BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:07 AM

I have recently finished reading The Panda's Thumb by Stephen Jay Gould. (You can read excerpts at that Google Books link)

It is one of my recommendations in a list of books I have tentatively titled "How to Think". (I have been planning a thread on this for weeks now....this may be the impetus to get me organized.)

"The Panda's Thumb" is an exploration of topics in Natural History, with many examples showing how the discussion and study of **evolution** has been confused and misunderstood.

The point is: it is not enough to be 'for' or 'against' the idea of evolution.... it is just too complex to dismiss OR accept based on various simplistic arguments.....and Gould goes into all the pitfalls that many on both sides encounter.

Those who already accept the concept of evolution would find exceptional explanations of just what is at issue...and discover that there are several camps, even among those who do accept it.

Those who resist the very idea of evolution need to explore the carefully organized points and become aware that accepting evolution does not necessarily conflict with notions of some 'higher power'.
(I really doubt that most hard-core creationists will manage to grasp either the book's explanations or the overall intent....but one can always hope....)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:58 AM

Precepts taken from religious doctrine can't be classified as science. There is no actual scientific process that has taken place to define either AEN or YEC or any other acronym with the exception of provable scientific processes such as DNA, RNA etc.

This YEC or AEN enters the realm loosely of philosophy and has a "metaphysical" tinge to it, not a scientific explanation of events.

I'm not sure what the value of this acronymic parsing is. I don't see that it makes our world a better place to live.

Doctrine separated from educational models as to how society can best be benefitted is useless to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:29 PM

////Neither you nor I nor anyone else thinks He created the universe yesterday. That's a "straw man".

No it's not,////

In a way, it is. It points out a type of weakness in the argument. It does not refute the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 12:36 PM

/////But, why have and do so many (around the world) adhere to religious belief?

Because they were told what to believe by their parents/schools/pastors.////

False. Many people believe in a religion against all advice from family and friends not to do so. Ultimately, people believe because they want to not because they are told to.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 01:04 PM

Many people also believe that the Holocaust never happened, that people are regularly abducted by aliens and have horrific experiments performed on them aboard spaceships, that them nig***r are a degenerate race cursed by God, that the U.S. Civil War had nothing to do with the issue of chattel slavery & on & on & on.

They'reall weak-minded ignorant fu*kwits & its time people stopped humouring them.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 01:54 PM

...given the trend of responses so far, I am not sure that a course... or even suggestions of a reading list ...on "How to Think" would accomplish much ☺.

One of the wonders of being human is how frustrating it can be to cope with even those you basically agree with.

But...Greg F...they are NOT "...all weak-minded ignorant fu*kwits...", and *I* never "humor" them. But sometimes I can make a start on getting thru to them if I don't begin with direct insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:04 PM

LEJ alleged (pun intended) that:

Science is essentially a collection of known facts about physical porcesses (sic)

No, LEJ, science is a process (and, loosely, those who carry it out) which is essentially organized curiosity. The organization referred to there essentially resides in rules like the Scientific Method and the principles of free publication of results.

The product of science constitutes technology. (Your "known facts", LEJ.)

And the application of technology is engineering.

And of course many who engage in science also engage in engineering.

The confusion of these categories with each other (sometimes even in the minds of scientists and engineers) is a great source of popular misunderstanding of what goes on.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:08 PM

sometimes I can make a start on getting thru to them if I don't begin with direct insults.

No, Bill you can't get thru to a "true believer" who chooses believe outrageous bullshit and to live and operate in a fact-free enviroment, and you are wastting your time trying.

If these people could think critically, they wouldn't believe the arrant bullshit that they obviously do.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:10 PM

I fail to see what an individual's belief in a supreme being has to do with anyone else. Basically, people have a right to their beliefs. That doesn't give them the right to tell me about it.

When proselytizing people come to my door I politely ask them to leave. If they don't, I tell them to leave. If they still don't, I start talking in tongues. Religious, political and other.

Yer gabbit shafling corderum ragables fernucormun. BEASTS! FORNICATORS!

I get very very few second visits.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:29 PM

Greg... I wonder how long it's been since you even attempted to 'get thru' to a 'true believer'.

Did you ever play with silly putty? It will shatter if you throw it hard against a brick wall, but you can s-l-o-w-l-y mold it into a shape if you are patient.

Insults serve ONLY to make someone retreat and harden their defenses and close their mind tighter. A little teasing and patient Socratic dialogue can sometimes get someone to relax and allow a new thought....and maybe THEIR children will benefit. Education is a process, not an edit or a threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:46 PM

however as darwinism gained popular acceptance many churchians adjusted their teaching ,perhaps thinking to gain acceptance from evolutionist scientists.
dont think it worked so well as far as i know.

No, they were intellectually honest, and the scientific evidence was so clear that, even with the many problems(*) of Darwin's schema in the science of the time, they accepted that natural selection is a far better explanation of the biological world than the story in Genesis. They then understood that Genesis was a metaphorical description of God's interaction with his creation rather than a complete factual account. That was a break with the past in some respects, but other parts of the Bible had always been interpreted as metaphor or allegory, so the change was in the end not too traumatic. It also marked perhaps for the Church of England, a step on the path that took them from an unthinking supporter of State power to a more thinking view of the origins of morality. Some may not think that a good thing, but they at least believe that they can get souls into Heaven without requiring them to deny the proven.

(*) Problems like:

1. No known mechanism of inheritance- the discovery of Mendel's work forty years later started science on the investigatory path that is still going on, but has led to a much deeper understanding of the mechanisms of Life.

2. No known way the Sun could have produced energy in sufficient quantities for the millions of years required by Darwin's slow selection of minute reproductive advantages. Fifty years passed before the discovery of radioactivity gave the first hints that the Sun has enough energy available to last for not just millions, but many billions, of years.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 02:51 PM

In the dark, one crock of shit smells about the same as another.

Better to light one candle than to stand about in a cloud of unknowing smelling horse manure.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 03:02 PM

Greg... I wonder how long it's been since you even attempted to 'get thru' to a 'true believer'.

Its been quite a while, Bill, because, apparently unlike you, after a lifetime of experience spanning some 65 years, I'm able to recognize a lost cause and a futile waste of time and energy when I see it.

Go thou and do likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 03:35 PM

"..., after a lifetime of experience spanning some 65 years, I'm able to recognize a lost cause and a futile waste of time and energy when I see it.

*grin*.. I'm 72, and have had genuine success [admittedly never enough] using MY system. Go thou and try it.....,

"Banging your head on the wall is such a great thing, because it feels so good when you stop."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 03:45 PM

I'm not as venerable as either Bill or Greg, but I venture to say I think the real point being missed, and it's one I raised months ago. When these get put to the vote it will not be decided (directly) by the enthusiasts from either camp, but by those who are either genuinely undecided or, more likely I am afraid, those asking where their personal political advantage lies. That's why neither bunch of enthusiasts can afford to let the others talk away and just assume 'those of good sense' will simply agree with them

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM

////A common response to the fact that YEC has an explanation for everything is to say, "See, those YEC guys aren't scientific; their theory is unfalsifiable". Be fair, guys. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If creationism is dismissed on the grounds that it is unfalsifiable, then AEN had better check its own house.////

Yes, I've read your examples of how AEN, as you call it, is unfalsifiable and found it wanting. Piltdown man was simply a hoax not something that proves AEN right or wrong--it was just a hoax. You brought up nothing that proved AEN was wrong. Your argument about the various timelines in a work of art was similarly unconvincing simply because your analogy doesn't work. You are trying to compare an ordinary human endeavor to something that no human endeavor can be compared, i.e. the creation of the universe. And you did this without offering a shred of proof. No need to go all philosophical on you. You offered a bad analogy and nothing else. I hope you have more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 06:09 PM

Well, ONE of the real points is that such issues should not be "put to the vote". The very idea that matters of either morality or science are subject to occasional 'votes' is crazy.
No one can tell you what to think...but it is possible to describe and identify bad reasoning, which, if taught openly and clearly, can gradually 'help' clarify both matters of morality and science.

This is what is implicitly embodied in the 1st amendment to the US Constitution when it says that we will not deny the right to worship, but also will not endorse any religion. Views specifically based on religion...OR the rejection of religion... should not be a matter of who can get the most votes....yet many current members of Congress ignore this. *IF* rational thinking were more common, this at least would begin to sink in.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Jan 12 - 11:57 PM

I agree with Bill's general statement. I fail so see why two 'great' areas of human thought cannot co-habitate. If religion is about morality and not power, then it can be used to help keep the misapplications of scientific research from being put to nefarious/evil purposes. And for some people that is the reality. Conversely, cloning is a concept that was shown to us in Genesis(?) when Eve was made from Adam's rib.

God made it and Darwin explained it. Then came Jerry Falwell. Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:17 AM

Nurse! Nurse!

Ahhh.... that's better.

When's supper?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:44 AM

" I fail so see why two 'great' areas of human thought cannot co-habitate."

Then you need to understand what science is, how it works and what its fundamental aims are. I'll give you a clue: It's about finding out the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 08:00 AM

Well, ONE of the real points
I stand corrected. I did not intend to imply the point I raised was the only one. I agree it lacks a fundamental understanding of logic that such things should be put to the vote, but, in at least the case of these current bills, that's what's happening. So they need to be defeated (or, if you are that way inclined, won) by persuading others who are not in committed to one camp or the other. Which means these arguments are worth having, even though neither side expects to convert the other. But, agreeing with Bill's point, they need to be persuaded by reasoned argument, not be either side simply declaring the other to be fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 05:57 PM

bill-i certainly agree that a polite reasoned case is more likely to be heard than the foulmouthed insults of some who perhaps have no other means of making a case?!not that i can recall anything you,ve said as making me rethink,but at least communication is possible.

paul-just to say,-creationists have no argument against natural selection.species were known to change within the parameters of their type before darwin as you probably know.indeed it is thought by some that he got it from the creationist edward blythe.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 06:40 PM

"Then you need to understand what science is, how it works and what its fundamental aims are. I'll give you a clue: It's about finding out the truth."

If by truth you mean something that can be observed and repeated by people in other times and places, I am aware of that, but in your dash to be superior you neglected to read what I wrote. The search for truth is found within most disciplines. Science is one, mathematics another, ethics also another, philosophy yet again another. If you stop your thinking in a single area of human research you cut yourself off from other truths.

Where you got the idea you are able to give ANYone a clue is beyond me. That has to be the single-most puffed-up and egocentric remark I've read on this site. I think you got the initial sounds of your Mudcat name reversed.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 09:52 PM

"...initial sounds of your Mudcat name reversed."

**stifling a giggle**

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jan 12 - 11:47 PM

If God actually created (on purpose; to test your fatih perhaps?) those photons enroute from all those suns, galaxies, and nebulae farther than 6000 light years away, he/she is just purely fucking with your head, so why do you believe anything else he/she tells you?
Or are you going to claim that the universe is finite, with a radius of 6000 light years?
Sorry, you've got no other choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:08 AM

Well, I think it would be a very good idea for students to learn about the various creation myths in school - along with understanding that while these are not merely myths and they do have great value, they are not scientific fact.

I suppose the fundamentalist believers would have trouble with the "myth" and the fundamentalist nonbelievers would still have trouble with "creation," even if described as myth. If we could manage to offend the extremes on both sides, then we might accomplish something.

Myths are not (necessarily) untrue, and they often have profound meaning - although they are not scientific or historical fact.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:22 AM

That is how we do it in UK Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 05:26 AM

Amongst others from here

There are several creation stories in Egypt, attached to rival gods. The most common one begins with Nun, the primeval ocean, from which Amen rises in splendour. He takes the name Re, thus in effect merging two rival deities. By an act of masturbation (described as such in the temple texts) he produces a divine son and daughter. These two breed a race of gods, while the tears of Amen-Re become mankind - appropriately enough, for man's behaviour soon persuades the creator to withdraw from earthly affairs. He retires to the heavens, where he reigns as the sun.

I don't believe this. Nor do I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Does that make me a "fundamentalist nonbeliever" or is that only lack of belief in specific creation myths?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:46 AM

At the risk of sounding like one of pete from some star or other's "foulmouthed insult" jockeys...

Of course people will listen politely to your reasoned argument. I have a friend who does that all the time.

He listens to people, nods as to respect what they are saying. he even makes notes whilst they are saying it.

Then he makes his clinical assessment.

Look. Surely far better for someone to tell you that your ideas are silly, weird and have no place in reality over and above any other fairy story than to have people pretend to debate with you because they feel sorry for you?

I am at least treating you as an equal by taking the piss?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 11:54 AM

"Fairy Stories" Deliberate, insult and attempt to provoke with possible homosexual overtones.

If that is "clinical assessment, I AM the flying spaghetti monster. You are obviously not a voice of reason, you are a acting like a child of taunting mockery.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:13 PM

Hello Sailor!

Wow! I'm out of my depth here. Unlike you, I am not qualified to make clinical assessments.

You must be though, to drag the word "homosexual" into the debate. I don't understand that bit, so as I say, out of my depth. If by homosexual you mean that YEC is a load of cock, then I am with you in a tenuous way...

The other bit that is spooky is how you brought the flying spaghetti monster into your reply to, I think, my post, as opposed to the post it was mentioned in above? It is spooky because I joined the said church (largely because I like being called a pastafarian) in order to put something silly on the monitoring forms I get to fill in when doing work for the government. Atheist is an insulting term for those of us who see religion as irrelevant to us and a pain to society, although comforting for some.

So you don't think young age creationism is a fairy story? What, pray, is it then?

(Do you like how I managed to put the word "pray" in there? Does it make me sound like the voice of reason? Who here from The UK can remember the voice of reason, Woodrow Wyatt? it was pricks like him who made me act like a child of taunting mockery in the first place.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:17 PM

"I think you got the initial sounds of your Mudcat name reversed."

Bingo - you got the joke.

"Where you got the idea you are able to give ANYone a clue is beyond me. That has to be the single-most puffed-up and egocentric remark I've read on this site."

Haven't read much then have you? I apologise if my remark came across as holier than thou, perhaps I misunderstood your point. I'm full of shit but at least I admit it; after a decade posting here I'd be a fool not too. Especially given some of the crap talked on here.

"Science is one, mathematics another, ethics also another, philosophy yet again another. If you stop your thinking in a single area of human research you cut yourself off from other truths. "

Agree. But science and religion can co-exist only if each other side agrees to disagree, and then what's the point?

"If religion is about morality and not power, then it can be used to help keep the misapplications of scientific research from being put to nefarious/evil purposes."

This is the bit I must have misunderstood Guest 999. So clear this up for me:

1) How can religious morality be used to stop misapplications of scientific research?

2) Can science provide a framework for a moral system?

3) Which religion should be allowed to exercise it's moral authority over science (or anything else for that matter)?

4) What is the ultimate source of that authority?

5) Is it possible the source of religious moral authority might not sit too well with the people who are being directed by it?

6) Does politics have a role in this?

Make it so even a pompous fat twat like me can understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 12:35 PM

Mather, Obviously your religion is a Quixotic quest to to waste the time of people with better things to do by drawing them into arguments through insults and taunts. May the GSM bless you and rain marinara upon you.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 02:07 PM

tia-last i heard evolutionary cosmology had its own problems to solve.creationist scientists have theories too about time /light travel.i,m not scientific enough to explain it in any depth and you are u nlikely to consider it anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 02:46 PM

"creationist scientists " is an awkward term. One can do certain kinds of science and still believe in biblical creation... but in so far as one is expressing creationist views, one is NOT being a scientist. It's similar to a teacher who also has kids in school-- when you act as a parent, you can't also act directly as a teacher. There a lot of quick hat changes involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:02 PM

The amount of sheer dullness awaiting any poor soul who is unwilling to face simple facts is unfathomable.

Science is about the measurable testable, falsifiable. Morals is about consideration of individual, group, and global goodness of choices. The too may have some intersecting territory but they have no claim on each other.

There is no science to creationsim. The creationist hypothesis requires the ignoral of huge amounts of simple, irrefutable data, and avoids hundreds of simple, direct questions it cannot answer.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:22 PM

"creationist scientists " is an awkward term...

No, its not. Its an oxymoron and arrant bullshit into the bargain.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:23 PM

Aw, Greg, you say the sweetest things!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Jan 12 - 03:33 PM

last i heard evolutionary cosmology had its own problems to solve.creationist scientists have theories too about time /light travel.

This illustrates neatly the necessary conflict between science and "revealed" religion. All science always has problems, that's what's really exciting about it, and why it is so fruitful. Every explanation provided by science is provisional; it's the best we can do until some snag shows our understanding to be incomplete or even completely wrong. The work of getting to the next better explanation is the exciting bit, and where all the advances made by science, and which benefit us all, come from.

Dogmatic religion on the other hand already has all the answers, and so is never looking for better ones. Indeed, if any fault in their understanding is pointed out, they simply refuse to consider the evidence. And that is why this sort of religion has never in thousands of years advanced the human condition one bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 04:37 AM

And people are still making comparisons between religion and science. Explanation of experience and belief are chalk and cheese.

I believe Sheffield Wednesday to be the best football team ever. Facts tend to disagree with me, but I don't let facts get in the way of my belief.

You can't have a theory about anything, let alone time travel without either acknowledging or adequately disproving current theories.

Bringing imaginary concepts into the argument to balance observable evidence doesn't help, doesn't explain and doesn't need courtesy either. Rather, it requires either ignoring or the noble art of pointing and laughing.

(Bridge got it right, (stop saying that Mather!) at the very top of this thread when he said he could do with a good laugh.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:16 AM

" Explanation of experience and belief are chalk and cheese."

Careful . . . try telling that some some people and you'll be slagged off big style.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Mr Happy
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 10:59 AM

What's the latest on the dates for:

*Doomsday ?

* The Rapture ?

* The next messiah's arrival ?

as I want to plan this year's festivals & gatherings without clashing.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 11:12 AM

Dunno about the rapture, but for me the rupture will be this Saturday. I have decided to pull out a tree stump that is getting on my tits.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 02:55 PM

Maybe you should aim for tit reduction instead, and avoid straining yourself. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 06:55 PM

bill-i think i understand your point.but in using the term i intend a shorthand that more fully means,-fully qualified scientists that use their expertise not only in operational science but in origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism.
you ,i appreciate ,do not accept their conclusions but i hope that you accept that they are not ignorant arguments,as is the argument by ridicule advanced by gregg et al that they are idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:02 PM

"origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism."

That is a very unscientific thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:33 PM

1) How can religious morality be used to stop misapplications of scientific research?

It can't because religious morality is all over the map and means different things to different people. The misapplications of scientific research such as the Manhattan Project or hydrogen bombs will never be stopped by religious morality in fact religious morality has been used to rationalize the use of these odious weapons.

2) Can science provide a framework for a moral system?

Of course it can, when it is applied for the benefit of society. The problem with frameworks for a moral system is that it turns out to be system(s) which often clash with one another.

3) Which religion should be allowed to exercise it's moral authority over science (or anything else for that matter)?

None. It should not interfere with the practice of science. There is no moral authority that can govern the behavior of mankind without damage. There is "ethics", however, and you don't need religion for that.

4) What is the ultimate source of that authority?

The ultimate source is the dictatorial constructs used to manipulate others.

5) Is it possible the source of religious moral authority might not sit too well with the people who are being directed by it?

Dictatorship never sits well with anyone. The religious moral authority is often an excuse to oppress others.

6) Does politics have a role in this?

Religion is a form of politics. It has been so since Saladin and Constantine. It is hierarchical in nature and hence political.

Make it so even a pompous fat twat like me can understand.

Religion's use is only as good as it improves the way society functions for the benefit of all. Young Earth Creation serves no positive function to improve society. It is a construct
that has meaning only to oppress those by subjecting them to a cultish mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jan 12 - 07:43 PM

sorry pete...but "exposing the flaws" is an unwarranted assumption that there are such flaws.

As whether they are 'ignorant' arguments or not depends on how they(meaning each one individually) explain & justify their beliefs. A "qualified scientist" can mean either one who has some 'credentials' or one who carefully follows scientific procedures. A scientist with advanced degrees who ignores logic and picks & chooses evidence based on data that is NOT scientific is not behaving as a good scientist.

This problem occurs in many areas of science, from chemistry to genetics to astronomy.....some people just WANT certain results more than they want accuracy.
As YOU can appreciate, I suspect that 'creationist scientists' usually make some error along those lines. The hard evidence simply shows that, over long periods of time, we and other living beings DID evolve from simpler forms.
   If you want to claim that 'God planned it that way', I can't prove otherwise, but it is what it is, whether it was planned or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 10:36 AM

fully qualified scientists that use their expertise...in origins science defending creation and exposing the flaws in neo darwinism.

If they are doing that, they obviously do not understand the scientific method and are therefore, de facto, not "scientists".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 11:53 AM

sorry bill,-maybe i should have said"problems/gaps/inconsistences"or something else.though respecting your learning an argument from authority is not exactly convincing,though greatly superior to argument by ridicule!.
being very sure of your position you would be an excellent candidate to tackle the "15 questions for evolutionists"?
best wishes-pete