someone else has given it a better name- that's just my own), or the belief that everything we have suggests that we're finished researching when we're not. The study of History is never finished, like the study of science. There's always new discoveries that can be added to either field and that just adds to our knowledge- but nowhere in time can those fields ever be considered "complete".

I've been loling at this thread for the last ten pages or so.

The sad thing is, I doubt Bruarong is just trolling, rather, he really believes everything he's telling us.

But I lol nonetheless.

Everything he's telling us? Hell no. He really believes something maybe kinda implied by a reference to an implication of what he's telling us, but what spews from his mouth....it's hard to describe. It's like some mythical dancing fountain of bullshit.

Mt Ararat is 5000m high, Noah supposedly grounded on top of that at the end of the flood. That is 5 vertical km of water that had to come from somewhere, and I'd be interested to know where from, particularly with the water shortages we have these days. If the 'known world' consists of modern day Iraq, just for simplicity's sake, thats 438,317 km² X 5 vertical km, thats 2191 585 km^3 of water that had to come from somewhere, and go somewhere else.
Do tell. The mountain where Noah landed is Cudi Dagh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Judi), while Mt Ararat is only named thus since medieval times..

I've seen you state many times that scientists are after calendar years when that's not true. I don't think I've ever met a scientist that has said "Dinosaurs died out on October 25, 65,672,890 BC". Obviously if you can get that far, great, but if not, you take the best that you can do, and that range covers centuries (I think- someone who knows more about radiometric dating can back me up here because I don't know that much about radiometric accuracy).
Depends on the method used - carbon dating can be used to get it down to decades in recent samples, I believe. With earlier samples, there is less C14 remaining, making it less accurate.

There are a wide range of Radiometric dating techniques avaliable, some are better for dating really old stuff, while C14 is only good for the past 60,000 years, tops. As to accuracy for the longer range methods, I'll quote wiki, because I can't find my notes:

The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme is one of the oldest available, as well as one of the most highly respected. It has been refined to the point that the error in dates of rocks about three billion years old is no more than two million years.

Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.

The mountain where Noah landed is Cudi Dagh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Judi), while Mt Ararat is only named thus since medieval times..

Well, according to the Quran. Since that article is flagged for a lack of sources, I'll leave my post as it is.

Well, according to the Quran. Since that article is flagged for a lack of sources, I'll leave my post as it is.Not just the Quran, and the wikipedia article is not all that exists on the matter. But indeed in the time that the Quran was written nobody in the entire world had ever called that mountain Ararat.
Since the mountain that in the Western world is now called Ararat has been named after the biblical story by folks like William of Rubruck and the famous Marco Polo, there is no point in maintaining that Agri Dagh/Aregats is the "mountains of Aratat" (=Uratru) of the Noah tale.

Depends on the method used - carbon dating can be used to get it down to decades in recent samples, I believe. With earlier samples, there is less C14 remaining, making it less accurate.

There are a wide range of Radiometric dating techniques avaliable, some are better for dating really old stuff, while C14 is only good for the past 60,000 years, tops. As to accuracy for the longer range methods, I'll quote wiki, because I can't find my notes:
The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme is one of the oldest available, as well as one of the most highly respected. It has been refined to the point that the error in dates of rocks about three billion years old is no more than two million years.

....

Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.


Thanks. I've come across C14 quite a bit because it's used in History (as there are no written documents older than 4,000 years and most of the artifacts found are younger than 60,000 years old) so I knew a bit about that (not a lot though) but the other methods I wasn't so sure about. In any case, they seem "accurate enough"- when dealing with evolutionary processes that need millions of years, you don't need to get to the "thousands" and need just a ballpark (at least that's how I see it- there's not much a difference between "66 million years ago" and "63 million years ago" in terms of the age of the dinosaurs for example).

Turquoise Days, would you happen to know if there's any fossils/rocks, etc. that have proven "difficult to date"? I know in History there's several documents that don't quite have enough documentation to be accurately dated so I'm wondering if there's ever been a scientific artifact that's been similarly hard to place (which I suspect, unless I'm misunderstanding the process).

You do realise that you're effectively rubbishing the idea that observation can lead to conclusion, right?

The idea that observation on it's own can lead to a conclusion is rubbish. It needs a framework with which to interpret the observation. No person has a neutral framework. If I have a different framework to you, I can make the same observation and come up with an entirely different conclusion.


Also, the only definition of an Isoform I can find in the tubes is this (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=38302):
The word you are looking for is isotope. Please try and get the terminology right if you want to be taken seriously.


Yes, I meant isotope. My mistake.


When we talk about slow sedimentation, we mean slow. As in millions of years to form 20 cm of shale slow. Sedimentation rates are well established, and again, to say they are not valid evidence is to say that observation cannot lead to conclusion.


But how does one know if it would take millions of years to form 20 cm? That has to be an estimation, with no direct way of testing it. Sure, it can be a conclusion, but that doesn't make it right. Because it is based on a framework that I have no confidence with. You can believe it if you wish. I would not call you stupid or dishonest for doing so. Perhaps not cautious enough.


Mt Ararat is 5000m high, Noah supposedly grounded on top of that at the end of the flood. That is 5 vertical km of water that had to come from somewhere, and I'd be interested to know where from, particularly with the water shortages we have these days. If the 'known world' consists of modern day Iraq, just for simplicity's sake, thats 438,317 km² X 5 vertical km, thats 2191 585 km^3 of water that had to come from somewhere, and go somewhere else.
Do tell.


Creationists like Walt Brown have developed theories (e.g., the hydroplate theory) to account for this. It's all there is you want to read about it. Flexes of the earth's crust would be sufficient to move great volumes of water from the ocean over land, in the form of massive tidal waves. Not necessarily like Hollywood depicts, but perhaps more like a great swell. Would it be enough to cover a mountain like Ararat? Note that it is 5,000 meters above see level, not 5,000 meters above the surrounding countryside. The peak is also an inactive volcano. Could it have once been not so high?


So what sort of scientist are you? I'm genuinely curious here. To get the ball rolling, I'm a 2nd Year Geological Sciences student at the University of Leeds, England.

I'm obviously not interested in giving out too many details, since that could lose me my job. But I graduated with majors in biochemistry and genetics, and did my PhD in bacterial biochemistry. Now a post-doc working with bacterial genetics, wíth a couple of publications.

I find it hard to believe that you've never come across that refutation in some form or another. It's very common in any evolution debate, and a link from that website (very of then that specific one) is posted in almost all debates about the subject. Now, why debate this subject if you haven't even attempted to study it? I know I've extensively read the common Creationist arguments, but, it seems, you have not done the same for arguments in favor of evolution.

That is your assertion, but I've got no way of knowing whether you are making it up, or if I really haven't read enough. Well, I can tell you that I haven't read anywhere near enough. Have you? Part of the reason for a healthy debate is to learn. But accusations of dishonesty don't help make for a pleasant debate. I can tell you that I have read plenty on the talkonorigins page, but certainly not all of it. Perhaps not even the half. The origins issue is a hobby, not my job.

Huh, that's funny. My thesis committee seems to think I can be a scientist even if I don't engage in circular reasoning.

But what could five PhD/MD biomedical researchers with 120 years of research experience between them possibly know about science?

Oh, and did I guess right about where you were going with that thermodynamics claim?

Like I said, I try to be in a position where I can let the evidence convince me, once I think I have understood it properly. I don't see the circular reasoning it that. Perhaps you might like to explain.

I've no doubt that you are a scientist. My point is that any good scientist will follow the evidence where it leads. Failing that would make them a very poor scientist, or not even a scientist. More like an idealist.

I am fully aware that the thermodynamics issue is a hot one. Many creationists aren't scientists, and thus haven't learned any more than to repeat what they have heard. Unfortunately, that opens them up for a fair and just criticism. The common answer to the creationist claim is that the earth is not a closed system, so the rule generally doesn't necessarily apply to the earth. Fair enough, I say. However, there is still a very long way to go before one can conclude that raw chemicals plus sunlight can produce an overall progress from disorder to order. That fact that there does exist some examples of order arising from disorder in the non-living world (e.g. crystal formation) is not evidence of an exception to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And yet the fact that some people have concluded that life rose from non-life through totally natural means is good evidence that they are idealists, not scientists. A real scientist would say that it might be possible, not that it is possible. At least until it can be observed and repeated.

My point is that any good scientist will follow the evidence where it leads. Failing that would make them a very poor scientist, or not even a scientist. More like an idealist.

Very well said.
Now, since the mainstream interpretations of quite a few science disciplines arrive at an age of the earth that is vastly larger than the Biblical 6000, and do so independant of eachother (hypothesis on formation of the solar system for instance do not depend on the properties of the bacterial flagellum) - what would the most likely conclusion seem to be ?

First of all, "falsifying a concept" is not the same thing as "science". No, I'm after new data that has the ability to be proven wrong. Creationists don't provide new data- they just attack the old and claim that their theory is automatically better by default when a new theory requires evidence, of which Creationism is sorely lacking.

But science does involve testing predictions, and those predictions need to be testible.

Your claim about Creationists not providing new data is quite wrong. I'm a creationist. I provide new data. And I'm not the only one. Any scientist that holds that God had something to do with the origins is also a creationist. These people are generating data.


As for macroevolution, I'll say it again- "macroevolution" is microevolution on a grander scale. I would trot out the many transitional fossils that show this, but you said that because you can't see it, you can't prove it. I'll let what was said before cover this, because it's the best explanation I can come up with:

I'm very familiar with the claims. I have simply admitted that I'm not impressed by them, particularly as I read around the topic for myself. When I look at the assumptions upon which the data is interpreted and the conclusions drawn, I find them altogether too committed to naturalistic explanations. Sometimes they are totally lacking in evidence. Sometimes there isn't even a idea how it might have happened, apart from 'evolution did it'. I'm still not sure how anyone could be convinced by that, unless they wanted to be in the first place. That doesn't mean I have written off macroevolution as a major suspect in the 'murder case'. It does mean that I relegate it to one of the suspects, but not the only one.


I think it's been said before, but science is inherently atheist.

And that is absolute bullshit. Real science is neutral. Only people can be atheists. But you should know that real science cannot be atheistic, because atheism is the belief that there is no God. How can you expect any Christian to investigate the origins on the assumption that God had nothing to do with it?


It doesn't mean that scientists themselves have to be atheists as well, it just means that when they're studying science, they have to discount any explanation that simply says "God did it" and find out what happened as if there is no God. If science simply said "God did it" then we'd be finding nothing new because we'd never have any reason to find anything new given that explanation.

Not true at all. In the rise of science, most of the leading figures were Christians. Chaps like Halley (from Halley's comet) were famous because they were atheists. The vast majority were Christians. But that didn't mean that they conducted atheistic research. That is a myth invented by the atheists. My approach to science is to beleive that God did it, and to spend my time finding out how everything works. There is no reason to work in a God 'vacuum'. Neither is it anything but laziness to stop investigation simply because one believes that 'God did it'. You can hold the illusion if you want that that means I cannot contribute to science. But you would be quite wrong. It would simply mean that I'm not going to be committed to a naturalistic explanation. Rather, I am committed to the truth.


Now, I am not an atheist- I'm a non-denominational Christian (I have yet to find an institution analogous to my beliefs, but that's just semantics- I will not discuss that here) and I, like other Christian scientists, view science as discovering God's process. It's not enough to say He did it- we want to know how.


Then that makes you are creationist, according to my definition.


Finally, having read a lot of Creationist texts, I can safely say that a lot of them *do* use the Bible as the basis for their claims. They might not extensively quote the Bible but they don't have to- they know their readers know the Bible, and will only use it if it's relevant (Humphries' text that I posted earlier quotes the Bible to back up his assertions quite frequently). I'm fully aware that Creationist literature isn't simply Bible quotes- however, Creationist literature provides no proof besides Biblical literature, because the majority of their research is spent refuting Evolution instead of coming up with a new theory like they should be.


No doubt there are some creationists who would rather read the Bible as a science book than look at the natural world. But that doesn't make all creationists so. Any more than it would make all scientists atheists for refusing to say 'God did it'. You seem to have this picture in your mind of a Bible thumping creationist. What would it take to disloge you from this, and to help you see yourself as a creationist of sorts?


For the purposes of answering your question, yes you're discrediting evolution and any evidence presented in its favour by positing that it's all "philosophical". Hard data isn't philosophy.


I don't know if I am discrediting evolution. But I certainly am criticising it. I am suspicious of any claims that evolution is truth. Because I have a high regard for the truth, I won't allow any theory to 'pull the wool over my eyes'. Of course, any evidence presented in favour of evolution needs to be heavily criticised. And for all the peer review processes in science, I think it is inadequate. Sure, they go through the details of your methodology with a fine tooth comb, but they don't question your underlying assumptions, probably because they hold the same ones. And if you would believe me, there are quite a few others in my position. We don't have a problem with the hard data. But the way it is interpreted is hopelessly steeped in the assumption that 'evolution is truth'. I simply choose to keep it in my head that it may not be truth. And for that, I could lose my job. Thanks to the overwhelming prejudice out there.


Baseless. You don't know me so you can't tell me that I wrote that paper with a prejudice. I wrote the paper last year. This thread has only been around for a week (I think).


Not so baseless. I have read your arguments.


I addressed this myself earlier- scientists have their own biases, yes. However, your argument was that the two graphs are similar simply because I want them to be similar, when that is not correct. One graph doesn't care if the other posts similar numbers because "data" does not know what "similar" means- it's just a number. Obviously, scientists *are* looking for everything to produce a similar date but not everything does that- something I also addressed earlier.

But it could just be a conicidence that the graphs are similar. Or there could be a reason for it in the methodology. Don't let similarities convince you so easily. Be a little more critical of the interpretation. Data that so happens to be interpreted in favour of evolution simply does not mean that evolution is truth.


I don't know that much about that particular aspect of science, but I do know that in History- which also requires dating- has plenty of objects that are only roughly dated because the dating methods just don't work out. In other words, scientists are aware of each method's limitations and work around them, and besides, every date that is tested and retested thoroughly- and you can't tell me that the entire scientific community has the same biases, especially when those dating techniques were constructed long before this whole "Evolution-Creation" debate came out.


Yes, I can tell you that the entire scientific community has the same biases.
Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodological significance is frequently summarized in the statement: "The present is the key to the past."

It was popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology of 1830 and is now one of the most unifying concepts in the geosciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)

Personally, I believe that the presumption of uniformity is really unnecessary. It is, however, the presumption upon which most conclusions rest. It's not that they have been able to rule out catastrophism (creation and the flood) through experiemental evidence. They simply did it through the acceptance of the presumption. I find that preposterous. Poor science indeed.


I've never met a Creationist that allows for the Theory of Evolution, and it's not my position that Evolution (or science, for that matter) is atheistic. Please don't misunderstand my position.


Well, you just met one.
But I did understand you as saying that science is atheistic. Now I am confused. Is it atheistic or isn't? You know what I think.
I've no desire to misunderstand you. You are a christian who accepts evolutionary theory as true, or most likely true. You also have a rather narrow definition of creationism. Am I right?


I've seen you state many times that scientists are after calendar years when that's not true. I don't think I've ever met a scientist that has said "Dinosaurs died out on October 25, 65,672,890 BC". Obviously if you can get that far, great, but if not, you take the best that you can do, and that range covers centuries (I think- someone who knows more about radiometric dating can back me up here because I don't know that much about radiometric accuracy). Again, I think you're misunderstanding how scientists arrive at dates- they don't just use one method and stick to it, they use many and if many corroborate a said date it gets accepted. I'm fully aware rock dating has its own faults, but I do think that if oil companies are going to use them- dating that's already been accepted by the vast majority geologists- then I think it's safe to say they're fairly accurate. You yourself even admitted that the measurements are right (I've bolded that area).


The term 'calendar years' simply means the conversion of numbers generated by converting the measured radiation in a sample into years. It doesn't mean finding the exact date.

Sure, they use different methods, but all are based on uniformitarian assumptions, plus several others. The measurements might well be right. But the conversion into years could be totally wrong. The fact that the majority have accepted it as right does not make it right. And particularly when it is seen as something like 'heresy' to ever question (out aloud) whether it might be right. When you read the papers and hear them criticising each other, it does make you wonder. It's like they cannot agree with each other except on one thing: the world is indeed old. Sure, there are some methods that are 'highly respected', like uranium dating. But that is just another way of saying that it isn't questioned very often. But as I pointed out, there could be all sorts of reasons for that.


I am also going to add that the Bible quite clearly says that the whole Earth is going to be covered and that every living creature would be wiped out (Genesis 7:4). So again, if you're taking a literalist viewpoint, the dinosaurs should have been saved. I will also address that if Noah's going to be boiling the flood waters, he's still going to need a massive container for it- some animals are massive drinkers- as well as aquariums large enough for the sea creatures (who can't live in the flood waters anyway).


But the Bible doesn't say the whole globe was covered with water. So we have no way of knowing whether the whole earth or the known earth was meant. Same goes for the animals. We can infer that all the humans were wiped out, according to the story, except for 8. Because human wickedness was given as the reason for the flood.

I'm not a literalist, because I don't think the Bible was meant to be read literally for every verse. But I do allow for literal interpretations, because I'm pretty sure that some parts wouldn't make sense without it.

I grew up on a farm, and I have seen plenty of times how animals can easily live from water that contains other dead animals. Heck, once we pulled out a dead cat and several dead birds from our drinking water tank. They had clearly been there for weeks or months. None of my siblings or my parents got sick. We did feel sick when we found out though.


That is incorrect. There's no "lower limit" to recorded history- just because there is a "earliest recorded document" does not mean there can't be something earlier (the earliest known written document, for the record, are the Sumerian scripts from c. 4000 BC, not "6,000 years" as you state. In fact, some believe that the Jiahu Script (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiahu_Script), dated c. 6600 BC, is also writing but it's not universally accepted). This is something I like to call the "Completion Paradox" (I'm sure someone else has given it a better name- that's just my own), or the belief that everything we have suggests that we're finished researching when we're not. The study of History is never finished, like the study of science. There's always new discoveries that can be added to either field and that just adds to our knowledge- but nowhere in time can those fields ever be considered "complete".

I thought you understood that I was referring to the currently available recorded history. It is certainly possible that we discover more. But until then, only currently available recorded history can be used to correct carbon dating estimates. The dating therefore relies on known history. That means in the absence of known history, it cannot be used for 'blind dating'.

Very well said.
Now, since the mainstream interpretations of quite a few science disciplines arrive at an age of the earth that is vastly larger than the Biblical 6000, and do so independant of eachother (hypothesis on formation of the solar system for instance do not depend on the properties of the bacterial flagellum) - what would the most likely conclusion seem to be ?

Good point. However, take a wider look around, and review the assumptions underlying the interpretations. Do you agree with those assumptions? Why? Could you understand how the people who agree with those assumptions all arrived as the same answer? And if you disagreed with those assumptions, would you still agree with the conclusion. I'll bet anything you like that you wouldn't.

BTW, how does a bacterial flagellum fit in with the age estimation of the earth?

But how does one know if it would take millions of years to form 20 cm? That has to be an estimation, with no direct way of testing it. Sure, it can be a conclusion, but that doesn't make it right. Because it is based on a framework that I have no confidence with. You can believe it if you wish. I would not call you stupid or dishonest for doing so. Perhaps not cautious enough.


If it takes ten years to create a certain degree of deposition, and that figure can be fairly accurately verified under a range of conditions, in various places, by independent agents, one can work out an average yearly deposition rate, from which a calculation can be made of how lon git wil ltake to create - for example - 20cm of deposits.

Is that enough? Maybe not - but if those figures are checked against figures for much shorter periods (like observed deposition of weeks, months or a year, for example) and against figures obtainable for much longer periods (for example, where deposition might have occured in a historically datable way - off the top of my head this could be something like deposits found around historical damage), then it is possible to see if those estimates fit a general observable trend.

If the deposition rate matches in monthly, yearly, ten-yearly, centenially, and millenially available data... it is not uncautious to presume the posibility of a fairly consistent rate.


Creationists like Walt Brown have developed theories (e.g., the hydroplate theory) to account for this. It's all there is you want to read about it. Flexes of the earth's crust would be sufficient to move great volumes of water from the ocean over land, in the form of massive tidal waves. Not necessarily like Hollywood depicts, but perhaps more like a great swell. Would it be enough to cover a mountain like Ararat? Note that it is 5,000 meters above see level, not 5,000 meters above the surrounding countryside. The peak is also an inactive volcano. Could it have once been not so high?


No - a 'theory' is not some story you make up. It starts with observation of a phenomenon (which means Creationism can NEVER generate theories), for which a mechanism matching the available data is constructed (the hypothesis). Creationism can never generate a hypothesis, because it relies on non-available data. The hypothesis is tested against new data, and refined. This is the life-cycle of the proto-theory.

Creationists fail at the observation stage, the hypothesis stage... their results cannot be tested because they rely on an external and unfalsifiable measurement, and they can never be refined - because the assumption PREDATES the observation.

Creationism fails at theories. It is not scientific, it is not science.

If you try to peddle it as science, you are being taken for a ride, or you are dishonest.

Not being a crazy american, I have to pick evolution.

edit: I'm not watching hours of junk on youtube, thank you very much.

Not being a crazy american, I have to pick evolution.

edit: I'm not watching hours of junk on youtube, thank you very much.

Smart man.

Smart man.He already said that.

why does this remind me of this thread?
http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2007-06-15.gif


and a perfect example why arguing religion on an interent forums doesn't work...
http://sinfest.net/comikaze/comics/2007-06-16.gif

okay... back to the science quibbl... DEBATE... the debate... back to the debate... yeah... debate...


:p

Jesus. Haven't seen this much regression since 1815.Just stick around a little while, there'll be more. Try some of the United States political threads.
*nods*

Edit: sorry, but this shit is SERIOUSLY getting out of hand.

The good religious threads always go off the hook, yo.

the sad thing is that in the poll the number of creationists has climbed from 14 to almost 17 percent in the last two days or so.

Good thing that, statistically, they're joiners by nature, so it's all kind of a natural line with the timeline of the poll.
Accretia, certainly.

Bruarong: your quotes have been rearranged in some instances so I can better organize my response.

But science does involve testing predictions, and those predictions need to be testible.

Your claim about Creationists not providing new data is quite wrong. I'm a creationist. I provide new data. And I'm not the only one. Any scientist that holds that God had something to do with the origins is also a creationist. These people are generating data.

I should make a few things clear- I'm capitalizing "Evolution" to differentiate the theory as a whole from broader definition of the modern English word. Capitalized, it's the Old Earth Theory but when it's not it's just another word for "adaptation" (I'm simplifying things here, but it's all just for clarity).

I will also state that when I am referring to a Creationist, I'm referring to a Young Earth Theorist, of which I am clearly not. I mistakenly believed this would be obvious to everyone viewing this thread- as the Original Post posted videos positing just that, but I shall make that clear now.

As for your "new data"- I have not seen it. So far, all I've seen is refutations of aspects of Evolution- such as "Carbon 14 dating is inaccurate", "macroevolution isn't observable', etc.- and that doesn't qualify as "new data". As I've said countless times before, just because something's wrong doesn't make "something else" right- that "something else" requires new data that can make it right. "New data", thus, are "new observations" based on empirical research that can be tested and thus contested. I want you to prove to me through your own dating technique (and not by using the Bible, because it's not a scientific text) that the world is unequivocally 6,000 years old and that you have a model that shows specifically how animals progressed to where they are today. I don't want you to tell me that "there's no use because I'll never believe you anyway" because it's me you're trying to convince, so arguing a conspiracy is just going to tell me you can't do it.

I'm very familiar with the claims. I have simply admitted that I'm not impressed by them, particularly as I read around the topic for myself. When I look at the assumptions upon which the data is interpreted and the conclusions drawn, I find them altogether too committed to naturalistic explanations. Sometimes they are totally lacking in evidence. Sometimes there isn't even a idea how it might have happened, apart from 'evolution did it'. I'm still not sure how anyone could be convinced by that, unless they wanted to be in the first place. That doesn't mean I have written off macroevolution as a major suspect in the 'murder case'. It does mean that I relegate it to one of the suspects, but not the only one.

It's an analogy, and I'm just going to refer you to my earlier point to prove yourself. You tell me how species came here today without having to "adapt" (Evolution). If macroevolution is one side, I want to know the other.

And that is absolute bullshit. Real science is neutral. Only people can be atheists. But you should know that real science cannot be atheistic, because atheism is the belief that there is no God. How can you expect any Christian to investigate the origins on the assumption that God had nothing to do with it?

.....

Not true at all. In the rise of science, most of the leading figures were Christians. Chaps like Halley (from Halley's comet) were famous because they were atheists. The vast majority were Christians. But that didn't mean that they conducted atheistic research. That is a myth invented by the atheists. My approach to science is to beleive that God did it, and to spend my time finding out how everything works. There is no reason to work in a God 'vacuum'. Neither is it anything but laziness to stop investigation simply because one believes that 'God did it'. You can hold the illusion if you want that that means I cannot contribute to science. But you would be quite wrong. It would simply mean that I'm not going to be committed to a naturalistic explanation. Rather, I am committed to the truth.

You are misunderstanding me. I never said that science or scientists had to be atheists- I said that the process of scientific research is inherently atheist. This is because that if in the process of research that the minute we arrive at an unexplainable phenomenon that we simply default it to a deity we would get nowhere. Research involves seeking explanations, and to be able to seek an explanation you need questions. A deity in this context removes the need for questions, because it provides an eternal answer- "because it's a supernatural effect". Scientific research rejects supernatural explanations because on one hand it's unobservable and on the other it's "the easy answer". You cannot say that the answer to something you don't know is because it's "supernatural"- if it's in the natural world, it has a "natural" explanation. God created the natural world and all the answers to its questions, and He would not want us to simply say in our research "He did it" because that stops us from exploring further. If it's natural, it's got a natural explanation- and that's what we're after.

Then that makes you are creationist, according to my definition.

See above.

No doubt there are some creationists who would rather read the Bible as a science book than look at the natural world. But that doesn't make all creationists so. Any more than it would make all scientists atheists for refusing to say 'God did it'. You seem to have this picture in your mind of a Bible thumping creationist. What would it take to disloge you from this, and to help you see yourself as a creationist of sorts?

Again, you're confusing who I'm referring to when I say "Creationist". See above.

I don't know if I am discrediting evolution. But I certainly am criticising it. I am suspicious of any claims that evolution is truth. Because I have a high regard for the truth, I won't allow any theory to 'pull the wool over my eyes'. Of course, any evidence presented in favour of evolution needs to be heavily criticised. And for all the peer review processes in science, I think it is inadequate. Sure, they go through the details of your methodology with a fine tooth comb, but they don't question your underlying assumptions, probably because they hold the same ones. And if you would believe me, there are quite a few others in my position. We don't have a problem with the hard data. But the way it is interpreted is hopelessly steeped in the assumption that 'evolution is truth'. I simply choose to keep it in my head that it may not be truth. And for that, I could lose my job. Thanks to the overwhelming prejudice out there.

I'm sorry that's happening to you, but that has no relevance to the discussion. Whether or not the scientists you're dealing with have a problem with you has no bearing on whether or not Evolution or Creationism is right or wrong, because the data presented is ultimately independent of those scientists.

I should also point out that scientists are also human- you're going to run into bad apples in much the same manner that you'll run into bad apple dentists or plumbers. Don't extrapolate your colleagues' actions with the rest of the scientific community because they're not representative of it. As far as the peer review process goes- I'll cover that later when I get to "Uniformitarianism".

Not so baseless. I have read your arguments.

You've known me- or, rather, my NS General identity- for as long as this thread as existed. I wrote that paper well before this thread and, for that matter, before I engaged in any NSG discussions on Creation vs. Evolution. Unless you know who I am personally and who I was when I wrote the paper- which I doubt- you cannot tell me what mindset I was in when I was writing it. Frankly, I find it upsetting that you seem to think you know me that well simply based upon what I've said here- you appear far too quick to judge. I am far more open-minded than you might think- but it does take some work to convince me.

But it could just be a conicidence that the graphs are similar. Or there could be a reason for it in the methodology. Don't let similarities convince you so easily. Be a little more critical of the interpretation. Data that so happens to be interpreted in favour of evolution simply does not mean that evolution is truth.

....

Yes, I can tell you that the entire scientific community has the same biases.
Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, is the assumption that the natural processes operating in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. Its methodological significance is frequently summarized in the statement: "The present is the key to the past."

It was popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology of 1830 and is now one of the most unifying concepts in the geosciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)

Personally, I believe that the presumption of uniformity is really unnecessary. It is, however, the presumption upon which most conclusions rest. It's not that they have been able to rule out catastrophism (creation and the flood) through experiemental evidence. They simply did it through the acceptance of the presumption. I find that preposterous. Poor science indeed.

....

The term 'calendar years' simply means the conversion of numbers generated by converting the measured radiation in a sample into years. It doesn't mean finding the exact date.

Sure, they use different methods, but all are based on uniformitarian assumptions, plus several others. The measurements might well be right. But the conversion into years could be totally wrong. The fact that the majority have accepted it as right does not make it right. And particularly when it is seen as something like 'heresy' to ever question (out aloud) whether it might be right. When you read the papers and hear them criticising each other, it does make you wonder. It's like they cannot agree with each other except on one thing: the world is indeed old. Sure, there are some methods that are 'highly respected', like uranium dating. But that is just another way of saying that it isn't questioned very often. But as I pointed out, there could be all sorts of reasons for that.

So you wish to tell me that because I'm looking for the date of, say, John F. Kennedy's assassination that the countless, independent newspapers that all printed the same date for the same story all have inaccurate dates simply because I'm looking for a common date? That's been your argument all along (fitted here, of course, to another field entirely). You seem ignorant of precisely how scientists- or any historians, for that matter- arrive at dates. It's all done via independent research, and Evolution was no different- unless Evolution, being what it is, is somehow different to that kind of methodology.

You also seem to think that every scientist decided- unilaterally- to agree on certain topics en masse, as if science is some grand cabal that unites on a topic and supresses any opposing viewpoints. That is a gross misrepresentation of the scientific community. Scientific consensuses don't arrive on a whim- they take decades, if not centuries, of repeated, independent and corroborative testing before anything becomes a consensus, Evolution and Uniformitarianism included. Both theories received extensive criticism when they first came out, but eventually the scientific community verified what both theories entailed through research. Both theories have their holes, but the gist of the theories are still agreed upon, and that happened because of extensive and repeated research. It doesn't mean that those theories will remain "forever"- if newer, better, theories emerge because of newer, contradictory research (i.e., "new data"), then those will replace the old theories. The history of Science is full of old theories that have been discarded in favour of newer, better theories- geo-centrism, phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston), ether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_ether), etc.- and there's no reason why Evolution and Uniformitarianism are immune to such fates. However, to supercede them there must be a new theory first- questioning the theories doesn't automatically discredit them.

I will concede that there probably *are* scientists who simply hold on to Evolution not knowing a whole lot about it- considering that every scientist has their specialties- *but* that may also have something to do with the vociferousness of the Creationist community, who are looking to discredit science at every turn, believing that every field of science is inherently the same (it's from the Creationists that "Evolutionist" even became a word- because they lump all scientists together when they're not supposed to be lumped together). The Evolution-Creationism controversy- which, tellingly, arose long after Evolution became a scientific consensus- has put a lot of scientists on the defensive because the Creationist community is insistent on waging a turf war with science in society at large; and scientists aren't telling Creationists that they can't be credible science- they just want the Creationists to provide credible, observable theories before they can be called "credible scientists"; and they have yet to do so.

Well, you just met one.
But I did understand you as saying that science is atheistic. Now I am confused. Is it atheistic or isn't? You know what I think.
I've no desire to misunderstand you. You are a christian who accepts evolutionary theory as true, or most likely true. You also have a rather narrow definition of creationism. Am I right?

You're right, I never understood your definition but you are misunderstanding what I have said. See what I have said earlier.

But the Bible doesn't say the whole globe was covered with water. So we have no way of knowing whether the whole earth or the known earth was meant. Same goes for the animals. We can infer that all the humans were wiped out, according to the story, except for 8. Because human wickedness was given as the reason for the flood.

I'm not a literalist, because I don't think the Bible was meant to be read literally for every verse. But I do allow for literal interpretations, because I'm pretty sure that some parts wouldn't make sense without it.

I grew up on a farm, and I have seen plenty of times how animals can easily live from water that contains other dead animals. Heck, once we pulled out a dead cat and several dead birds from our drinking water tank. They had clearly been there for weeks or months. None of my siblings or my parents got sick. We did feel sick when we found out though.

"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (Genesis 7:2-4)

"For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." (Genesis 7:17-20)

Seems pretty clear to me from both passages that 1) every animal was supposed to be saved (as everything else would be killed) and 2) the *whole* Earth was covered. I still don't see any dinosaurs left- or trilobites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite), for that matter.

As far as drinking water goes- I think a dead cat and a few birds are vastly different than millions of animals and humans, not to mention their waste, don't you think?

I thought you understood that I was referring to the currently available recorded history. It is certainly possible that we discover more. But until then, only currently available recorded history can be used to correct carbon dating estimates. The dating therefore relies on known history. That means in the absence of known history, it cannot be used for 'blind dating'.

You clearly stated (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12772981&postcount=639) that there was a "limit" to history and that "limit" was 6,000 years (I realized I was in error in regards to your dates because "4000 BC" *is* 6,000 years ago, but that's just semantics- that's just the earliest written document and there are earlier artifacts), so if you were stating otherwise, it wasn't clear. I've also said many times before that objects are not dated using one method so your point is moot.

You also seem open to the idea that a bunch of independent historical documents could be found that stretch history back tens of thousands of years to where it is now. Am I correct?

Let us try a different, though not very original, approach.

To what standards do creationists hold the religious theory of creationism ? How exactly is it determined to be better than other theories (religious, scientific and pulled out of arses). How is it determined how much it corresponds with reality ? What are its practical uses ?

Let us try a different, though not very original, approach.

To what standards do creationists hold the religious theory of creationism ? How exactly is it determined to be better than other theories (religious, scientific and pulled out of arses). How is it determined how much it corresponds with reality ? What are its practical uses ?

It's not a theory. It's hypothesis. At best. A better term is "unfounded conjecture", with no evidence whatsoever supporting it.

Very big difference than theory.

Bruarong: your quotes have been rearranged in some instances so I can better organize my response.



I should make a few things clear- I'm capitalizing "Evolution" to differentiate the theory as a whole from broader definition of the modern English word. Capitalized, it's the Old Earth Theory but when it's not it's just another word for "adaptation" (I'm simplifying things here, but it's all just for clarity).

I will also state that when I am referring to a Creationist, I'm referring to a Young Earth Theorist, of which I am clearly not. I mistakenly believed this would be obvious to everyone viewing this thread- as the Original Post posted videos positing just that, but I shall make that clear now.

As for your "new data"- I have not seen it. So far, all I've seen is refutations of aspects of Evolution- such as "Carbon 14 dating is inaccurate", "macroevolution isn't observable', etc.- and that doesn't qualify as "new data". As I've said countless times before, just because something's wrong doesn't make "something else" right- that "something else" requires new data that can make it right. "New data", thus, are "new observations" based on empirical research that can be tested and thus contested. I want you to prove to me through your own dating technique (and not by using the Bible, because it's not a scientific text) that the world is unequivocally 6,000 years old and that you have a model that shows specifically how animals progressed to where they are today. I don't want you to tell me that "there's no use because I'll never believe you anyway" because it's me you're trying to convince, so arguing a conspiracy is just going to tell me you can't do it.



It's an analogy, and I'm just going to refer you to my earlier point to prove yourself. You tell me how species came here today without having to "adapt" (Evolution). If macroevolution is one side, I want to know the other.



You are misunderstanding me. I never said that science or scientists had to be atheists- I said that the process of scientific research is inherently atheist. This is because that if in the process of research that the minute we arrive at an unexplainable phenomenon that we simply default it to a deity we would get nowhere. Research involves seeking explanations, and to be able to seek an explanation you need questions. A deity in this context removes the need for questions, because it provides an eternal answer- "because it's a supernatural effect". Scientific research rejects supernatural explanations because on one hand it's unobservable and on the other it's "the easy answer". You cannot say that the answer to something you don't know is because it's "supernatural"- if it's in the natural world, it has a "natural" explanation. God created the natural world and all the answers to its questions, and He would not want us to simply say in our research "He did it" because that stops us from exploring further. If it's natural, it's got a natural explanation- and that's what we're after.



See above.



Again, you're confusing who I'm referring to when I say "Creationist". See above.



I'm sorry that's happening to you, but that has no relevance to the discussion. Whether or not the scientists you're dealing with have a problem with you has no bearing on whether or not Evolution or Creationism is right or wrong, because the data presented is ultimately independent of those scientists.

I should also point out that scientists are also human- you're going to run into bad apples in much the same manner that you'll run into bad apple dentists or plumbers. Don't extrapolate your colleagues' actions with the rest of the scientific community because they're not representative of it. As far as the peer review process goes- I'll cover that later when I get to "Uniformitarianism".



You've known me- or, rather, my NS General identity- for as long as this thread as existed. I wrote that paper well before this thread and, for that matter, before I engaged in any NSG discussions on Creation vs. Evolution. Unless you know who I am personally and who I was when I wrote the paper- which I doubt- you cannot tell me what mindset I was in when I was writing it. Frankly, I find it upsetting that you seem to think you know me that well simply based upon what I've said here- you appear far too quick to judge. I am far more open-minded than you might think- but it does take some work to convince me.



So you wish to tell me that because I'm looking for the date of, say, John F. Kennedy's assassination that the countless, independent newspapers that all printed the same date for the same story all have inaccurate dates simply because I'm looking for a common date? That's been your argument all along (fitted here, of course, to another field entirely). You seem ignorant of precisely how scientists- or any historians, for that matter- arrive at dates. It's all done via independent research, and Evolution was no different- unless Evolution, being what it is, is somehow different to that kind of methodology.

You also seem to think that every scientist decided- unilaterally- to agree on certain topics en masse, as if science is some grand cabal that unites on a topic and supresses any opposing viewpoints. That is a gross misrepresentation of the scientific community. Scientific consensuses don't arrive on a whim- they take decades, if not centuries, of repeated, independent and corroborative testing before anything becomes a consensus, Evolution and Uniformitarianism included. Both theories received extensive criticism when they first came out, but eventually the scientific community verified what both theories entailed through research. Both theories have their holes, but the gist of the theories are still agreed upon, and that happened because of extensive and repeated research. It doesn't mean that those theories will remain "forever"- if newer, better, theories emerge because of newer, contradictory research (i.e., "new data"), then those will replace the old theories. The history of Science is full of old theories that have been discarded in favour of newer, better theories- geo-centrism, phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston), ether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_ether), etc.- and there's no reason why Evolution and Uniformitarianism are immune to such fates. However, to supercede them there must be a new theory first- questioning the theories doesn't automatically discredit them.

I will concede that there probably *are* scientists who simply hold on to Evolution not knowing a whole lot about it- considering that every scientist has their specialties- *but* that may also have something to do with the vociferousness of the Creationist community, who are looking to discredit science at every turn, believing that every field of science is inherently the same (it's from the Creationists that "Evolutionist" even became a word- because they lump all scientists together when they're not supposed to be lumped together). The Evolution-Creationism controversy- which, tellingly, arose long after Evolution became a scientific consensus- has put a lot of scientists on the defensive because the Creationist community is insistent on waging a turf war with science in society at large; and scientists aren't telling Creationists that they can't be credible science- they just want the Creationists to provide credible, observable theories before they can be called "credible scientists"; and they have yet to do so.



You're right, I never understood your definition but you are misunderstanding what I have said. See what I have said earlier.



"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (Genesis 7:2-4)

"For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." (Genesis 7:17-20)

Seems pretty clear to me from both passages that 1) every animal was supposed to be saved (as everything else would be killed) and 2) the *whole* Earth was covered. I still don't see any dinosaurs left- or trilobites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite), for that matter.

As far as drinking water goes- I think a dead cat and a few birds are vastly different than millions of animals and humans, not to mention their waste, don't you think?



You clearly stated (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12772981&postcount=639) that there was a "limit" to history and that "limit" was 6,000 years (I realized I was in error in regards to your dates because "4000 BC" *is* 6,000 years ago, but that's just semantics- that's just the earliest written document and there are earlier artifacts), so if you were stating otherwise, it wasn't clear. I've also said many times before that objects are not dated using one method so your point is moot.

You also seem open to the idea that a bunch of independent historical documents could be found that stretch history back tens of thousands of years to where it is now. Am I correct?

I think this is the most effort i've ever seen on your part in a single post.
I'm impressed. *bows*

It's not a theory. It's hypothesis. At best. A better term is "unfounded conjecture", with no evidence whatsoever supporting it.

Very big difference than theory.

True. For the Creationists to have a theory they have to have a model. I've got to be able to explain something through it, with that explanation being contestable (i.e., it can't have a supernatural reason). I have yet to see a Creationist theory that provides a model for how the world works or even explains the inner workings of the human blood system- it's all just refutations, and that's not a theory.

I think this is the most effort i've ever seen on your part in a single post.
I'm impressed. *bows*

Thanks. :) I never back down from a challenge, and it's my personal mantra to be as right as I can be- I've always made sure I knew what I was talking about before I write. If I'm wrong, it's because I've misinterpreted the facts- not willfully ignored them.

Thanks. :) I never back down from a challenge, and it's my personal mantra to be as right as I can be- I've always made sure I knew what I was talking about before I write. If I'm wrong, it's because I've misinterpreted the facts- not willfully ignored them.
And for challenge, Bruarong provides quite a bit. Maybe even the most dogged of NS posters who tend to misrepresent this particular issue .. while also not being a troll of specific nature.

Fuck's sake, I knew something like this would come along eventually...... *big sigh* Alright then, I shall entertain and annoy!

You evolutionists make me laugh. Honestly, you folks think humans came from a bunch of monkeys, or some slime on a rock? Something as complex as a human evolved from those? Yeah, that's logical. If we evolved from some slime that washed up ages ago, explain how it evolved into a human. I'm curious as to how the slime could evolve into something of definate structure, of complex reasoning. And if you think we came from chimps, apes, etc. explain that also. You FAIL to consider that *ALL* LIVING organisms share 99% of their DNA with one another. "Oh, well there's your proof right there that it could have happened." Perhaps, but wouldn't it still be happening? Wouldn't we have human-ape things walking out of the jungles to this day? "But they've evolved too!" Hey, how lucky that happened for you, that releaves you of the burden of proof. I'll admit, species do evolve, that's been proven. But instead of having 99.2% similar DNA with them, wouldn't we have something like 99.8 or .9, even post-evolution? Enough of evolution, let's go on to another evolutionist favorite: the Big Bang!

So, the world just popped into existence one day. Did it? Alright, I'll buy that, provided you tell me where the materials needed for the explosion came from. It's a proven fact, you CANNOT get something from nothing. The laws of the Universe just do not work that way.

Anyone who really knows me knows that I hate religion, God, etc. but holy fuck...... When I see bullshit like evolution being preached, I just gotta thrash it. What the hell is wrong with your brains, honestly?

Yeah...... evolution from slime/apes and the Universe just winked into existence one cheery day. I hear Lewis Carroll laughing in the background, excuse me......

And for challenge, Bruarong provides quite a bit. Maybe even the most dogged of NS posters who tend to misrepresent this particular issue .. while also not being a troll of specific nature.Defending Creationism is always trolling.

It's not a theory. It's hypothesis. At best.

But "hypothesis" is a dificult word which most ccreationists will not get. That is why I used "religious theory" and "scientific theory". Which both shows that they are diferent types of theories and that there are multiple religions in existence.

A better term is "unfounded conjecture", with no evidence whatsoever supporting it.
But saying that does not make creationists willing to actually think about their beliefs.

Defending Creationism is always trolling.Really?




I'm starting to get hazy on the entire point of "civilized" debate here on NS, apparently (admittedly i was already having a tenuous grasp in the first place)

Really?
In theory, no - absolutely not.
In practice that statement however seems to have a grain of truth in it.

In theory, no - absolutely not.
In practice that statement however seems to have a grain of truth in it.We are not living in theory, but in the real world. And in the real world there is nothing to support ideas of Creationism as presented by the Christian faction here. Insisting on unscientific crap that is only based on the belief in an infantile malevolent Jewish "god" that was fabricated 2400 or so years ago is trolling as it serves no purpose except the intentional religiously motivated spread of misinformation.

Defending Creationism is always trolling.

I don't know- Bruarong doesn't appear to be posting here just to give us all a rise but simply to defend something he believes in. To say he's not of the majority opinion is an understatement- but I don't know if his actions go to troll territory. It's not like he's hurling insults or being purposefully offensive. I take The Brevious' viewpoint- he's passionate but simply not of the majority opinion.

And for challenge, Bruarong provides quite a bit. Maybe even the most dogged of NS posters who tend to misrepresent this particular issue .. while also not being a troll of specific nature.

True- at least it's healthy. I hate to see challenges devolve into a swearing match, because those are not fun.

In theory, no - absolutely not.
In practice that statement however seems to have a grain of truth in it.
That's really the crux of it, isn't it? (pun intended)
To sit (or stand, or hang suspended) and argue about things of an inherently philosophical nature as being absolute right and wrong, and always come to the same conclusion that it's gonna rely on a future tense to provide sustenance .... faith ... means that anyone engaging in an argument about it, one way or another, is literally shooting the shit for sake of amusement and psychological gratification.
Perhaps.

I just don't see it as trolling any worse than many other thread/topic styles NS provides, else the obvious conclusion be that the whole POINT of NS threads is about antagonism, conflict, numbers, links, and entertainment!
And, trolls are entertaining, dededee!

Insisting on unscientific crap that is only based on the belief in an infantile malevolent Jewish "god" that was fabricated 2400 or so years ago is trolling as it serves no purpose except the intentional religiously motivated spread of misinformation.
Indeed, unqualified opinion results in the obvious problems presented here.
The motivation (and reward) are a little different, but the same attitude should be applied to political threads as well - all of them are inherently trolling.

I don't know- Bruarong doesn't appear to be posting here just to give us all a rise but simply to defend something he believes in. To say he's not of the majority opinion is an understatement- but I don't know if his actions go to troll territory. It's not like he's hurling insults or being purposefully offensive. I take The Brevious' viewpoint- he's passionate but simply not of the majority opinion.I find him/her the most dangerous in this situation (actually, the only one i ever see him/her in) because of how much attempt at skill and deftness is applied to their technique. Same references, different conclusions.


True- at least it's healthy. I hate to see challenges devolve into a swearing match, because those are not fun.They're fun only if they're clever, and a poster or couple of posters are comfortable with the knowledge that they're not *really* known well enough to merit insults about mothers or questionable heritage or whichever else gets hurled at them. :p

As for your "new data"- I have not seen it. So far, all I've seen is refutations of aspects of Evolution- such as "Carbon 14 dating is inaccurate", "macroevolution isn't observable', etc.- and that doesn't qualify as "new data". As I've said countless times before, just because something's wrong doesn't make "something else" right- that "something else" requires new data that can make it right. "New data", thus, are "new observations" based on empirical research that can be tested and thus contested. I want you to prove to me through your own dating technique (and not by using the Bible, because it's not a scientific text) that the world is unequivocally 6,000 years old and that you have a model that shows specifically how animals progressed to where they are today. I don't want you to tell me that "there's no use because I'll never believe you anyway" because it's me you're trying to convince, so arguing a conspiracy is just going to tell me you can't do it.

You misunderstood me. When I say that I am generating new data, I was referring to my current work and my publications. None of which has anything to do with the origins debate. In fact, in my publications and the vast majority of the publications pertinant to my research, there isn't even a reference to the origins. I tend to think that actually most of the work in biology is quite independent of evolutionary theory. Thus, being a creationist or a naturalist simply has little if any bearing on whether one generates new data in my area of research. But for the record, I stand by my claim. I am a creationist. And I am generating new data. (And in my case that data has very little to do with the origins debate.)


Note that consistent with my definition of a creationist, I see the division as not between creation and evolution, but between creation and naturalism. I am deliberately not defending Young Earth Creationism, not because I firmly believe that the world is old, but because if the world is old, I would rather let the evidence convince me. It makes for superior science to avoid the committment to a particular position.


It's an analogy, and I'm just going to refer you to my earlier point to prove yourself. You tell me how species came here today without having to "adapt" (Evolution). If macroevolution is one side, I want to know the other.


I don't doubt that adaptation is presently occuring. In a creation scenario, I wouldn't expect any creature to be exactly the same as its ancestor. But it is possible that God created an original kind of elephant, and that all the modern and extinct elephants were descended from the first original pair. If that were so, then we could make predictions based on this scenario. DNA could be extracted from both living and extinct animals (some mammoths are found frozen), and the similarity could be compared. The prediction would be that differences in the DNA would reflect microevolutionary processes, but not macroevolutionary processes. In other words, the differences could all be explained in terms of today's natural causes. There shouldn't be any new processes in the modern elephants that the ancient animals didn't have, since that would point towards macroevolution.

This would mean that we would have to sequence the genomes, and set several scientists to analysing the data. The difficulty would be to determine what exactly would be a macroevolutionary process. We would need some clear and precise definitions.


You are misunderstanding me. I never said that science or scientists had to be atheists- I said that the process of scientific research is inherently atheist. This is because that if in the process of research that the minute we arrive at an unexplainable phenomenon that we simply default it to a deity we would get nowhere. Research involves seeking explanations, and to be able to seek an explanation you need questions. A deity in this context removes the need for questions, because it provides an eternal answer- "because it's a supernatural effect". Scientific research rejects supernatural explanations because on one hand it's unobservable and on the other it's "the easy answer". You cannot say that the answer to something you don't know is because it's "supernatural"- if it's in the natural world, it has a "natural" explanation. God created the natural world and all the answers to its questions, and He would not want us to simply say in our research "He did it" because that stops us from exploring further. If it's natural, it's got a natural explanation- and that's what we're after.


I argue that no rational creationist is going to stupidly stop the research the moment they suspect that God did it. Sorry, but we really aren't as stupid as you fear. Rather, if we suspect God did it, it might mean a different approach. But if we simply don't know, why would we simply invoke the 'supernatural' and drop the research? That would be irrational. Consider the elephant scenario. Those scientists could be either creationists or naturalists. It doesn't matter. The questions asked are simply based on a creation scenario, and can be answered by anyone, regardless of their position. Creationists also seek natural explanations. We simply are not committed to only allowing them.


I'm sorry that's happening to you, but that has no relevance to the discussion. Whether or not the scientists you're dealing with have a problem with you has no bearing on whether or not Evolution or Creationism is right or wrong, because the data presented is ultimately independent of those scientists.


Actually, I reckon it is quite relevant, because my most of my colleagues are happy to work with me, without having any idea that I am a creationist. The moment that they discover that I am, they would rather not work with me. Not because my work is of inferior quality, nor my methods, nor my intelligence, nor anything else. It points to their prejudice. And if it is only prejudice, then it is simply unnecessary. It also explains why so many think that evolution must be right. Pure prejudice. Take away the prejudice, and you might find a healthier science, one that tolerates criticism of all it's theories, and that tolerates a creationist approach.


I should also point out that scientists are also human- you're going to run into bad apples in much the same manner that you'll run into bad apple dentists or plumbers. Don't extrapolate your colleagues' actions with the rest of the scientific community because they're not representative of it. As far as the peer review process goes- I'll cover that later when I get to "Uniformitarianism".


Good point. Except that I have worked as a scientist in three different continents, and in each case, I have seen the community steeped in prejudice. It doesn't mean that I think my colleagues are bad or stupid. Many of them are my friends, and some of them are quite close friends, those that know I am a creationist. But there is enough in the media and going around the work place to know that creationists lose their funding, have their papers rejected (regardless if there is an absence of any origins material in them), and are generally despised. Why? Prejudice. And you only have to look at the reaction that many people have here on NS to my arguments to see the same thing happening. They cannot argue against me, probably because most of them are just kids, or don't know much about science. But they hate it when someone challenges their favourite theory. Mind you, I'm not even declaring the theory wrong. I simply am criticising it. If they were secure in their knowledge, their reaction to me would be more like a little 'ho, ho, how amusing, there, there, run along.' The bad apples are everywhere.


You've known me- or, rather, my NS General identity- for as long as this thread as existed. I wrote that paper well before this thread and, for that matter, before I engaged in any NSG discussions on Creation vs. Evolution. Unless you know who I am personally and who I was when I wrote the paper- which I doubt- you cannot tell me what mindset I was in when I was writing it. Frankly, I find it upsetting that you seem to think you know me that well simply based upon what I've said here- you appear far too quick to judge. I am far more open-minded than you might think- but it does take some work to convince me.


I think it's just great if you are open minded. I am delighted when I hear that being said. But, mind, it has to be truly open-mindedness, not an empty claim by which one seeks the advantage of neutrality in a debate.
I certainly don't know you personally. I've certainly appreciated that you are not slaging me with insults. I've only hinted that you might be prejudiced based on what I have read of your posts. Sorry if you are offended by that. I'd much rather you weren't upset. But since it really is quite a relevant part of the debate, I suggest that you and I will have to face the fact that we will never be free of prejudice, only that we must try to be as free from it as we can be.


So you wish to tell me that because I'm looking for the date of, say, John F. Kennedy's assassination that the countless, independent newspapers that all printed the same date for the same story all have inaccurate dates simply because I'm looking for a common date? That's been your argument all along (fitted here, of course, to another field entirely). You seem ignorant of precisely how scientists- or any historians, for that matter- arrive at dates. It's all done via independent research, and Evolution was no different- unless Evolution, being what it is, is somehow different to that kind of methodology.


The methodology that the independent newspapers used to determined the date of the assassination was through eye-witness accounts. If I had a problem with that methodology, than yes, I would question their conclusion. As it happens, I don't question their conclusion, because I am happy that such a methodology is relatively reliable.

If the methodology for estimating the age of the world was also based on assumptions that I agree with, then I will most likely approve of those estimations. If the various scientists who are responsible for coming up with the estimations are all using the same assumptions, regardless of whether they are working in the geosciences, genetics, astronomy, etc.--if the assumptions underlying those estimations are identical, could we really expect the dates to differ? The data is interpreted to fit with the assumptions. Just look at the debate between the various science disciplines over ages. It is often quite fierce. For example, considering the estimated age of the solar system, this has implications for evolution, meaning that it is generally accepted that there is only a limited amount of time allowed for evolution. Those assumptions really are quite a dominant part of the science. But they are themselves not testible. If they can be said to fit with the data, that is good for the process, and makes it look more reliable. But it should not be considered the ultimate test for truth. Estimations that are not dependent on assumptions about the age of the earth are going to hold a lot more weight--with me anyway.


You also seem to think that every scientist decided- unilaterally- to agree on certain topics en masse, as if science is some grand cabal that unites on a topic and supresses any opposing viewpoints. That is a gross misrepresentation of the scientific community. Scientific consensuses don't arrive on a whim- they take decades, if not centuries, of repeated, independent and corroborative testing before anything becomes a consensus, Evolution and Uniformitarianism included. Both theories received extensive criticism when they first came out, but eventually the scientific community verified what both theories entailed through research. Both theories have their holes, but the gist of the theories are still agreed upon, and that happened because of extensive and repeated research. It doesn't mean that those theories will remain "forever"- if newer, better, theories emerge because of newer, contradictory research (i.e., "new data"), then those will replace the old theories. The history of Science is full of old theories that have been discarded in favour of newer, better theories- geo-centrism, phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston), ether (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_ether), etc.- and there's no reason why Evolution and Uniformitarianism are immune to such fates. However, to supercede them there must be a new theory first- questioning the theories doesn't automatically discredit them.


I certainly don't go for conspiracy theories. I think there often are much simpler explanations. There is such a philosophy as naturalism. It became quite prevelant after Darwin within the scientists. Much of the anti-creation prejudice can be traced directly to this philosophy. The idea that science must be conducted in the absence of 'god did it' explanations comes from this philosophy. But actually, science was quite successful before natualism.

One only has to look around to see how many people are aggressively pushing naturalism today. People like Richard Dawkins makes his money from pushing it. (And it get's my goat that he is probably paid tax payers money.)

If you think about it, uniformitarianism and naturalism are ideas that cannot be tested. So considering that they are not derived from science, how did they become so prevalent? I do have a few ideas about that. One is the major backlash against a weak and corrupt church culture and the unfair control it had over the public mind. But perhaps that's for another thread.



I will concede that there probably *are* scientists who simply hold on to Evolution not knowing a whole lot about it- considering that every scientist has their specialties- *but* that may also have something to do with the vociferousness of the Creationist community, who are looking to discredit science at every turn, believing that every field of science is inherently the same (it's from the Creationists that "Evolutionist" even became a word- because they lump all scientists together when they're not supposed to be lumped together). The Evolution-Creationism controversy- which, tellingly, arose long after Evolution became a scientific consensus- has put a lot of scientists on the defensive because the Creationist community is insistent on waging a turf war with science in society at large; and scientists aren't telling Creationists that they can't be credible science- they just want the Creationists to provide credible, observable theories before they can be called "credible scientists"; and they have yet to do so.


I've not wish to defend the verocious Creationist community over your way. I'm not American, but I do understand that there the issue is tangled up with political and curtural wars. I call that unfortunate. It means that the term creationism gets lumped with a political cause. Ugly.

I see the real original creationism as being free from political causes. It will never be free of religion, I suppose, so long as the naturalists paint it as a religion against science debate. I am both religious and a scientist and therefore I see it as a debate between religion and areligion. Science itself is quite possible despite an absence of a position in the origins debate. Most science is simply based on the assumption that every effect has a cause. That means it is 'origins independent'.


"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (Genesis 7:2-4)

"For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet." (Genesis 7:17-20)

Seems pretty clear to me from both passages that 1) every animal was supposed to be saved (as everything else would be killed) and 2) the *whole* Earth was covered. I still don't see any dinosaurs left- or trilobites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite), for that matter.


That it seems 'clear to you' is an indication that you are confident with your interpretation. I'm not so confident with your interpretation. There are several later reference in the Bible, including the new testament, which includes the term 'the whole earth', but which can only mean the whole known world. For example, when the Apostle Paul refers to the 'whole earth' recieving the message of the good news of Christ, he can't have been including Australia, since it came with the English only a little of two hundred years ago. When you read such scriptures, I suggest that it is important that you keep in mind an estimation of what the writer knew. It's also rather important to be prepared to consult the original text.


As far as drinking water goes- I think a dead cat and a few birds are vastly different than millions of animals and humans, not to mention their waste, don't you think?


Sure, but this is all relative. We are talking about enough water to cover the mountains by 7 meters or so. At least, I don't really think dirty flood water would be a good argument against people surviving on a boat after drinking it. For heaven's sake, you should see what they drink in India. Even Bangkok. The river water is opaque. And the poorest people drink it, crap in it, throw their dead animals in it, wash in it, brush their teeth in it. I've seen it with my own eyes.
I think you ought to let that point go.


You clearly stated (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12772981&postcount=639) that there was a "limit" to history and that "limit" was 6,000 years (I realized I was in error in regards to your dates because "4000 BC" *is* 6,000 years ago, but that's just semantics- that's just the earliest written document and there are earlier artifacts), so if you were stating otherwise, it wasn't clear. I've also said many times before that objects are not dated using one method so your point is moot.

The limit to history is our knowledge. I think that is all I meant. That the date is approximately 6,000 years ago is not because of Bishop Usher's calculation of 6,000 years since creation, but on what I have read on history. The two figures just happen to be in the same ball park.

So, what is a good alternative to carbon dating? The other radiodating forms are have decay rates that are far too slow to date something like 10,000 years ago.

If there was another method as reliable as carbon dating, one only has to look at the assumptions underlying the methodology. If those assumptions have anything to do with long ages, the resulting conclusion cannot be taken as proof of long ages. That would be circular reasoning. The only way to do it would be to make sure the assumptions do not rule out either a young earth or an old earth. But when that happens, the world turns out to be anywhere between young and old, which tells us nothing new.


You also seem open to the idea that a bunch of independent historical documents could be found that stretch history back tens of thousands of years to where it is now. Am I correct?

Of course. I am quite open to that possibility. However, before I believed it, I would be quite careful with how those dates are calculated. Not because of their age, but because anything about the past that cannot be confirmed through eye witness accounts is simply an estimation, and estimations are based on assumptions. (so are eye witness accounts, for that matter, but at least there are ways to check for the reliability of the eye witness accounts)

...tenacity not lacking as well.
:rolleyes:

That's really the crux of it, isn't it? (pun intended)
To sit (or stand, or hang suspended) and argue about things of an inherently philosophical nature as being absolute right and wrong, and always come to the same conclusion that it's gonna rely on a future tense to provide sustenance .... faith ... means that anyone engaging in an argument about it, one way or another, is literally shooting the shit for sake of amusement and psychological gratification.
Perhaps.

And once again xkcd is appropiate:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/conspiracy_theories.png

And once again xkcd is appropiate:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/conspiracy_theories.png

That one was disturbing, on levels that i'm finding not tangible enough to qualify in text just yet, this fine Sunday morn.
...
Have more?

I believe in God but i also believe in scientific fact.
i think that evolution is a way God could've made life.

if u think about it, God has been around for trillions of years, supposedly. and in genisis it states that he made the universe in seven days but who's to say that it was our days and not his.

I believe in God but i also believe in scientific fact.
i think that evolution is a way God could've made life.

if u think about it, God has been around for trillions of years, supposedly. and in genisis it states that he made the universe in seven days but who's to say that it was our days and not his.
...
I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me.
...
What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
...
Fly the white flag of war!
;)

That one was disturbing, on levels that i'm finding not tangible enough to qualify in text just yet, this fine Sunday morn.
...
Have more?


Yes
www.xkcd.com

if u think about it, God has been around for trillions of years, supposedly. and in genisis it states that he made the universe in seven days but who's to say that it was our days and not his.

The order of creation as proposed by Genesis however is still incompatible with current scientific theories. Genesis claims fruit bearing trees were made before the sun. Earths creation is placed before that of the sun and stars.
Biologists and astronomers respectively are pretty sure that should be the other way around.

@The Brevious : http://xkcd.com .

The order of creation as proposed by Genesis however is still incompatible with current scientific theories. Genesis claims fruit bearing trees were made before the sun. Earths creation is placed before that of the sun and stars.
Biologists and astronomers respectively are pretty sure that should be the other way around.What would've been extremely useful, in the Aporcrypha, would be a specific instance or two of how God isn't limited to a specific timeline, and upon realization of myriad own mistakes, left this particular universe behind for a more perfect one, and only through a certain manner did will from this universe make it across the expanse.
I think it might intimate as much, but it seems like people got pretty confused when they tried writing it down, and that confusion has been made principle.
:)

@The Brevious : http://xkcd.com .http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12780887&postcount=713
Thank you both for the indulgence. *bows*

Weirdly enough, TheAllMightyMeg provided me a link to this about a year ago (or something like that), iirc, and i spent about 3 hours rooting through them all.
Looks like i've got catching up to do.

seriously, isn't it strange that he has been around always and still hasn't done anything but waiting for us to arive and tell us how we should live. I think we are a bit egocentric here to think that he was supposedly to wait for us so long, only to "play" with us. And that's even more strange, what does he want from us? But you can't use genesis to prove or disprove anything, that's so before darwin, chaos theory, relativitytheory and quantum fysics.

I may not be right but he who am I, God?

And once again xkcd is appropiate:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/conspiracy_theories.png
xkcd = *win*

I really can't be bothered anymore, I'm sorry to say. I still can't decide if Bruarong is merely a troll, or someone for whom the burden of proof regarding anything before direct observation is so cripplingly high as to render any conclusion totally meaningless. I err towards the latter, in a faint hope that this hasn't all been in vain. However, this burden of proof is apparently suspended entirely when looking at creationist arguments, and we haven't even looked at the other creation myths. There isn't really any point in debating this with Bruarong, it's like boxing air.

What would've been extremely useful, in the Aporcrypha, would be a specific instance or two of how God isn't limited to a specific timeline, and upon realization of myriad own mistakes, left this particular universe behind for a more perfect one, and only through a certain manner did will from this universe make it across the expanse.

Would explain why we were put away in an unremarkable place in a spiral arm of the pretty dull milky way galaxy, instead of being right in the center of the universe.

xkcd = *win*

I still can't decide if Bruarong is merely a troll, or someone for whom the burden of proof regarding anything before direct observation is so cripplingly high as to render any conclusion totally meaningless. I err towards the latter, in a faint hope that this hasn't all been in vain.This is *exactly* why i said s/he seemed the most dangerous poster regarding this particular topic.
However, this burden of proof is apparently suspended entirely when looking at creationist arguments, and we haven't even looked at the other creation myths. There isn't really any point in debating this with Bruarong, it's like boxing air.Yup. Good post.
I busted him up.-ST:TNG, Peak Performance

Would explain why we were put away in an unremarkable place in a spiral arm of the pretty dull milky way galaxy, instead of being right in the center of the universe.
That concept, as well as relativity, seemed like some wasted Word on people who still wanted to slaughter things for appeasement and to do things like cursing fig trees, apparently.
And where's the latest guess on the center of the universe, you don't happen to have that one handy, do you?
I know the center of *any* galaxy isn't so great as compared to a GHZ. :)

People had to be created somewhere. The idea of someone else creating us seems unbelievable. I, myself am a science girl, thus believing in evolution. Though everything had to be created by something, so who's to say algae and particles were always there? They had to come from something, didn't they? Oh, the debate..

People had to be created somewhere. The idea of someone else creating us seems unbelievable. I, myself am a science girl, thus believing in evolution. Though everything had to be created by something, so who's to say algae and particles were always there? They had to come from something, didn't they? Oh, the debate..

First Cause argument .... pervasive.
*nods*

People had to be created somewhere. The idea of someone else creating us seems unbelievable. I, myself am a science girl, thus believing in evolution. Though everything had to be created by something, so who's to say algae and particles were always there? They had to come from something, didn't they? Oh, the debate..

If you believe that everything had to be created, then who or what is the "First Creator"? And why does everything need a creator except that "First Creator"?

If you believe that everything had to be created, then who or what is the "First Creator"? And why does everything need a creator except that "First Creator"?

Realistically, all logic has the standpoint of supposedly reliable premise from which all else follows.
Surely, you know that.
;)

The problem is anthropomorphizing the First Cause instead of understanding in on a mechanical level, non?

Has anyone here heard of "theistic evolution"? It's basically the idea that, since God is all powerful, he could have used evolution/natural selection to create life, the universe, and everything. God created the universe and the laws that govern it; why would he break these laws, and why would he lie to us and make it look like creation is billions of years old when in fact it is only six thousand? Makes no sense to me. I had always assumed that, since science is basically observations of nature and trying to find trends and explanations for these observations, that a) it is reliable and totally in accordance with what God made, and b) it should have nothing to do with religion. I mean, nobody was actually around when God created the whole of creation, so how could they know what happened, eh? I believe that the creation story of Genesis is a good myth, but that it is also true, in that God did create the world. I also believe that God gave humanity the ability to observe nature and logically deduce things about nature, and that the results of this, when done accurately and efficiently, tend to be right (e.g. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Dawrwin, Pascal, etc. ad infinitum). Therefore, I accept the theory of evolution of life via natural selection, and I believe that God created the world. Is this unreasonable?

I believe in God but i also believe in scientific fact.How?

Has anyone here heard of "theistic evolution"? It's basically the idea that, since God is all powerful, he could have used evolution/natural selection to create life, the universe, and everything. God created the universe and the laws that govern it; why would he break these laws, and why would he lie to us and make it look like creation is billions of years old when in fact it is only six thousand? Makes no sense to me. I had always assumed that, since science is basically observations of nature and trying to find trends and explanations for these observations, that a) it is reliable and totally in accordance with what God made, and b) it should have nothing to do with religion. I mean, nobody was actually around when God created the whole of creation, so how could they know what happened, eh? I believe that the creation story of Genesis is a good myth, but that it is also true, in that God did create the world. I also believe that God gave humanity the ability to observe nature and logically deduce things about nature, and that the results of this, when done accurately and efficiently, tend to be right (e.g. Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Dawrwin, Pascal, etc. ad infinitum). Therefore, I accept the theory of evolution of life via natural selection, and I believe that God created the world. Is this unreasonable?

Paragraphs are your friend.

Paragraphs are your friend.?? Would you read it if it were paragraphed?

Is this unreasonable?

Most of it isn't.
The unreasonable part is the attribution of human characteristics to the motivating force/first cause just to make humans feel better about their own f*cked up insecurities, delusions, and emotional frailty.
He? :rolleyes:
At best, the nature of "god" itself IS the mechanism by which things are possible (and i don't mean social stylings and convention persay), not some bloodthirsty hottempered infant who is ever so willing to slay his own creations because of a clearly considerable difference in perspective.

?? Would you read it if it were paragraphed?

I did read it.
Most of it isn't.
The unreasonable part is the attribution of human characteristics to the motivating force/first cause just to make humans feel better about their own f*cked up insecurities, delusions, and emotional frailty.
He? :rolleyes:
At best, the nature of "god" itself IS the mechanism by which things are possible (and i don't mean social stylings and convention persay), not some bloodthirsty hottempered infant who is ever so willing to slay his own creations because of a clearly considerable difference in perspective.
If being anthropomorphised is good enough for cats then it's good enough for the first cause.

..., and I believe that God created the world. Is this unreasonable?Depends on which god you believe in. The biblical one? Then it is completely unreasonable.

If being anthropomorphised is good enough for cats then it's good enough for the first cause.Verily, you wound me.
*retch*

xkcd = *win*

I really can't be bothered anymore, I'm sorry to say. I still can't decide if Bruarong is merely a troll, or someone for whom the burden of proof regarding anything before direct observation is so cripplingly high as to render any conclusion totally meaningless. I err towards the latter, in a faint hope that this hasn't all been in vain. However, this burden of proof is apparently suspended entirely when looking at creationist arguments, and we haven't even looked at the other creation myths. There isn't really any point in debating this with Bruarong, it's like boxing air.

QFT.

The problem with creation is that it's often just Genesis we hear about; it's as if creationists don't want to hear about the other creation myths out there, which could be just as relevant as theirs. I mean, if "God" can create the world in seven days, who says that Titans and Zeus didn't have a hand in it as well?

The early Greek poets posited various cosmogonies. The best-preserved is Hesiod's Theogony. In this hymn, out of the primordial chaos came the earliest divinities, including Gaia (mother earth). Gaia created Uranus, the sky, to cover herself. They spawned a bizarre menagerie of gods and monsters, including the Hecatonchires, monsters with 50 heads and a hundred hands, and the Cyclopes, the "wheel-eyed," later forgers of Zeus's thunderbolts. Next came the gods known as the Titans, 6 sons and 6 daughters. Uranus, despising his monstrous children, imprisoned them in Tartarus, the earth's bowels. Enraged, Gaia made an enormous sickle and gave it to her youngest son, Cronus, with instructions. When next Uranus appeared to copulate with Gaia, Cronus sprang out and hacked off his father's genitals! Where Uranus's blood and naughty bits fell, there sprang forth more monsters, the Giants and Furies. From the sea foam churned up by the the holy testicles came the goddess Aphrodite. Later, Cronus fathered the next generation of gods, Zeus and the Olympians.

Top 10 Creation Myths (http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs-1.html)

If you believe one creation story, why not others? After all, in the face of science all are equally as far-fetched in their own right.

Where did Cain's wife come from? Thin air? There is no mention of her; it's as if she just dropped in. Even "God" doesn't justify her existence in Genesis...

This is why creation will never be accepted as a viable theory - there are too many stories that could be considered creation and if you say that Genesis is more relevant than the others because "God" did it, then you're a sad, sad person because all the other creation myths involve at least one god.

QFT.

The problem with creation is that it's often just Genesis we hear about; it's as if creationists don't want to hear about the other creation myths out there, which could be just as relevant as theirs. In turn, QFT.
I mean, if "God" can create the world in seven days, who says that Titans and Zeus didn't have a hand in it as well?Weirdly enough, there were quite a few gods that Yahweh took to battle fairly early on ... hence the "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me".



10 10 Creation Myths (http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs-1.html)

If you believe one creation story, why not others? After all, in the face of science all are equally as far-fetched in their own right.

Where did Cain's wife come from? Thin air? There is no mention of her; it's as if she just dropped in. Even "God" doesn't justify her existence in Genesis...I'm sure the Council of Nycea helped with that as well. Literally, "the Man" keeping "the Woman" down. Lilith, anyone?

This is why creation will never be accepted as a viable theory - there are too many stories that could be considered creation and if you say that Genesis is more relevant than the others because "God" did it, then you're a sad, sad person because all the other creation myths involve at least one god.
First Cause, anthropomorphized. 'Nuff said.

If being anthropomorphised is good enough for cats then it's good enough for the first cause.

You really do have a furry fetish :eek:

:p

You really do have a furry fetish :eek:

:p

WTF?
That wound hasn't even DRIED yet!

Edit: sorry I was sorely mistaken, move along.

I'm sure the Council of Nycea helped with that as well. Literally, "the Man" keeping "the Woman" down. Lilith, anyone?

Lilith, so far as I know, was a complete fabrication devised by a Catholic monk in the 13th century based on a few lines from Isaiah and Genesis.

Lilith, so far as I know, was a complete fabrication devised by a Catholic monk in the 13th century based on a few lines from Isaiah and Genesis.

Lilith the first wife, right?
No submission?

Lilith the first wife, right?
No submission?

Adam didn't like it rough.;)

Adam didn't like it rough.;)

Getting his rib yoinked after a daterape from god appeared to make him kinda soft, yep.

<snip>

I've decided I'm finished addressing your points here because I feel like all I'll be doing is repeating myself. So I'm just going to stop here.

That it seems 'clear to you' is an indication that you are confident with your interpretation. I'm not so confident with your interpretation. There are several later reference in the Bible, including the new testament, which includes the term 'the whole earth', but which can only mean the whole known world. For example, when the Apostle Paul refers to the 'whole earth' recieving the message of the good news of Christ, he can't have been including Australia, since it came with the English only a little of two hundred years ago. When you read such scriptures, I suggest that it is important that you keep in mind an estimation of what the writer knew. It's also rather important to be prepared to consult the original text.

No, when the Bible refers to "the whole world", it really does mean "the whole world"- that what they thought is "the whole world" wasn't actually the whole world is immaterial, because both the writer and the reader have no idea of what the world is like beyond their surroundings. Of course when St. Paul refers to "the whole world" he didn't include Australia- he didn't even know it existed (well, probably not anyway). However, had he known, he would have included it. The "known world" doesn't mean "the person's immediate surroundings"- it means "what that person understands as being 'every territory in the world'". For a person not to include a territory in their speech, they'd have to know about it first- so while St. Paul may not be including Australia in his definition of "the known world", he's only doing so because Australia does not exist anywhere in his consciousness of "the world".

Sure, but this is all relative. We are talking about enough water to cover the mountains by 7 meters or so. At least, I don't really think dirty flood water would be a good argument against people surviving on a boat after drinking it. For heaven's sake, you should see what they drink in India. Even Bangkok. The river water is opaque. And the poorest people drink it, crap in it, throw their dead animals in it, wash in it, brush their teeth in it. I've seen it with my own eyes.
I think you ought to let that point go.

...and India is far from a shining example of having "safe drinking water", don't you think? In India, the life expectancy is 66 years. In the U.S., it is 78. In Canada (where I live), it is 80. In the United Kingdom, it is 79. It doesn't matter that "life expectancy" is just an average- it still says something about the country as a whole; and if there are a lot of Indians who live into their 80s and 90s, there's got to be a lot of Indians who don't make it to their 30s and 40s- because that "completes" the average.

I've decided I'm finished addressing your points here because I feel like all I'll be doing is repeating myself. So I'm just going to stop here.


No problem. Maybe we could take it up again some time in the future.


No, when the Bible refers to "the whole world", it really does mean "the whole world"- that what they thought is "the whole world" wasn't actually the whole world is immaterial, because both the writer and the reader have no idea of what the world is like beyond their surroundings. Of course when St. Paul refers to "the whole world" he didn't include Australia- he didn't even know it existed (well, probably not anyway). However, had he known, he would have included it. The "known world" doesn't mean "the person's immediate surroundings"- it means "what that person understands as being 'every territory in the world'". For a person not to include a territory in their speech, they'd have to know about it first- so while St. Paul may not be including Australia in his definition of "the known world", he's only doing so because Australia does not exist anywhere in his consciousness of "the world".


I have to say, that if Paul knew that Australia existed, and knew that there were Aboriginals there who had never heard the Gospel, I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't have made the claim that the good news was already throughout the whole world. He might have refined his claim to something like the 'Roman world'. Of course, I totally agree with you. Paul is only referring to what he knew about, and that is my whole point with the Genesis account of the flood. The writer, in referring to the whole earth, is only meaning the earth that he knows about. That's not to say that it was only a local flood, although it may have been, I don't know. But the description of 'covering the mountains' can really only be applied to the earth that he knows about.


...and India is far from a shining example of having "safe drinking water", don't you think? In India, the life expectancy is 66 years. In the U.S., it is 78. In Canada (where I live), it is 80. In the United Kingdom, it is 79. It doesn't matter that "life expectancy" is just an average- it still says something about the country as a whole; and if there are a lot of Indians who live into their 80s and 90s, there's got to be a lot of Indians who don't make it to their 30s and 40s- because that "completes" the average.

Yes, but 66 years (or even 30 years) is still more than one year, the time that 8 people and all the animals were supposed to have survived in a boat. Plus, it could have been lightly raining on and off during that time. They could have collected the rain water. The whole concept of Noah's big boat is not made less likely by your idea of the flood water being too dirty.

I have to say, that if Paul knew that Australia existed, and knew that there were Aboriginals there who had never heard the Gospel, I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't have made the claim that the good news was already throughout the whole world. He might have refined his claim to something like the 'Roman world'. Of course, I totally agree with you. Paul is only referring to what he knew about, and that is my whole point with the Genesis account of the flood. The writer, in referring to the whole earth, is only meaning the earth that he knows about. That's not to say that it was only a local flood, although it may have been, I don't know. But the description of 'covering the mountains' can really only be applied to the earth that he knows about.

Still goes back to "if the writer knew Australia existed, the writer would write about it".

Yes, but 66 years (or even 30 years) is still more than one year, the time that 8 people and all the animals were supposed to have survived in a boat. Plus, it could have been lightly raining on and off during that time. They could have collected the rain water. The whole concept of Noah's big boat is not made less likely by your idea of the flood water being too dirty.

My expertise is not in germ biology so I'm not one to make a definitive claim on the sanitation of the drinking water during the Flood. I will say that the worldwide Floodwaters is going to have exponentially more dirt and toxins than the Gagnes River does and the Floodwater's sanitation isn't comparable with- or fathomable against- the Gagnes. It's also worth mentioning that in India, there's plenty more to drink than the water- Noah and his Arkmates have just the Floodwater.

Maybe it is just a minor point ultimately, but it's still an issue (because Noah and his Arkmates have to be able to drink something), especially if we're talking about a completely literalist interpretation of the Bible- meaning a truly "global" flood (I don't discount that there might have been a "greater than normal" flood in History- it was just not a global one).

My expertise is not in germ biology so I'm not one to make a definitive claim on the sanitation of the drinking water during the Flood. I will say that the worldwide Floodwaters is going to have exponentially more dirt and toxins than the Gagnes River does and the Floodwater's sanitation isn't comparable with- or fathomable against- the Gagnes. It's also worth mentioning that in India, there's plenty more to drink than the water- Noah and his Arkmates have just the Floodwater.

Maybe it is just a minor point ultimately, but it's still an issue (because Noah and his Arkmates have to be able to drink something), especially if we're talking about a completely literalist interpretation of the Bible- meaning a truly "global" flood (I don't discount that there might have been a "greater than normal" flood in History- it was just not a global one).

Seriously...potable water would have been the least of Noah's worries. The enormous mounds of shit produced each day would have been a slightly larger problem - feeding lions, tigers and the like with ammm....maybe dinosaurs eh?

The entire thing is about as plausible as....ammm... what's a good comparison..... oh yes, the Creation story itself.

Seriously...potable water would have been the least of Noah's worries. The enormous mounds of shit produced each day would have been a slightly larger problem - feeding lions, tigers and the like with ammm....maybe dinosaurs eh?

Add to that that the weight of the insects alone would make the boat sink.
Unless one believes all the different types of beetles evolved since then ;)

If it takes ten years to create a certain degree of deposition, and that figure can be fairly accurately verified under a range of conditions, in various places, by independent agents, one can work out an average yearly deposition rate, from which a calculation can be made of how lon git wil ltake to create - for example - 20cm of deposits.

Is that enough? Maybe not - but if those figures are checked against figures for much shorter periods (like observed deposition of weeks, months or a year, for example) and against figures obtainable for much longer periods (for example, where deposition might have occured in a historically datable way - off the top of my head this could be something like deposits found around historical damage), then it is possible to see if those estimates fit a general observable trend.

If the deposition rate matches in monthly, yearly, ten-yearly, centenially, and millenially available data... it is not uncautious to presume the posibility of a fairly consistent rate.

Such a procedure would be fine. I mean, assuming an average yearly deposit, and assuming that the same rate has held relatively constant, then one could come up with a figure based on this calculation. But then one has to assume that no other contributions have been made to this rate in the past. We would have to make assumptions without knowing the history. We would have to assume that there are no other natural forces that could have contributed to make the estimation older than it really was. My argument is that such assumptions do not amount to proof, or even evidence. Particularly if other effects can be demonstrated, or even argued to have played a role. At best, we could come away from the procedure with a rather tentative figure. To assume that the figure must be the truth would not be cautious at all. It is sad to see that caution thrown to the wind.

Science is filled with examples of rates that have been miscalculated. That doesn't bother anyone, because science is always adjusting itself, and hopefully getting closer to the truth. So why do we assume that our rate calculations are currently correct? We shouldn't, obviously. Neither should we assume the world is old simply because of a bunch of rate calculations. Rather, we should be saying, 'The world might be old, or it might not be.'




No - a 'theory' is not some story you make up. It starts with observation of a phenomenon (which means Creationism can NEVER generate theories), for which a mechanism matching the available data is constructed (the hypothesis).

But one doesn't need to see the creation act before the hypothesis is thought up. The observation is based on nature as one finds it today.


Creationism can never generate a hypothesis, because it relies on non-available data. The hypothesis is tested against new data, and refined. This is the life-cycle of the proto-theory.

That's hopeless, Grave. If you were right, then naturalism could never generate a hypothesis either. The fact is that we cannot observe apes turning into humans (even if it's because we don't live long enough), and yet the hypothesis is there. But not because of such an observation. Why don't you think about what you are saying?


Creationists fail at the observation stage, the hypothesis stage... their results cannot be tested because they rely on an external and unfalsifiable measurement, and they can never be refined - because the assumption PREDATES the observation.


How is that different from evolutionary theory? For example, how would one falsify the idea that radiodating can be used to date the earth? We have no way of doing that. Thus, the idea of an old earth relies on indirect measurements, meaning that the data always has to be interpreted. Such old age cannot be observed.



Creationism fails at theories. It is not scientific, it is not science.

If you try to peddle it as science, you are being taken for a ride, or you are dishonest.

And you are giving me the distinct impression that you don't really know what you are talking about.

And your position doesn't look good. Let me summerise what your evidence for the evolutionary theory and old ages seems to be:

1. The experts all seem to agree on evolution being right
(Even if they can't agree on how it happened--which looks suspiciously like an 'evolution did it' explanation. It is also an argument of the 'majority must be right'.)

2. The experts using various methods in various disciplines all seem to agree with an old earth
(Although that isn't too hard to explain, given that they are all using similar assumptions, regardless of the method or the discipline.)

3. The interpretations of the data seems to agree with each other, i.e., it fits.
(Despite the fact that scientists work in a community and are always looking over each other's shoulder in order to get there estimates to agree. That doesn't mean they are dishonest, but that they simply want their conclusions to be acceptable to the general community.)

4. Only science based on observation can be considered real science. And because creationism includes a creation event that cannot be observed (because it is in the past), it cannot be science.
(And as I have just pointed out, much of evolutionary theory cannot be based on observation, but rather the extrapolation of microevolution into macroevolution. Thus, by your judgment, such an extrapolation cannot be science, because macroevolution cannot be observed. It is also stuck in the past.)

Add to that that the weight of the insects alone would make the boat sink.
Unless one believes all the different types of beetles evolved since then ;)

As if the debate would be resolved on this issue anyway.

'Hmm, well if ample drinking water is proved to be impossible to provide on Noah's Ark, well I guess the entire foundations of creationism have come tumbling down like the walls of Jericho, now explain this evo-lu-tion to me a bit more will you?'

'Hmm, well if ample drinking water is proved to be impossible to provide on Noah's Ark, well I guess the entire foundations of creationism have come tumbling down like the walls of Jericho, now explain this evo-lu-tion to me a bit more will you?'

Don't be silly. After the great god Atum willed himself into being and created a mountain to stand on he felt lonely - so he gave himself a blowjob, spit the semen out and thereby created all life. No need for those silly evolution ideas.

That Atum guy scares the hell out of me.