BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 19 Apr 12 - 03:53 PM

I'd like to share this uplifting story with y'all to restore your faith in Hugh Mannity after all this godless communist propaganda. God bless Old Gory and the NRA!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Apr 12 - 04:32 PM

Paul I've seen a slightly less on the nose version of that same thing.

I wonder when Einstein did all that work in physics considering his more than impressive body of work in the field of Creationist polemics.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Brendan
Date: 19 Apr 12 - 05:05 PM

May I recommend ' Believing Bullshit' by Stephen Law. It is an easy to read exploration of some of the main arguments used by cults, YECs and others to defend what a rational mind finds indefensible

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Apr 12 - 05:18 PM

Law talks about the book

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Apr 12 - 10:40 PM

I just finished watching the Law video. I cannot recommend it. Bill D. has made the same points more succinctly, many times.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Brendan
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 06:36 AM

Er.... I was not recommending the video, I was recommending the book. I agree that the video is not particularly satisfying but I found the book a stimulating read.
I should point out that I have no connection with Dr Law who I first came upon at the Oxford Literary Festival in March this year but as a practising Christian I relish the constant challenge of reconciling my faith position with the significant advances of science.
I dislike fundamentalism in all its forms and I recognise my own inability to satisfactorily explain my own beliefs - sometimes even to myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 11:09 AM

""I dislike fundamentalism in all its forms and I recognise my own inability to satisfactorily explain my own beliefs - sometimes even to myself.""

That is exactly what Young Earth Creationists lack, Brendan, a satisfactory explanation.

YECs need to explain their beliefs only because they are trying to make everybody else share them. If not for that, they would not have this crying need to debunk all science which undermines their efforts.

The point is that you don't need to explain your beliefs. They are what they are, and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

The bottom line is that you, and millions of Christians like you, are right and have no need to prove anything.

As for YECs, until they can produce proper testable, reproducible and if necessary falsifiable evidence in support of their position, they will not achieve their goal.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Apr 12 - 12:36 PM

Brendon, I found the man to be shallow and vapid. I found his arguments to be weak and incomplete. In fact I find the whole idea that ideas about what he calls "Bullshit" have to be logical and can be countered with logic to be naive and absurd.

I couldn't read the book, not after I have heard the author. As I said, I can listen to the same counter arguments from Bill D for free. And then I don't have to pretend that meant to help cure the deluded.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Brendan
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 06:20 AM

It seems to me that the position all thinking atheists have to start from is one of reason and rationality; 'If you want me to believe then show me the evidence.' An unavoidable consequence of this is that when defending their views atheists must base their arguments on reason and logic, whether defending their own views or attacking the views of others.
Perhaps that is why this thread will never result in a meeting of minds. Fundamentalist Christians reject, either implicitly or explicitly, the force of any any argument based solely on reason. This does not stop them from deploying apparently science-based arguments when to do so may appear to give them credibility - nor to employ apparently rational arguments which require close examination if their flaws are to be revealed.

With regard to Jack's rejection of Law I would be interested to read any examples to back up his opinion - without these his opinion lacks any claim to justification.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 11:49 AM

"...I can listen to the same counter arguments from Bill D for free."

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jack. It is gratifying to know that someone thinks I do a credible job of making certain points.

That being said, it never hurts to hear the basic issue laid out....even if tediously... in a formal setting by a dapper gentleman with an educated English accent. ☺ People are impressed in different ways.....some require 'credentials' before they pay attention.

I DID have 130 hours of college work in philosophy & logic, and many of my contributions here were merely pointing out flaws in common assertions. I carefully do NOT make any absolute claims about the nature of reality or the existence or non-existence of any metaphysical 'being(s)'...... though it is easy to guess which way I might bet... *grin*.

I am pleased that 'pete from seven stars' trusts me to be a 'fair' opponent in our debates. I in turn find him to be an honest, dedicated man who simply begins with a basic assumption OF a certain theological position, and feels the need to interpret counter-claims in that light.... a very common attitude. Pete at least reads some of what his opponents post. The discussion is useful, even if NO ONE convinces anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 01:18 PM

Relax Brendon,

I was just giving my opinion.

Anyone who wants to read the book you recommend still can. Anyone who wants to watch the video, still can. All I am saying is that they can get the same information for free, on this forum.

I think that anyone who is interested in buying his book is probably pretty immune from the arguments that the book is meant to protect you from.


The rules of logic have been around since ancient Greece. They are readily available on the Internet.   Learn those rules, be skeptical. Then you don't need to read the book. And to be well rounded and open to learning, Don't let Mr. Law or anyone else tell you what is "bullshit" think for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Brendan
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 03:20 PM

I think I quite like being described as dapper! I am happy to parade my credentials if required. Philosophy and logic formed a major part of my second degree. However, I am not convinced that such information should influence the way in which my views are perceived.

Well, you swerved my challenge didn't you Jack? I'm disappointed. I had hoped to be shown something that I had failed to identify but you have not 'shown me the money'.

I'll take myself off now - the faint odour of xenophobia suggests that I may be more welcome elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 06:23 PM

With your high opinion of Law's book, I don't think your University would want you to say that you studied philosophy and logic there.

Certainly they would not want to hear that you learned something you didn't know already from him.

I did one term of "Logic for Engineers" At my University and all of his stuff was covered, and then some, without the arrogance.

Please note that I feel absolutely no necessity to answer your challenge. See the chapter of the book "Pressing your Buttons" for an explanation as to why.

Again I repeat, this is just my opinion. Anyone is welcome to watch the video or read the book for themselves. In fact if they are vitally interested in the subject. I highly recommend that.

I don't have the time or the inclination to comb through the speech to point out where it falls short.

But I would certainly NOT recommend that an easily swayed person to debate a cult member or theologian armed only with the knowledge of imparted in this book. They are liable to end up believing that the world is flat, or maybe believing that a discussion of some pop culture philosophy with an unidentified and totally unknown person on an Internet forum is evidence of Xenophobia. Though I think that the latter was nothing more than a veiled ad hominem attack.

The main objection I have with Law's book is the idea that something is to be gained, beside amusement and mental exercise, by arguing with people who firmly believe in anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 06:30 PM

well thanks bill.i think that most people start from their own position presupposing certain things ,though there may be the truly undecided but they are not evident on this thread IMO. I suspect some may not be as sure as they claim to be' as they feel the need to ridicule-but i would not want to be dogmatic on that.like you i think discussion is useful though you probably appreciate that as a christian i believe there is a spiritual dimension-even if the points i raise are unacceptable and no one here believes.pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 08:57 PM

"....i think that most people start from their own position presupposing certain things,..."

pete..."their own" does not necessarily refer to a personal one. If one accepts and adopts a basic set of rules set out to describe a well organized system, it is not exactly ones "own".

Belief in the Bible as literal truth is certainly one such system, as is 'scientific inquiry'. The basic difference is that the former is 'locked into' one basic set of assumptions and thus, a very limited set of conclusions; whereas the latter demands constant reassessment of both assumptions AND conclusions. IF science makes mistakes, its own rules provide for course correction. The theology which defines creationism as 'correct' from the beginning cannot really even look at other answers...except to think about ways to deny them.

These are not just 2 different opinions, such as having favorite colors, but entirely different ways of thinking. I always claim that IF there is a God who gave us the ability to see different possibilities, he/it would expect us to 'think' rather than just nod in agreement to opinions handed down over the centuries by OTHER humans who were just as fallible as we are.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 12 - 09:52 PM

Bill, I have to say that I am with pete on this one. That is in spite of the fact that his lack of courtesy in spelling and punctuation irritates me tremendously.

"....i think that most people start from their own position presupposing certain things,..."

There are nearly infinite possibilities in one's starting position when using "scientific inquiry' on the other hand belief in the Bible as literal truth is much more complex than you have described. There are way too many contradictions for one to be simply 'locked into' one basic set of assumptions and thus, a very limited set of conclusions;

One has to constantly reinforce that belief and to heed external sources of chose to place contradictions out of one's mind when reading the Bible oneself to hold and keep those opinions.... I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 09:06 AM

In order to read the bible and believe in its utter truth and accuracy, you have to be able, whenever contradictions appear (and there are many) to suspend critical thinking, dispense with logic and decide that one side is correct and therefore the other doesn't mean what it says.

This is a belief system.

That requires too much suspension of disbelief for me, especially since the vast majority of Christians agree that it isn't necessary for the bible to be an accurate historical record since that is not its purpose.

On the other hand, when I see a new scientific advance I know that it is based upon sound principles of empiricism, followed by experiment with reproducible results, and conclusions logically drawn from those results.

I also know that if I, assuming I am capable, repeat those experiments for myself, I will achieve the same results and they will lead to the same conclusions.

If however two people draw different conclusions, the whole will be re-examined and if necessary modified to take account of new knowledge gained.

This is not a belief system.

No amount of Creationist pseudo science can alter that.

I know that Pete is sincere in his beliefs, but he is going to need to revise his way of expressing those beliefs, because the weight of scientific evidence against him.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 10:38 AM

Jack... I do see your point, but I don't think that minor variations in defining and phrasing basic assumptions constitute a significant 'difference'. When they are enough different, they usually are reflected in schicisms... and thus different religious churches, sects, etc.
I suppose it just comes down to how you want to define categories... if you have only 2-3 basic ones you have one viewpoint, but if you have many sub-headings under each one the whole 'feel' of it all changes.

I once knew a woman who called herself "Buddhist", but whose beliefs about karma and life forms was more like Jainism. She was an example of what we both may be referrring to, but are reaching different conclusions about. (I have no idea what she thought about 'creation'.)

Don T has expressed the situation pretty well.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 11:08 AM

Thomas Paine quote

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 12:48 PM

Greetings from sunny Capetown. (Good gigs. Flying back to Blighty next Thursday.)

Is this thread still going? Wow.. Must confess, I have enjoyed some of the eloquent ways people like Don wysiwyg explain the differences between believing and enquiring, but I still think that debating with fundamentalists just encourages the buggers.

I was looking at paintings on rocks that predate the bible by a few thousand years last week. Today I was looking at petrified tree fossils millions of years old. I was listening to a person explaining cultures and belief systems that make Christianity look as modern as scientology.

So, what was all this about the bible getting it right? If this pete bloke was genuine, he would be able to debate with me instead of stating that anybody who laughs at him is insincere or has a belief system themselves. If you believe it, have the courage to try and explain it to rational people. If you are having a laugh, may I point out that some genuine people are trying, wrongly in my opinion but hey, just an opinion, to reason with you.

And that is about as impossible as any of the fairy stories in your bible.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 01:11 PM

Wow Ian you do have a belief system if you believe that your opinions are novel enough and well informed enough that is is worth pete's time to debate you. You are just looking for a chance to drop more jibes and little insults such as "fairy stories" what theory do you think you are proving other than "some atheists act like jerks."

Seriously, for many atheists, Bill D for example, Atheism is not a religion. For you it clearly is and you are an evangelist modeled after St. Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Apr 12 - 03:04 PM

Exactly... atheism is simply not having religion.

"If this pete bloke was genuine, he would be able to debate with me.."

Pete is quite 'genuine'- but to critique the Thomas Paine quote a bit, Pete has not 'renounced' reason, he just uses it in a different manner (and of course, in my opinion, in a flawed manner by choosing premises in a flawed way.)

This 'reason' thing is quite a complex concept...and is not quite the same thing as 'logic' (strictly, a mathematical term). Reason is what the mind does as it copes to organize the bits of experience it accumulates. When we had no telescopes and saw the stars & sun & moon 'move across the sky', it was reasonable (though incorrect) to deduce that we were at the center of things. Some very 'reasonable' men once threatened other reasonable men who dared to contradict the standard answers!
Now - when part OF one's experience is being told by respected members of the family and community that certain answers to life's mysteries are answered in the pages of a special text, preserved for thousands of years and celebrated by wonderful art, architecture, songs, stories etc... and which provides comfort and hope in a world where comfort & hope are often scarce, it is hard to say "Oh, that stuff... I am a grown-up now; I don't need 'fairy tales'."

So... a large part of the disagreements over whether to accept ANY theological/metaphysical concepts is based on sociology & psychology, not strictly 'reason'. I certainly hope that education & example can make reason come closer to logic, because WAY to much of the world is controlled by those who are still in the Dark Ages as respects rational thinking. The news every day is full of sad headlines about those who base their actions on 'sacred texts'... and different ones than OUR side uses..(note tongue firmly in cheek there.)

All *I* really require is that-: whatever one chooses to believe about creation and 'souls' and prophets...etc... they are prevented.. as far as possible.. from controlling MY life and inserting bad reason into school curriculums.

You just cannot change minds by shouting "you stupid fools...pay attention to reason!"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Apr 12 - 11:15 AM

There is a basic flaw too, in the reasoning process of fundamentalists, who make the entirely erroneous assumption that if you are not one of them, you are an atheist.

This is demonstrably not the case. Most Christians do not believe in YEC, and a belief in YEC is neither necessary nor logical as a requirement for following Christ's teachings as they have been reported to us by generations of men with varying agendas.

I believe in the basic tenets of that teaching, but not in the Christian Church, fundamental or moderate.

I believe in a Deity, so I suppose I am a Deist or Theist, what you will!

I have no need of organised religion of any stripe, it is simply irrelevant to my existence.

The reason why I combat fundamentalism and particularly YEC, is the total denial of all logic in its expression, combined with a proselytising fervour in the disemination of its false reasoning to the most impressionable of humans, our children.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 24 Apr 12 - 05:46 PM

bill-maybe i should have been more precise and said "affirm an adopted position"or some suchlike!
seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists.
the details change.they have to as new evidence requires it continuously.the GTE remains immovable in the evolutionist philosophical position.
i could quote those who admit as much but i,m not as adept on the keys as i assume you are and it would take too long.

jack-i agree with your assesment of ians aims-though i tend to be more polite!BTW was i mistaken in spotting a grammatical irregularity in your post.i hope so-such a comfort if even the highly educated slip up! just a little fun!.


don-perhaps you can tell me how you do experiments on the past.in origins research all you have is the result of what has already happened.this is interpreted according to the worldview of the researcher and is not the same IMO as the scientific method you describe.muddying the water may be a useful tactic for evolutionists but not for making things clear.
science made great strides forward under scientists with creationist belief.much was achieved even in the so called "dark ages"          i think that scientists with evolutionary belief have actually hindered science.eg-all those so called vestigual organs,and so called junk DNA are not that at all.they have had to revise their ideas.
pete
.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Apr 12 - 07:33 PM

""don-perhaps you can tell me how you do experiments on the past.in origins research all you have is the result of what has already happened.this is interpreted according to the worldview of the researcher and is not the same IMO as the scientific method you describe.muddying the water may be a useful tactic for evolutionists but not for making things clear.""

Just to give one simple answer, which you should, but probably won't be able or willing to understand, which is the bulk of the problem in dealing with your "scientific" claims.

Radio Carbon dating is a tried and tested scientific method of determining the age of various rocks and fossils with impressive accuracy.

All radioactive isotopes have what is known as a half life which can be used to determine the age of materials, working from the proportion of isotope as compared to the degradation product existing in those samples today, whatever that may be.

It happens that radio carbon gives the best results in terms of experimental error, so that is the most useful method.

Any chemist with a background in this discipline can carry out these tests and the results are always the same within the limits of experimental error, and reproducible.

Please point me towards a Creation "scientist" who can produce similar, or indeed any, evidence for your viewpoint.

There is NONE!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Apr 12 - 08:05 PM

"...seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists.

No, Pete... it really is NOT the same thing. "Darwinism" is not some simple set-in-stone, unwavering 'rule'. Most would not even use the term Darwinism, except as a historical reference. They call themselves 'scientists', and the basic principles of evolution are one outcome of allowing the discoveries OF science to guide their ever changing picture of the history of Earth... and the universe in general.

Saying "I accept Darwinism..or'evolution'" is very different from saying "I accept the Bible as literal truth." They are two forms of 'accepting' that are totally different way of thinking!! Really!

If science found data (like that Don T just noted) that showed only a few thousand years of change, they WOULD accept it and compare it with dates in the Bible and say..."hmmmmmm.."... but when creationists see scientific data, they say "Can't be...it disagrees with the Bible, and my preacher/father/family etc. TOLD me the the Bible is totally true!"

Pete... ALL the information/stories/metaphysics in the Bible was put there by **men**, and translated and interpreted by men... for several thousand years. MEN told each other that God 'inspired' it...and those men 'mostly' believed it... but today you don't automatically believe everything or every story other **men** tell you.

There 'may' have been a god who started all this complex universe... and I do not try to 'prove' otherwise.... but if such a god wants me - and others - to know certain details and behave in certain ways, he needs to come around more often and say so a bit more clearly......

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Apr 12 - 08:28 PM

I usually make a point of not commenting on anything creationists like Pete or Iona (I wonder what became of her) say but Pete has hit a point here -

seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists.

Sadly some who consider themselves to be scientists do precisely that. That is why I have argued against the "Evolution is true." faction (and been roundly abused for my pains). Presenting science as having some sort of equivalence to religion does more harm than the creationists ever can. Such people do not represent scientific thought.

N.B. Bill is not one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 09:58 AM

"Sadly some who consider themselves to be scientists do precisely that. "

I suppose there are 'some' who do such.... but insofar as they act that way they are not 'good' scientists. They are a real minority, and are NOT a reason to relegate science itself to the position of "just another belief system".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM

"seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists"

As I said back in February, here is the difference between scientists and creationists - falsifiability.

I will state quite explicitly the evidence required to make me change my position RE creation vs. evolution:

If current theories of evolution are incorrect, I need to see an exposure of a single sedimentary layer -- a single parting in one formation -- that exposes a trilobite, a dinosaur, and a human. If you can point me to this, I will completely change my view. (I would need only two out of three of the fossils to seriously question evolution).

Now it is your turn. What evidence would falsify your belief in YEC?

Please state with a specificity approximating mine above.

If you cannot (or refuse to, or duck the question), then you have demonstrated the clear difference between science and creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 11:02 AM

I suppose there are 'some' who do such.... but insofar as they act that way they are not 'good' scientists.

Unfortunately, some of them have been rather vocal on this thread.

They are a real minority, and are NOT a reason to relegate science itself to the position of "just another belief system".

Rather the point I was trying to make. I see little point in arguing with the creationists; they are not thinking rationally. The important thing is to get the science right so that those who are neither religious fundamentalists nor scientifically trained aren't misled into thinking it's just a choice of competing religions rather than competing ways of thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Ian Mather sans cookie
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 12:16 PM

Hello sailor!

If the word rational means having a belief system then I must have a belief system.

I am not an atheist by the way. Einstein reckoned that meant chaos as a belief system and I see laws of physics working so that buggers that. In any event atheism is amongst other things a term of sneering used by superstitious people.

Obviously I can't demand nor expect pete to debate. All I said was if he thinks it to be true, it should stand up to my silliness. Same as he expects debate based on his absurd position.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 12:20 PM

For me Snail, it is infinitely more important to curb these peoples' attempts to inculcate their dangerous and erroneous rubbish into the minds of our children, disguised as science.

That is why I shall continue to rebut (or refute, I'm never too sure which) their arguments, and never allow them to pass unchallenged wherever I come across them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: saulgoldie
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 12:51 PM

Oncet again, ad nauseum...

Science is a *process* of inquiry. This *process of inquiry* explains things in terms of currrently available data that can demonstrate *reproducible results.* If you do not *accept* science as such, then you are obliged to suggest another *process* that can can demonstrate *reproducible results.*

Religions are *belief systems.* One must have *faith* and not be concerned about the internal logic or whether the *beliefs* can lead to *reproducible results.* Because they cannot; they do not.

On *accepts* science; one *believes in* religion. It is a critical semantic distinction. It is definitional. It is not arguable.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 02:29 PM

Don(Wyziwyg)T

For me Snail, it is infinitely more important to curb these peoples' attempts to inculcate their dangerous and erroneous rubbish into the minds of our children, disguised as science.

Surely the best way to do that is to present the case FOR science rather than the case AGAINST creationism. You are letting them choose the battleground and define the rules of combat. They have won their first battle by establishing that there is something about creationism that is worth debating. You have given them credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 03:28 PM

I know what you are saying TheSnail, but sadly, dumbass politicians and their dumbass supporters have already given them sufficient credibility to make it into school curricula (or to at least supress/dilute the science in school curricula). We have to fight them on this battleground. Can't cede it to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 03:59 PM

Sorry, but don't why that's an argument to not fight FOR science.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 04:48 PM

tia-it just so happened that todays article on the CMI site did mention a triolobite and dinosaur track in the same layer at the paluxy[if i remember right]river.whether that got into any unbiased papers i dont know-so you might not have to renounce your evolutionism yet!i answered your challenge long time ago.it is just that creationists are upfront about interpreting science through biblical glasses.

don-with respect to your chemist' and my lack of training i just ask you to clarify before i attempt an answer -
are you really saying that carbon dating etc methods always give consistent results.does not the method require unproved assumptions
and how much margin of error is acceptable?

bill-it sounds very grand to say that darwinists call themselves "scientists".many are but i still posit that it is a philosophical position' rather than science that achieves anything other than positing a theory.IMO as i said earlier-more likely to be detrimental.
was it kerkut who defined the GTE as biologial life from single cell that itself came from inorganic material-wish i'd written it down!
i fail to see how that is science.you do at least concede the possibility of a beginner deity though i suspect reluctantly.
but certainly not a militant atheist so we can at least talk together
best wishes pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 05:52 PM

"i answered your challenge long time ago"

No you did not.

You started *saying* you did a while ago. But you really never did.

Please prove me wrong by referencing a previous post in this or any thread.

If you cannot, or refuse to, or ignore this, you are again proving the fundamental difference between science and faith.

Sorry. Not my rules.

PS
The Paluxy "dinosaur beside human tracks" were debunked years and years ago. Even most creationists now admit they are decidely not human (e.g. some have claw marks extending down and back from the "heel"...nobody I know has those).

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 05:54 PM

No, no. It is exactly an argument to fight FOR science and AGAINST non- and pseudo-science. They creep into schools if we do not fight back.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 06:11 PM

""don-with respect to your chemist' and my lack of training i just ask you to clarify before i attempt an answer -
are you really saying that carbon dating etc methods always give consistent results.does not the method require unproved assumptions
and how much margin of error is acceptable?""

The answers are readily available Pete, in scientific treatises which Young Earth Creationists studiously avoid acknowledging or even reading.

Every radioactive isotope known has its own individual time in which half its radiocarbon atoms degrade. In all known cases that "half life" is constant, irrespective of the original number of atoms.

For this reason, it is possible to determine, knowing the "half life", the current number of atoms of isotope and the mass of degradation product, it is possible to calculate the true age of the enclosing rock with more than reasonable accuracy.

Dating samples of known age, including an Egyptian royal barge built in 1850 BC, Willard Libby demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. Radiocarbon dating is commonly used to establish the age of samples between 58,000 and 62,000 years old.

By 1969, with enough radiocarbon dates of objects of known age, it became apparent that calibration of the 14C dating method was both possible, and required, to make radiocarbon dates useful for the determination of calendar dates. Indeed, it is often material from prior to 1969 that creationists use as ammunition against the 14C dating method.

The first use of dendrochronology (counting tree rings) to calibrate 14C over a long period of time was made by Furgeson in 1970.

1970: Furgeson used dendrochronology of bristlcone pines to calibrate radiocarbon dating back to 7484- years b.p. (before the present).
Through comparison with tree ring dates, the 14C method has been calibrated back to more than 13,000 years before the present,

1991: Becker, et al publish a stable dendrochronological calibration of 14C back to 13,000 years before the present.
In addition, 14C dating has also been calibrated back to more than 30,000 years before the present using uranium-thorium (isochron) dating of corals [Bard, et al, 1990] and [Edwards, et al, 1993]. While it is unlikely that 14C will be useful for objects older than 50,000 years, owing to the problems of background contamination [Dickin, 1995] and [Lowe, 1991], there is a recent paper by [Kitagawa, H., and van der Plicht, J., 1998] discusses calibration of 14C dating back to 45,000 b.p. using U-Th dates of glacial lake varve sediments (periodic sedimentary layers).

The bottom line is that 14C dating is quite a bit more advanced than creationist sources give it credit for being.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 06:22 PM

As to degree of accuracy;.....based on dendrochronology:-

C14 dates are always reported with a "±" margin of error. Typically, the margin of error reported is for one standard deviation from the norm. Therefore, a C14 date of 10,000 ± 200 BP on our branch sample means there is a 68% probability (a 2 in 3 chance) the branch died sometime between 9,800 and 10,200 years ago.

This is an accuracy of plus or minus 2 percent, hardly unreasonable over a period 4000 years longer than you claim this world to be.

Your sensible response to these facts is invited.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 06:26 PM

""Every radioactive isotope known has its own individual time in which half its radiocarbon atoms degrade.""

Apologies for error! This should read:- "Every radioactive isotope known has its own individual time in which half its radioactive atoms degrade"

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 06:30 PM

Well now, Gastropodus adagioissimus, the point is this. Science is the art of dissing something until evidence can be presented that the "something" is worthy of un-dissing. That's how science, in order to be good science, has to operate. The un-dissing process is usually long and gradual as evidence accumulates. But there has to come a time when so much evidence has accumulated that one can say, with the utmost confidence, that the dissers are no longer credible. That the amount of evidence has reached a tipping point. That the notion, once upon a time dissed, can no longer be credibly dissed. That point was reached with the theory of evolution by natural selection a long time ago. It is no longer possible, with any credibility at all, for anyone to challenge the general thrust of the theory. I'm not saying that details can't be tweaked and that arguments within can't still rage, not a bit of it. But the thrust of evolution theory can no longer be credibly denied. So I have a bit more courage than you, apparently. I say that the theory, in its general thrust, is true. Now if you think that the theory, in its general thrust (not in every intimate detail, mind) is not true, then give us your evidence to that effect. Of course, you may wish to go all philosophical on me, abandon earth-boundness and debate the meaning of the word "truth". Well good for you. But I kind of like the word "truth" and I like to be able to employ it without some bloody pedant breathing down my neck implying that it's a word that can never be used in science. It can be, and I have done. And I'm still a scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Apr 12 - 07:25 PM

Pete... but i still posit that it is a philosophical position' rather than science that achieves anything other than positing a theory."

I don't think I quite understand that point. Are you saying that science doesn't make progress? Are you claiming that **interpreting** science is somehow merely 'philosophical'? WHAT is "more likely to be detrimental."?

I'm sorry, Pete, but your arguments and claims are still going in circles when you use the CRI website to justify positions while calling those who debunk "triolobite and dinosaur" tracks 'biased'.

Do you not see that places like the CMI site are the ultimate form of bias? They do...as do you... begin with an unswerving adherence to Biblical interpretations as some sort of 'fact', while trying to twist tested and RE-tested scientific studies into some form of weak 'messing around' with faulty data.

As to an original creator? I simply don't know. Thus, I can't 'deny' it like I can refute some obviously false statements. I DO see no real, serious, clear, specific evidence that ANY being or sentient 'power' organized, planned & 'created' the stuff we see. Sorry, but I just do not accept 'ancient manuscripts' **written by men** as proof of anything. You cannot say...(reasonably).. that God inspired them.

One more time... IF there was a god who wanted us to really know his will and opinions, he would need to use that infinite power to make it so clear NO ONE... even "militant atheists"... could doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 07:26 AM

Steve Shaw

I say that the theory, in its general thrust, is true.

and from a previous thread -

I didn't say the theory of evolution is true. I said evolution is true. Try listening. It might just stop you talking crap, as ever.

It might help if you could be a little more consistent in your arguments. (It might also help if you could cut out the abuse.)

But I kind of like the word "truth"

I know you do Steve, but in using it, you reduce science to a belief system and entirely justify Pete in accusations like "seems to me that scientists when they affirm darwinism are doing the same as creationists.".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 09:40 AM

Evolution is true. Evolutionary theory, in its general thrust, is true. I don't care if you want to dedicate your life to digging up my out-of-context inconsistencies that appear to obsess you. It's very tiresome. It's a very big theory with lots of nooks and crannies. There will be stuff that we have incomplete knowledge of, stuff that is just beginning to emerge, stuff which leads to uncertainty. But no-one is ever, by evidence and reason, going to overturn the theory of evolution. Put it this way. We can, if we want, change its name to the fact of evolution. We don't, because we don't want to stop looking. Religion stops looking even before a shred of evidence has turned up, so reason can't be applied. Science is not a system and it does not rely on belief. It relies on evidence and reason. Its process is to deny everything unless there is evidence to the contrary, the very opposite of religious belief systems. Now I'm sure that you'll find something else to carp about given a couple of spare hours. Good luck to ye! Actually, I'm fed up of typing the words "belief system." It's a bloody stupid expression anyway. Grrr.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 11:33 AM

Turns out I didn't need to go to another thread. Earlier on this one -

Evolution is true. Indeed it is. I didn't say the contradictory "the theory of evolution is true." It is no longer possible to deny that evolution occurs. Unless you're barking, of course. Hello, Snail, by the way,. Here we go again, eh, with your contrarian stance on everything I say. Get a life, why don't you. Or evolve into something more intelligent than a gastropod.

What do you reckon, TIA? Is Steve a good advocate FOR science?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 01:02 PM

If it wasn't for Humanity there'd be no religion - there'd be no science either of course - but at least the Laws of Physics would still be there, our understanding of which has been achieved through long years of struggle and Objective Peer-Reviewed hard work. Organisms would still be evolving, and maybe some of them would achieve higher forms of sentience, cognition, culture and technology. If so, they'd discover the same stuff we did - evolutionary and physical science being an objective universal constant - though when it came to Culturally Subjective Religion, they'd be telling different stories, assuming they bothered with it, because Religion, for better or for worse (in this case worse), is a uniquely human thing, the utter subjectivity of which comes down to one universal constant: They Can't All be Right, But They Can All be Wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 01:43 PM

Hey, Snail, a word in your shell-like. Do try to find something else to nitpick about. Do you think that evolution happens? Yes? Fine so far. Do you think that we now have enough evidence to make the theory - in its general thrust - incontrovertible? Yes? Are we on the same page when it comes to understanding the theory and the evidence that supports it? You think so? Excellent! Do we need to believe in the theory? No? Me neither! Do we, instead, approach it as containing a body of evidence that can be interpreted using reason? Yes? Brilliant! Bye!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 02:02 PM

And with a final fanfare of self-contradiction he was gone.