BS: Young Earth Creationism

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 04:31 PM

however as darwinism gained popular acceptance many churchians adjusted their teaching ,perhaps thinking to gain acceptance from evolutionist scientists.

It seems more likely that they were willing, like most people, to adapt their thinking to include newly discovered facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 04:04 PM

there are all sorts of theological conjectures on the beginning of genesis,richard.
prior to darwin reworking and popularising evolutionism, just about every theologian over church history took it as factual narrative.this was because of NT affirmation of genesis as well as linquistic study of the genesis account.
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.
i understand dawkins is himself critical of such compromise as well as creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 02:57 PM

I was earlier today told that Genesis sets out that it is a story (the sort of analogy that we use to expose children to ideas before their brains are ready for real thinking) and that it also sets out that God is not subject to time so that "7 days" is doubly an analogy.

I have not checked either such assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 02:35 PM

we have done education and creationism before and i dont intend to go there again

I must have missed it. A one word answer will suffice:

Do you think Creationism is science and should be taught alongside evolution in science classrooms?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 02:28 PM

that evolutionists resort to ridicule and accusations

This statement is part of what's wrong with allowing Creationists to have a seat at the table instead of laughing them out of the room. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist", if by that you mean one who "believes" in evolution. This is a perversion of language and logic. This is trying to make us believe that black is white.

And yes, I really do think that Creationists should be the object of ridicule. If I get enough people to say, over and over again, that the sky is pink, should I be treated as anything but a stupid distraction? What is the difference between saying the world is 6000 years old and saying the sky is pink?

Pete -- by using the word "evolutionist", you are trying to lower the level public discourse to your own ignorant level. I think you are, personally, a really nice guy. But when you put forth such incredibly stupid comments and demand to be both taken seriously and treated with respect, you help to foster an environment where lies have the same weight as truth and the willfully ignorant are accorded the same respect as those who are learned and wise.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 02:21 PM

Thanks to DMcG for responding to Kent's cute little poem. Whoever wrote that must not have watched the documentaries I have where various 'lower' primates fight, steal, kill, cheat and band together to attack 'other' groups.

If humans, as Kent & pete seem to believe, are to be presumed 'separate' from those other creatures because "God planned it that way", then I have to question either God's attention to detail or his abominable sense of humor.
If God gave us reason, failing to use it to see the flaws in YEC, AEC and all other 'faith based' concepts of creation is unforgivable......ummmm.. but if reason is just an outgrowth of evolution of the brain, it it STILL sad not to see it used better.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 01:57 PM

well,jack/steve i guess it must be too complicated to explain it to me!
i did look up a few sites on the subject, but not much help in trying to explain the evolutionist take on soft tissue fossils.
one on burgess shale suggested something about heated minerals encasing-maybe got that wrong;either way i did,nt get it.
the most quoted case were on dino blood cells eg scientific american mag dec 2010.as i understand it-stuff that should have disappeared a long time since is puzzling scientists that cling to their billions of years faith.seems to me they are as blinkered as as you accuse creationists to be.maybe you have an explanation that can help them out!
yeah i suppose it was a little sarcastic,but without any malice whatever.

john-we have done education and creationism before and i dont intend to go there again.
it always appears, esp in your posts ,that evolutionists resort to ridicule and accusations as a major part of their argument.
this thankfully does not include all such posters and i thank those who conduct themselves civilly.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 12:52 PM

Trying to have a rational debate with people who are willfully ignorant and who have chosen irrationality is, well, irrational

As Monty Python explain No it isn't. I could be arguing in my own time (words) !

(youtube)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: John P
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 11:29 AM

Uh, folks, I hate to say it, but debating with Creationists on the merits of the "theory" is kind of dumb. Perhaps it would be better to just say, "There is no debate. Creationism isn't science, end of story." Trying to have a rational debate with people who are willfully ignorant and who have chosen irrationality is, well, irrational. Likewise, for the Creationist, trying to debate with non-idiots on the merits of your argument is not very effective. Anyone who isn't you immediately recognizes the complete lack of logic and factual knowledge demonstrated by your position and so has already won any debate. You should stick to religious debates. As soon as you try to negate science you are lost.

To me, the only pertinent question is whether or not they want to force the rest of us to eat their shit. That's why I keep asking Kent and Pete if they support teaching Creationism in schools (Kent and Pete, you haven't answered yet, by the way).

Ignorance is not the same as stupidity, in that it can be corrected. It has my sympathy. Willful ignorance, however, IS stupid and garners nothing but contempt from me. Pete and Kent, perhaps you should stick to debates at your churches, where you won't be such a laughing stock. You need to get educated and learn to think before you try to engage in normal adult conversation in the real world. Why aren't you embarrassed to present such obvious poppycock as if you expect anyone to take you seriously?

And why do any of the rest of us try to "prove" to them that they are wrong? It should be obvious that knowledge and logic aren't going to work with them. The only argument that MIGHT get a Creationist to reconsider would be a Biblical argument that negates Creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 11:09 AM

I think love being on the field best of all.

We spent a week in North Dakota and Montana last year, digging and prospecting in the Hell Creek formation. It was incredibly hot, dusty, uncomfortable, dangerous, full of vicious bitey things and utterly brilliant - the best week of my life. It makes a change from the conditions you describe and I'm familiar with as we do our collecting here in the UK. Trudging up a beach on the Isle of Wight in November in the teeth of a storm coming in off the channel and finding sod all for hours can test even the hardiest collector. I wouldn't miss a second of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 09:53 AM

Ah, 'tis great to go on field excursions with enthusiastic experts! We had a real aficionado teaching us palaeobotany who thought nothing of dragging us off with our shiny new geological hammers to the Jurassic cliffs on the Yorkshire coast in the teeth of an easterly gale and temperatures of minus 2. You can't imagine that unless you've experienced it. I wore every scrap of clothing I'd taken with me for the weekend, including my pyjamas, and I still nearly died! One of our botany lecturers (still an active botanist I believe, and a world expert on Bryophytes, well into his 90s now) once took us on a day-trip to Box Hill. We spent almost as long studying the weeds around Boxhill and Westhumble Station and along the road down to the river Mole as we did on Box Hill! Good times!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Stu
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 08:13 AM

"I've never met a creationist who descried science."

The refusal to believe the results of the massive amount of scientific research and the current interpretations of them is itself the descrying of science. In fact, this dimissing of the work of tens of thousands of dedicated people is almost contemptuous. If there was evidence in the rocks for a creator then science would recognise that and work with it. However, there isn't and science has reached a series of conclusions that, until new evidence is discovered, fit together are sit comfortably within the unifying theory of earth sciences, plate tectonics.

Science welcomes doubt. It relies on the questioning and testing of results and theories and as time moves on, so does our understanding and interpretations. But they are never fixed. Ever. Unlike creationists who have reached a conclusion and try to make the facts fit. For example:

"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."

No No NO! Rocks are metamorphosed by heat or pressure, or both. The intrusion of igneous rocks in the form of sills and dykes will metamorphose the local surrounding rocks but leave others unaltered. It has a name - contact metamorphism. But that's not really the argument, the trouble is any evidence I present to a creationist will not be taken on face value. For instance:

"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?"

Zombie taxa, derived fossils, reworked deposits; happens all the time. For instance the river gravels of the Isle of Wight are replete with reworked fossils; I found a perfect microcaster on the cliffs some years ago. But this evidence means nothing, as I suspect creationists would argue they were placed there by the flood. The same flood that deposited the formation containing dinosaurs the river gravels sit unconformably on. But there is no evidence that these rocks were laid down by a single neocatastrophic event; if there was, that would be the current theory about how they came to be there.

"but it seems to me that if an octopus is mostly soft, that there has to be some explanation if it gets fossilized."

Pete, believe me that soft tissue preservation is explicable and not uncommon. I've got a cast of some Edmontosaurus skin on my desk here, taken directly from the fossil. My real point there was the article was woefully inaccurate, and in my opinion deliberately misleading and that is the product of a nasty little mind who intends to deceive to promote their own views. Very poor.

Steve: Much to my lasting regret I had to give up my degree a few years ago, although I will be restarting next month with the OU, and I've credit for my previous studies. I'm lucky in that I've been privileged to meet and spent time in the company of (including in the field) some excellent palaeontologists and they have always been extremely encouraging and generous with their knowledge. As for taphonomy, it's a fascinating subject and an area that rewards delving into. It's a subject I could become very interesting in as it tells us so much about the conditions of death and deposition of the organism that died.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jan 11 - 05:44 AM

You beat me to it DMcG.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:03 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Ed T
Date: 14 Jan 11 - 09:52 AM

Thanks, DMcG

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 - 09:07 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 - 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 - 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 - 08:39 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: 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 - 08:35 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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.