BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 03:45 PM

pete 7*, I'm getting a little short of patience with your studied obtuseness.

As I've pointed out, ALL science has many flaws, some of them fundamental (though we don't know which ones, and why, yet). And all scientists are trying to find these flaws. That's how our understanding of the world improves. It's never perfect, and nobody expects that it ever will be. All scientists have to do is show their evidence.

Evolution science has progressed in the last 250 years fromn a guess based on the apparent similarities of some animals, to a hugely powerful tool that can, amongst other things, successfully predict the form of ancestral animals whose fossils were unknown. The subsequent discovery of fossils that matched the description closely shows that the theory is on the right track.*

Creationists are dismissed, not because they are too bold for science or for fear of upsetting the applecart, but because they have not brought up any verifiable evidence to support their point of view.

Religious people and romantics are fond of claiming that science does not present a complete picture of the world. That is true. But if they then claim that their contribution expands, complements, or supersedes that picture, why should anyone believe them, unless they present their evidence? At which point the evidence can be tested, and it becomes science.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jan 12 - 06:49 PM

" ... 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."

Yes, pete, it's been said before, but it bears repeating, a "fully qualified scientist" who spends his/her time "defending creation" is not practising science in any legitimate or recognisable form.

On the other hand a "fully qualified scientist" who exposes the "flaws in neo darwinism" may (possibly) be practising science. Or to express that concept in a more reasonable form: a scientist who critically examines an existing theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, in the light of new evidence is practising legitimate science.

Note that the contents of an ancient text, of dubious provenance, or the dogmatic ramblings of its past or present adherents does not constitute new evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 02:08 PM

Genesis being a "scientific" explanation for anything is specious.

Young Earth Creationism is one of the most adolescent views of religion that I have ever seen.

Faith=ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 03:27 PM

paul-at least you attempt an insult in a more grammatically eloquent form than some of your fellow evolutionists!
seems i try your patience for alledgedly trying to be stupid.you are entitled to your opinion though i suggest you misunderstand what i say ,unintentionally[?]setting up a misrepresentation .
i am fully aware that scientific theories are flawed and incomplete and that applies to creationists also.however,IMO,evolutionism is so flexible it can accomodate whatever evidence is raised against it.
for example i doubt anyone before hell creek dinos would countenance the idea of soft tissue/blood spots lasting 65 mill yrs.i,ve no doubt that if they find dinos in the congo darwinism will adjust again because anything goes except darwinian dogma.
however iam interested to know what these predictions are you mention.i can venture no comment on the general claim .
regards pete

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 05:15 PM

Hi *******
The preservation of soft tissues is an unexpected bonus, exactly the opposite of a "problem". Similarly, the survival of archaic lifeforms is not a problem. Were ichthyosaurs to be discovered in Loch Ness, or pterosaurs in Pakistan, that would be a wonderful new field for study. Sadly this does not often happen.

As for "flexibility", that is better described as toughness. When evidence comes forward that contradicts the current understanding, it is studied, and if found to be true, the theory changes. That's science. Like wrought iron, it bends to a new shape, but doesn't break. (As an aside, it's really difficult to beat swords into ploughshares. Carbon steel is hard and springy, not tough and malleable).

If you really want to find out about the wonderful world of the (sometimes successful) prediction of the forms of transitional fossils, read some of the excellent popularising writers- Stephen Jay Gould is very good. You'll also read about failures, because failures are sometimes as important in science as successes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 07:39 PM

I'm guessing this would be a bad time to mention theistic evolution, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 08:56 PM

ixixix:

Parthenogenesis doesn't (per se) include a mechanism for mixing genes. And anyway gods are immortal. So in theistic evolution not Darwinian, but Pratchettian.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 09:18 PM

I have mentioned Stephen Jay Gould before...I have been reading The Panda's Thumb for weeks now. If YOU,Pete *******, would take the trouble to actually read something like that by someone who understands the issue and explains all the arguments for & against evolution, you might avoid some of these attacks.

I will tell you... understand that **evolution happens** need not be a hindrance to your basic faith.... there are many sincere Christians who accept the age of the Earth and the forces of evolution and still go happily to church.
Try it...you might feel better with the idea that God was even clever than you thought!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Jan 12 - 10:34 PM

Yep. It is a bad time. (I've never been called ixixix before. Better than vivivi :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 12:11 AM

CMXCIX

I think if it had been IX IX IX It would have been respectful. But I don't think roman numerals even included small case.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,Shining Wit
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 07:11 AM

"for example i doubt anyone before hell creek dinos would countenance the idea of soft tissue/blood spots lasting 65 mill yrs.i,ve no doubt that if they find dinos in the congo darwinism will adjust again because anything goes except darwinian dogma."

Pete, had you been at the Society of Vertebrate Palaeontology meeting this year in Las Vegas you might have seen a presentation which indicates the soft tissues found in the Hell Creek Tyrannosaur were not blood at all. I have a ref for this but can't be arsed to trawl the abstract book.

They are find dinosaurs in the Congo (birds are dinosaurs) ;-) If they were to find non-avian dinosaurs in the Congo I doubt there isn't a palaeontologist in the world that wouldn't be cock-a-hoop over the discovery, as it would answer the many questions we have regarding these animals. Of course, the survival of a non-avian dinosaur in no way runs counter to Darwinism - why would it?

All you have to do Pete is find a horse in the Solnholfen, a bony fish or a whale in the Burgess Shale, an elephant in the Hell Creek (I hope to be there digging dinos later in the year so hopefully I might find one) and you can challenge the robustness of evolutionary theory and be famous as the man who brought down Darwinism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 10:44 AM

pete.... back aways you answered me this way:

"....though respecting your learning an argument from authority is not exactly convincing,though greatly superior to argument by ridicule!."

I somehow missed the opportunity to ask you just how MY opinion constitutes "an argument from authority" while yours does not.

If you 'respect my learning' - and possibly the learning of several others here who debate you on this topic - I must ask why you consistently reject this learning? My primary education was in philosophy and logic, which is why *I* dispute the patterns of reasoning you use. Others here, as you see, have pretty extensive knowledge of paleontology and geology...and even I have read extensively in those areas. You, on the other hand, refer mostly to creationist web sites which offer 'evidence' about things like 'hell ceek', which have been studied by experts and shown to not prove what you suggest.

I appreciate that you are anxious to preserve & defend ideas which seem to support the Biblical accounts of Genesis. The problem is- Genesis, as a book, is several thousand years old, and those who copied and translated it (and probably are the 'authors') only had myth and guesswork to work from. We have only had science which can understand dinosaur bones and DNA and carbon dating of materials for a short time. We can now begin to KNOW what happened when the Earth was young, and what our place in it represents.
If, as I said before, you want to say that this is HOW God directed it all to happen, I can't prove you wrong....but it is really an exercise in futility to cling to 'young Earth' theories and assert that all these experts, whose learning you respect, are wrong. The math and the science simply show that Earth IS several billion years old and that human history IS several million years old and that legends about floods are based on local events, not world-wide events.

There are many ways to express religious convictions and show reverence for Higher Powers that you believe in, but stubborn denial of obvious scientific facts is NOT a very useful way.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Jan 12 - 04:45 PM

interesting that a different verdict is now concluded on the dino soft tissue despite the previous best efforts to prove the same.yes,i know it happens,-things that were once definite to evolutionists are shelved in light of new evidence,but as it was a ref not to hand i will remain sceptical ,having read some secular as well as creationist articles on the original discovery.
it is at least refreshing that gould[and apparently some of yourselves ]admit that arguments exist against darwinism.i,for my part admit creationism has the same-and certainly with my limited ability am not equal to some of your challenges.thankyou to those who opposed me in a civil manner- pete.