BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 06:46 PM

An idea that just popped into my head - and I am sure I am not the first one to propose it: If one were to say that God created the world in six ages, how would that figure into the equation?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 06:53 PM

It'd save having to create the sun and earth first to find out how long a day is..

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 07:00 PM

Sorry Ebbie, I misread you and consequently wrote gibberish - it's not unusual :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 07:14 PM

Smokey,

I am sorry that I took your remark about the value of pi as a dig. I am relieved that you didn't mean it that way.

Guest, TIA,

I completely agree that falsifiability is characteristic of the scientific method.   Technically, Ancient Earth Naturalism is falsifiable. Practically, it approaches unfalsifiability. Suppose, for example, someone were to find a living population of organisms previously known only from fossils, organisms that had supposedly been extinct for many millions of years, what would happen? Or suppose a fossil find turned out to be a hoax, what would happen? Would AEN be falsified? We don't have to wonder. We know what happened when the coelacanth was found, and when Wollemia was found. We know what happened when Piltdown Man was exposed as a hoax, and what happened when Archaeoraptor was exposed.

Bill D.,

Actually I do not accept that the earth is billions of years old. The "young" in Young Earth Creationism" refers to the belief that the earth and the universe is thousands of years old, not billions.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 07:38 PM

Hi, Ebbie,

You can find a lot of support for that idea you had earlier today. The reason I've been specifying "Young Earth Creationist", instead of just saying "Creationist", is that there are lots of "Ancient Earth Creationists".

Your idea is sometimes called the "Day-Age Theory". A related approach, the "Gap Theory" says that God created the universe and God created humans, but that, between these acts of creation, there was a "gap" (or "gaps") of millions or billions of years which were not recorded in Genesis, but which left fossils and other evidences of the passage of time.

I am no authority on Roman Catholicism, but it is my understanding that the current Pope is an Ancient Earth Creationist.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Jan 11 - 08:37 PM

I copied this (below) a while back from a source I do not know. )It is not my writing). I found it thought provoking. I am posting it to share, and stimulate thought and discussion.

Steve and others see no reason for religion to exist, because of science. But, why have and do so many (around the world) adhere to religious belief? Many of whom who can do so while also believing in science, which sometimes seems to put forward a contrary prospective. That seems like a good discussion in the making to me.


""It seems likely that religion has existed in the world, in different forms, as long as the human form has had a 'consciousness', that separates it from other "less reasoning" living forms. A good question that few ask is "Why should any religion exist in the world at all"?

Could it be a part of the unique human 'consciousness', acquired through evolution, that humans struggled to understand the nature of "being human" and what separates or "makes us special from other life forms, finding a meaning of human existence. Or, as Monty Python put it, "The meaning of Life".

Is it not reasonable to say that many have an 'innate awareness' or consciousness of something beyond what we can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell? Something that is very important and more powerful than we can possibly know or imagine? But, that doesn't seem to stop us from trying - and so we have, or manufacture religion to assist. Is it unreasonable for many (though not all) to speculate, and even believe that this "innate inner awareness" or "consciousness" could be the 'image of a God' within us?

Science seeks to discover and understand our physical world of our existence around us. From its earliest recorded beginnings to its present-day, a history of physical evolution, of which the origin and evolution of humans is just a smaller component.
The 'missing link' between humans and animals, is yet to be confirmed found.

But, do we define becoming human as 'when we stood up and walked on two legs'? Is it not our 'consciousness' that is also a part of what makes us 'human' and how can we determine when, where, and how it 'appeared and stood up and walked', so to speak, in order to properly place it on the time-line of earth's physical history? Possibly somewhere within the many sub-levels of the 'animal kingdom' is where some form of human 'consciousness' begins to appear and develop? Even with the most perfectly preserved physical specimens, evolving carbon-dating technology, DNA analysis, etc. how could we determine a non-physical characteristic like 'consciousness' or 'Self-awareness' from even the most stupendous archeological find?

Creation as one, and science and religion as two sides of one coin. It is clear that science can provide convincing physical evidence of evolution of humans. But, where does one find the non -physical evidence? Understanding this has left a wide opening for religion, as can be seen by human history. Could that be why religion broadly exists in the world, to answer the question science cannot, what is "The meaning of Life".

Until science can answer that question, religion will likely be around for some time?""

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 04:49 AM

Steve and others see no reason for religion to exist, because of science.

I would never have said such an inane thing. If you want to characterise what you think I think I suggest you stick to copy/paste in future.

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. The evidence for this is that, by and large, you believe the version of religion that's prevalent in your own region, and tend to demonise the versions practised in other regions. Christians denounce Muslims, Muslims think we're all infidels, the Catholics hate the Prods and nearly everybody hates the Jews. Because they are told that to demur from that which they have been told to believe is a very bad thing which may lead to ostracism at best and death and hellfire at worst. Because religion, craftily, weaves itself intimately into the social fabric, which not only makes it difficult to get out of but also even prevents questions about its validity being raised. The fact that there are millions of believers means one thing - that millions of people have been deceived. It does not add up in the slightest to evidence that "there must be something in it."

As for the rest, you do what religion always does when confronted with solid science. You resort to the woolly, the airy-fairy, the "concepts" that you know damn well there can't be evidence for (not least because, even if the concepts themselves have any basis at all, which is highly questionable, you may have little grasp of what they actually are). Things like "consciousness" or "innate awareness" or "being human." It's no different from positing an impossible supernatural being then challenging us to show he's not there. And this search for "the meaning of life." It's just words, innit. If there is a "meaning" at all you're not going to find it by following false paths such as those inviting religious ones. The best you can hope for, and it's pretty good actually, is to make full use of the brain and five senses (you know, those things that faith requires you to circumvent?) and try to understand the world around us and study its wonderful diversity and complexity. Edification will come through the joy of knowledge and (even more) the effort to get it, not from closing your eyes, joining your hands and praising some invisible, impossible bloke who's 99.9999999999999999% certain to have had absolutely bugger all to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 04:53 AM

Sorry, I really ought to have edited that to acknowledge that it was someone else's musings, not yours. Just as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 05:03 AM

Suppose, for example, someone were to find a living population of organisms previously known only from fossils, organisms that had supposedly been extinct for many millions of years, what would happen? Or suppose a fossil find turned out to be a hoax, what would happen? Would AEN be falsified? We don't have to wonder. We know what happened when the coelacanth was found, and when Wollemia was found.

Nothing apocalyptic would happen. The fossil record is a massive jigsaw full of both wonderful evidence for evolution and huge, gaping holes. It isn't some linear thing that can be totally disrupted by a single new unexpected discovery or refutation. Science actually welcomes such things. Perhaps you'll tell us what this post is driving at.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 05:46 AM

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

Sorry, Steve, good try. But, not a passing grade. Given the history and number, your reason is just too simplestic.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 05:49 AM

That's "Simplistic". :(

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 06:55 AM

Are you really going to deny that most believers don't believe what they do because of the accident of where, and into which culture, they were born? Of course they do! And they tend to stay with their religion of birth because of those rituals that trap them in as little babies, many years before they can think for themselves, not to speak of the indoctrination to come in the years to follow. Do you really think that most Muslims/Jews/Catholics are converts, seduced by the many irresistible attractions of their chosen faith? Hahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 06:56 AM

Deny that they believe. Unintended double neg there.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 07:00 AM

"both positions claim that the other is misusing the data and evading inconvenient data."

Show me one piece of verified data, in a journal published peer-reviewed paper, in support of creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 07:04 AM

I've asked him that loads of times, Jack. He never responds. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 07:05 AM

Steve,

Of course people are learn of religion from their parents/teachers...I see no need to repeat the obvious, that has been posted here by many before.

Given the history of religion, its broad scope and nature, how it's many forms developed, evolved, spread and remains strong, your reason is "simplistic, as I norted before. Kinda like Religion -101.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:13 AM

Amongst many other problems in the paragraphs quoted by Ed above, the terminology is hopelessly fuzzy. Take a term like 'conciousness' or 'self-awareness'.

I have a thought-experiment for you. I have a creature in mind that may be a newborn human baby (hours old), a human infant (pre-speech but mobile), a kitten or a cheetah.

I wish to determine whether the creature is 'concious'. What tests do you propose to help me decide?

(My only constraint is that the test should not be something like 'wait several years...' *smile* )

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:26 AM

""Angst many other problems in the paragraphs quoted by Ed above, the terminology is hopelessly fuzzy. Take a term like 'conciousness' or 'self-awareness'.""

Your "test" is interesting. But, it leads to a question. What criteria, test or words would "you" suggest to differentiate man from other animals?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:29 AM

"Angst many other problems in the paragraphs quoted by Ed"

What specifically are these problems you failed to note?. My stated purpose in posting "someone elses quote" was to stimulate debate/discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:35 AM

That in its turn begs the question whether I do differentiate in that manner. Or at least more than I differentiate dogs from cats. Naturally, as humans we have a species-loyalty to other humans, and I am sufficiently carnivorous not to insist on widespread animal rights, but I am by no means certain that the distinction you are seeking exists in any clear way.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:36 AM

Kent, you say:

"Actually I do not accept that the earth is billions of years old."

What observation or evidence (hypothetically speaking) would cause you to reject that statement and accept that the Earth is billions of years old?

You only need to answer this if your belief is scientific. If it is purely a matter of faith, the question is not applicable.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:39 AM

What specifically are these problems you failed to note?. My stated purpose in posting "someone elses quote" was to stimulate debate/discussion.

Well, the one I picked up is in the first sentence and the foundation of the whole thing. I am loathe to dilute the discussion with several parallel topics simulataneously. But be assured, if we sort out the one we are currently pursuing I am happy to raise more *smile*.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:47 AM

"That in its turn begs the question whether I do differentiate in that manner. Or at least more than I differentiate dogs from cats. Naturally, as humans we have a species-loyalty to other humans, and I am sufficiently carnivorous not to insist on widespread animal rights, but I am by no means certain that the distinction you are seeking exists in any clear way."


DMcG
Good job of talking around a circle:)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 08:56 AM

Not circular at all. There are all sorts of techniques that have been used throughout the ages to separate creatures into groups, from physical similaries to DNA measurements.   So it is quite possible to identify groupings. But you asked for a test to differentiate man from other animals which carries the implication - perhaps unintended - that man is in some way more distinct from the rest of animals than a tiger is from the rest of animals, and that's what I doubted. If you were not making such a claim, I apologise. I'd be grateful if you can confirm that one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 09:07 AM

OK, lets go back to your statement

""I wish to determine whether the creature is 'concious'. What tests do you propose to help me decide?""

I ask, do you have such a test to suggest? If no, it's fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 09:18 AM

I believe no such test exists. If that's the case, then I don't see that you can attach a clear meaning to 'conciousness' and if so you can't use it as a criteria to distinguish mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom (though as I said, that are measurable biological quantities that do allow such a distinction.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 09:52 AM

Thanks, DMcG

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 12:30 PM

it certainly is simplistic to assert that religion is only around because of parent/cleric/culture imput.
christianity for one would never have started like that.its first converts were quite obviously not following authoritarian figures or surely they would have remained in their original religions.
as it is;they became christians in the face of persecution.

jack and steve -i dont suppose many creationists get on to peer rev iewed publications.i suspect they are excluded at first whiff of creationism.there are over 7000 articles on creation.com of which many are too scientific for me.you wont agree with them no doubt ,but its just hot air IMO claiming they have no scientific arguments.
i understand that creationists have been published if the work was unrelated to origins.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 12:41 PM

The nearest I can think of is the 'Turing Test', designed to identify whether a machine possesses 'artificial intellegence'. There was a tv programme recently where a professor subjected a machine to the Turing Test and decided that there definitely was no intelligence involved. Personally, as I said at the time, I thought that the conversation sounded remarkably like a Mudcat thread.

Is homo sapiens a rational creature? WE need proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 12:59 PM

it certainly is simplistic to assert that religion is only around because of parent/cleric/culture imput

That isn't what I said, is it? He was asking why there are so many believers, not why religion is around. He didn't ask me how it all started. The fact is that almost everyone who adheres to a religious faith (not absolutely everyone - I know there are converts, etc.) is in that faith because of the accident of birth into whatever culture surrounds them. Not very many people spontaneously leap into bed with the Almighty unless they were signed up first by someone else, typically as infants by their parents. I honestly can't see what's so hard about understanding this. I know you'd like us to think that there are so many believers "because surely there must be something in it," but that simply ain't the case and you're just clutching at straws.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 01:13 PM

Pete - you're better off not bothering with creation.com, as it's about as scientifically accurate as, er, creationism ;-)

For instance, from the first page of articles:

"First, they were surprised that the octopuses were even fossilized. Unlike animals with hard shells or bony skeletons, cephalopods, like the octopus and squid, have no hard parts (other than the mouth2). One report said that fossilizing an octopus was as unlikely as capturing a "fossil sneeze"."

Total cobblers. Many cephalopods have hard parts that are eminently suitable for fossilisation. Apart from ammonites and belemnites (external and internal phragmacones respectively), the modern nautilus has an external shell, the squid has a chitinous internal pen that would fossilise readily under the right conditions, cuttlefish have their internal cuttle, spirula, an octopus-like cephalopod retains a vestigal spiral internal shell. As for soft tissue preservation - it's not uncommon and there are way to many examples to list.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 02:33 PM

"Actually I do not accept that the earth is billions of years old. The "young" in Young Earth Creationism" refers to the belief that the earth and the universe is thousands of years old, not billions."

It took me awhile to read back and see where I got that mistaken idea.It seems that in scrolling up & down,I read part of one of Little Hawk's posts (12 Jan-9:30 PM) as one of yours....and I responded to it because of the 'apparent' treatment of 'beliefs' as grounded in just hearsay and youthful absorbing of unfounded ideas. Sadly, that IS how it works for many people.

That leaves me trying to discern from your post of Jan 2, and your metaphor(s) of creation as 'art', exactly why you DO accept YEC as fact, when it flies in the face of scientific data.

IF as you say, you believe that "God is an artist. The universe is his creation. He could have created an "acorn"...." etc...well.... that is simply circular reasoning in which you include your conclusion in your premises. **IF** you begin with a pre-digested acceptance OF 'god', his nature, and his techniques, you can, of course, come to any conclusion you wish. Your reasoning is fine...but if you have started from false premises, it means little.

It is not within MY powers to persuade someone who just 'likes' a particular story that there are explanations which make more sense, and many belief systems depend on a "good story" to push their agenda..(such as getting Muslim suicide bombers to 'believe' that Paradise & 40 virgins await them).

So...I have made all the points I can, in hopes that others who read this thread will see why so many are bewildered & unhappy with your views. I will retire to the background now and perhaps browse it a bit at times.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 03:48 PM

steve-i was not directly quoting you albeit alluding to your post ,and i admit to not reading it accurately.

jack-"total cobblers"is a bit of an exaggeration IMO.I read wiki on the subject and it seemed to me that creation.com were broadly correct though i think that they should have been exact.esp when opponents of creationism are on the lookout for inaccuracies.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 12:03 AM

Steve Shaw,

You asked, in your post of 5:03 a.m. today, what I was driving at when I wrote that "Technically, Ancient Earth Naturalism is falsifiable. Practically, it approaches unfalsifiability. " What I was driving at is that AEN, as a practical matter, is unfalsifiable.   

Suppose, for example, I were to find a mountain which overlay rock "known" to be 400 million years "younger" than the mountain itself. Would that falsify AEN? Would it even falsify AEN's geological dating? Suppose I were to find layers of sedimentary rock BELOW metamorphic rock. Would that falsify AEN? Would it even falsify AEN's geological dating?

We don't have to wonder. We know about Chief Mountain in Montana, where "older" rocks overlay "younger" rocks. We know about Scotland's Knockan Crag, with schist over limestone, and Ben More Assynt, with quartzite over sandstone.   Did these discoveries falsify even the geological dating system of AEN? They did not.

As you correctly noted, "nothing apocalyptic" happened. We agree on that. That was my point exactly.   

Guest TIA,

See above. Practically speaking, neither YEC nor AEN is falsifiable.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 04:03 AM

We know about Chief Mountain in Montana, where "older" rocks overlay "younger" rocks. We know about Scotland's Knockan Crag, with schist over limestone, and Ben More Assynt, with quartzite over sandstone

Well, I didn't, so thank you for bringing an interesting snippet of information to my attention.

This is at the heart of science and the biggest single difference between it and a religious belief. Scientists know that even when it explains all the facts it is likely that any theory it has is oversimplified. When new data that doesn't fit is discovered, a minor adaption may be all that is required. In others, a significant adaption may required, and in some cases the whole shooting match needs to be dumped (eg 'phlogiston theory', 'the ether') but let me stress the obvious: in each case the original theory is falsified.

Now, your claim is that AEN 'approaches unfalsifiability' which is a pretty hard phrase to interpret. The only meaning I can assign is that you agree it is falsifiable, but the evidence required to falsify it would have to be very substantial. I'd agree with that. If, on the other had you mean it does not 'approach' unfalsifiability but actually is unfalsifiable, I'd beg to differ. If, for example, we discovered a way to take non-radioactive elements and create an artificial stone in the lab that mirrored the carbon dating results of a 'real' stone that we were modelling, then all evidence based on radioactive dating would be suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 04:03 AM

Sorry the underlining got out of hand. Can an elf fix this, please?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 04:56 AM

Please excuse me, but I've thought of a much better example. Quoting Wiki 'The Lambda-CDM concordance model describes the evolution of the universe from a very uniform, hot, dense primordial state to its present state over a span of about 13.75 billion years of cosmological time. This model is well understood theoretically and strongly supported by recent high-precision astronomical observations such as WMAP.'

So the age of 13.75billion is reached because it fits well with the Lambda-CDM concordance model and measurements (though there may be other reasons as well, I can't say). Suppose however we get new data and we need to refine/replace that model as a result. Then it is certainly possible the estimated age moves to 15billion or 12billion to fit better with that new model. To what extent would you regard that as falsifying AEN?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 06:42 AM

". . . that creation.com were broadly correct though i think that they should have been exact.esp when opponents of creationism are on the lookout for inaccuracies."

The problem is Pete, the initial premise that article was based on is utterly flawed. The statement I quoted is total cobblers, and is skewed towards presenting a certain viewpoint and twisting the evidence to fit it and ignoring the evidence which contradicts it. This isn't a practice confined to creationists; look at the amount of total crap talked by climate change deniers and who pick and choose their arguments in a similar fashion.

The problem here is creationism desires to be seen as the intellectual, scientific branch of religion. It craves the respectability of science without the rigour and discipline of scientific methodology and without engaging directly with the mainstream scientific community. Of course the reason for this is simple - it's not science. Australian aborigines don't try to push the Dreamtime on people as science, buddhists don't try alter the history of the planet and the universe to reinforce their beliefs. The creationist movement is a peculiarly western phenomenon, a struggle to be accepted in a technological world, where progress is driven by hard science (how many creationists are happy to take advantage of the very technologies the science they descry has developed?) where as a race we are now at the beginning of a new age of understanding in science, one which will be a fantastic journey for the human race, providing we can keep from destroying ourselves and our ecosystem.

I am an amateur palaeontologist and have spent years (and hope to spend the rest of my life) studying and collecting fossils (dinosaurs are my real passion), learning about geology, sedimentology, taphonomy, tectonics etc etc. The big joke amongst professionals in the field is when you start getting hate mail from creationists you've been blooded in the professional sense, it's a rite of passage.


"Suppose I were to find layers of sedimentary rock BELOW metamorphic rock"

"Did these discoveries falsify even the geological dating system of AEN? They did not."

But why would they? No offense Kent, but do you have a clue what you're talking about here?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 12:19 PM

Good Morning, Sugarfoot Jack,

You asked "how many creationists are happy to take advantage of the very technologies the science they descry has developed"? Sorry I can't help you there. I've never met a creationist who descried science.   

As to why finding metamorphic rock above sedimentary rock posed a problem for geological dating, I have little doubt you know quite well and are only testing me.

But for the sake of some who might not know, one would have expected that, if the HIGHER levels of rock had been changed into metamorphic rock, then the LOWER strata, being exposed to more heat and more pressure, would no longer be sedimentary, but would also be metamorphic.

Before anyone rushes in to tell me all about overthrust faults and mountains creeping slowly through the Scottish Highlands, let me assure you that I know the explanation. The point is NOT that AEN folks do not have an explanation. They do. The point is that they have an explanation for that and for everything else. Sugarfoot Jack, if I were to find a trilobite fossil in a Pleistocene deposit, wouldn't you tell me about "zombie taxa" and how fossils can be eroded out of older rock and thus be found in younger deposits?

Any evidence I could possible produce, your approach could handle, perhaps with minor or maybe even major revisions, yet still retaining the basic framework of AEN. And that COULD be because AEN is true.

However, YEC can do the same thing, can also handle anything while still retaining the basic framework of YEC.

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.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 12:32 PM

DMcG,

I have not one clue what the Lambda-CDM concordance model is, but I will enjoy finding out. I am glad you found Chief Mountain interesting.

If I understand your question aright, I would say no, it would not falsify AEN if there were a finding which decreased the estimated age of the Universe by (for example) 10 billion years. Ten billion years is a major revision by any standard but, if the updated theory were still fully naturalistic, and still required billions of years, it would still be AEN, and thus AEN would not have been falsified.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 12:39 PM

I can't think why you brought this rocks business up. It's perfectly normal for older rocks to overlie younger ones and for metamorphic, or igneous, rocks to overlie sedimentary rocks. The explanations are no more complicated than for anything else. As you mention Assynt and Knockan Cliff, I'd recommend two things. First, go there: it's sublime, and second, buy a book called Hutton's Arse, by Malcolm Rider. It's one of the most inspirational books on geology you'll ever read, and it might even get you away from this abject creationist nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 12:46 PM

I am an amateur palaeontologist and have spent years (and hope to spend the rest of my life) studying and collecting fossils (dinosaurs are my real passion), learning about geology, sedimentology, taphonomy, tectonics etc

Jack, I was at university with Bob Spicer (aka Professor Robert Spicer these days!) who I believe was responsible for raising the profile of taphonomy in the UK. He got a first and I scraped a boozer's 2:2 so I'm not going to bathe in reflected glory. That was 40 years ago and, would you believe, I only found out what that word meant last week!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 02:57 PM

".....initial premise..flawed.."?
i admit that my learning is way below yours jack[and most posters here]but it seems to me that if an octopus is mostly soft, that there has to be some explanation if it gets fossilized.
rapid burial in sediment-, or some other process in longer time for which no doubt you have an explanation for.
i may well hold to the first but i am interested in what the alternative theory is ,if i can understand it. best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 04:24 PM

Soft tissue fossilisation is perfectly possible. Google it and you'll see. At university I studied 200 million-year-old Ginkgo leaves and 300 million-year-old ferns from coal measures. Observing individual cells in tissues of fossilised plant remains, and not just woody ones, was routine. I studied a fossil of bacterial remains from Australia almost two billion years old. The answer to all these things, Pete, as ever, is to get off your arse, stop admitting you're ignorant and go out there and grab yourself some knowledge. The more you learn the more you appreciate, and the more you see those abject God-explanations for the vacuous and pointless notions they really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 05:51 PM

The post eater is at it again. I suggest assembling all thoughtful posts offline.

For those who want to learn, the BBC is next week examining science pertaining to the 160 million year dominion of dinosaurs over the earth - and whether anything like their re-creation as depicted in "Jurassic Park" is possible.

For those who don't, a conundrum. How could all later humans be descended from (a) Cain and Abel or (b) Shem Ham and Japeth - all of whom were male?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 06:21 PM

I think their wives were included in the small print, but nonetheless, we were lucky not to have all been born deformed or insane.. Hmm..

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 08:45 PM

Steve Shaw,

I would love to go to Assynt and Knockan Cliff. Maybe someday.

Smokey,

Thank you for your wise and witty comment on the Biblical population bottleneck, "I think [Shem's, Ham's, and Japheth's] wives were included in the small print, but nonetheless, we were lucky not to have all been born deformed or insane.. Hmm.. "

Sometimes I wonder if the best "argument" against AEN isn't summed up by that "Hmm".

We do not resemble apes grown wise nearly so much as we resemble angels corrupted.

Kent

P.S.

For your reading pleasure, a little creationist dark humor:

Three monkeys sat in a cocoanut tree.
Discussing things as they're said to be.
Said one to the others, "Now listen, you two
There's a certain rumor that can't be true,
That man descended from our noble race.
That very idea is a disgrace.
No monkey ever deserted his wife
Starved her babies or ruined her life,
And another thing you will never see
A monkey build a fence around a cocoanut tree
And let the cocoanuts go to waste,
Forbidding all other monkeys to taste.
If I put a fence around this tree
Starvation would force you to steal from me.
Here's another thing a monk won't do,
Go out at night and get on a stew,
And use a gun or club or knife
To take some other monkey's life
Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss -
But, brother, he didn't descend from us.

(author unknown)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Kent Davis
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 08:51 PM

A musical version of the above:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFgjGaIhkUs

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 11 - 09:03 PM

Well, whilst you're waiting to go to Assynt, get yourself a copy of Hutton's Arse. Brilliant book (and not anti-religion, don't worry).

We do not resemble apes grown wise nearly so much as we resemble angels corrupted.

We don't resemble apes. We are apes. We are the Fifth Ape. Be proud!

And those monkeys need not have worried. We are not descended from them. They share a common ancestor with us, but you would have to go much further back than you would have to in order to to find our common ancestor with the other apes, to which we are much more closely related.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 01:32 AM

One of the amusing things about that creationist poem - and Steve is quite right in his comments - is that almost all the behaviours listed ARE things that apes do - and many other animals, too. Ok, they don't build 'walls' or use 'guns', but they do have territories and use weapons, 'cheat on' their partners, kill others ...

I say 'almost all' the behaviours because I am not knowledgable enough to make it any stronger. I would not expect any single species of ape to exhibit all the behaviours - they vary in how aggressive and territorial they are, for example - but if all the species are considered I would not be surprised to learn all the behaviours are documented in one species or another.