BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 02:54 PM

I offer unto you something of a parable. There are theologians who insist that Jesus was not able to sin. There are other theologians who insist that Jesus was able to not sin. Some of them, at least, actually believe that they are disagreeing with each other in a meaningful way.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 04:54 PM

Ahhh... so the problem is men misinterpreting OTHER men! Or do I have it backwards?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 05:58 PM

tia-methinks you misread my last post.i said -trilobite and dino-not human and dino .i am quite aware human tracks were not found; as the article i referred to made clear.

don-thankyou for comprehensive history of c14.do i take it you have read creationist material on c14 as you charge them with out of date info.as it happens todays article on CMI site is dealing briefly with the very same;not that you are likely to read it.
certainly the method dates further back than 6000 yrs but that hardly helps your millions of yrs position since the decay rate has vanished in only thousands.
and yet carbon has been identified in material claimed by evolutionists as being formed millenia past-including diamonds,which would be extremely safe from contaminated results.

bill-quite right in that i put it badly.
science[ie operational,observable,reprodusable science] is beneficial.
it has always progressed and operated without any need of evolutionism.
as i mentioned earlier ;science has found purposes for what evolutionists at one time labelled vestigual and junk.there are other instances i could cite that are not to hand at present.

as you'll like to pursue a point or two;i shall do likewise.
you believe in the GTE despite it being not only unproven but proven impossible in its very beginning.
abiogenesis is the supreme example of a faith position IMO.
pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 08:23 PM

and yet carbon has been identified in material claimed by evolutionists as being formed millenia past-including diamonds,which would be extremely safe from contaminated results.

This is egregiously clueless. The man is not worth talking to. C'mon, Snailie, get your claws into him for change.


Oops...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 08:27 PM

There are theologians who insist that Jesus was not able to sin. There are other theologians who insist that Jesus was able to not sin.

They're both wrong. I know. I got it from Mary Magdalene.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 08:28 PM

Or do I have it backwards?

You should be so lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 08:51 PM

Steve Shaw

C'mon, Snailie, get your claws into him for change.

Pete openly and honestly presents himself as a creationist and a believer in the truth of the bible and as someone who has a limited understanding of science. Anyone can judge what he has to say with that understanding.

You, on the other hand, present yourself as a scientist. People without a scientific education might be misled into believing that you know what you are talking about when, to anyone who does have a background in science, you clearly do not.

Bad science is more damaging than creationism because it gives creationism credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 08:53 PM

Actually I was thinking of Steve and the gastropod, primarily the gastropod, when I posted the little theological thingy; For the life o' me I can't see why Snail insists that there is any real-life difference in what they are saying.

The theological "distinction" wasn't made up. I knew of individuals who argued over it for decades, wasting time they could have put to better use lighting farts instead.

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

I know you were, frogprince. He does it because he seems to have this thing about me. It's very odd. I can't seem to shake him off. He agrees with me deep down.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Apr 12 - 10:44 PM

pete,
You have once again ducked the challenge and reinforced the difference between science and faith.
No worries. It is clear to anyone paying attention.

One more time (because it is THE point) - what evidence would you require to make you re-think your belief in YEC?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 07:39 AM

pete, Carbon-12 is the most abundant isotope of carbon, having six protons and six neutrons in its nucleus, and is stable. It has existed for billions of years, hence the existence of diamonds, graphite and other forms. Carbon-14 is also natural, with an extra 2 neutrons, but is formed by the effect of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, and is not stable. It is constantly replenished. It decays into nitrogen again, with half the carbon doing so in 5700 years. It behaves chemically in the same way as carbon-12, having the same number of electrons, and is absorbed by living things, but this absorption stops at death, hence its use in dating. It is irrelevant in non-living things such as naturally occurring diamond, and in very old things because of its relatively short half life.

Do you read non-creationist sites about these things?

I read up about the trilobite, which has apparently not been seen independently in situ, and was reported by someone with a similar reputation in some circles to that of Charles Dawson, whose efforts you cite in opposition to evolution.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 09:44 AM

frogprince

For the life o' me I can't see why Snail insists that there is any real-life difference in what they are saying.

Oh dear, that is worrying. You could have asked rather than resorting to obscure theological parallels. Perhaps if I quote what a few other people have said it might make things a little clearer.

Shimrod

"Science is not a dogmatic assertion of faith and 'absolute truth'"
"Science is not a monolithic body of incontrovertible 'truth'"
"all scientific knowledge is provisional and could be revised at any time in the light of new evidence."

On the Got Science? thread that I linked to a while ago -

TIA

Science is a method...a process. The product of science is information. But the information is *not* science. The information is always provisional. The information is open to question and testing. The information is not sacrosanct. In fact, the information is a challenge to other scientists. It begs them to "prove me wrong". And many times it is proven wrong. The process of science is specifically and consciously self-correcting. "Scientfic Dogma" is the most ridiculous oxymoron of all!

and, most bizarre, Steve Shaw himself -

Science requires observation, hypothesis set up deliberately to be vulnerable to shooting-down, experiment with controls, processing of data, construction of theories (not truths), communication of information and peer review, all of which serve to inform the next steps. Religious faith requires...well, faith. It requires a suspension of awkward questioning, exactly the opposite of what the process of science demands. It requires a cosily-ringfenced theology (my, how that "-ology" legitimises myth!) based on a single wrong premise that must not be questioned lest the whole house of cards collapses.

In this instance I totally agree with Steve. Unfortunately, it seems he doesn't agree with himself. Shortly afterwards we get -

Read my lips, Pete old chap. Evolution is true.

When I challenged him on that, he tried to wriggle out with -

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. (Note the early resort to personal abuse as a debating technique.)

Despite that he regularly used "evolution" and "the theory of evolution" interchangeably from then on including the wonderful "the searing truth of evolutionary theory" and , to Iona, "You insult thousands of hard-working scientists constantly with your blindfolded attempts to refute the truth of evolution.

Makes him sound like a ranting preacher hurling fire and brimstone from his pulpit, and that is the problem. By using the same sort of arguments as the creationists, what Pete called "argument from authority", he blurs the distinction between science and religion and allows Pete to make 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: Stu
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 10:19 AM

"it has always progressed and operated without any need of evolutionism."

Oh Pete. By denying evolution you are denying not just the sciences popularly associated with the theory such as zoology, palaeontology, geology, biology etc, but also you're denying the relevance of disciplines including chemistry, physics, particle physics, maths, cosmology, astrophysics and many more besides.

You're denying the work of the people whose research led to the development of the computer you're typing on, the internet and world wide web you're communicating to us with. You're consigning work such as embryology, molecular science as well as those previously mentioned to the dustbin because you mistakenly think all these workers are deluded or blinded by denial of creationism.

Many workers in these fields believe in God or other supernatural beings, just not the fallacy of YEC, which they would believe in were there any evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 03:01 PM

Well, sigh, I see I'm still being stalked by The Slimy One. It's rather odd, Snail, that you seem to spend around ten times longer quoting other people's opinions than you do offering your own. In fact, I'm having trouble recalling much of a structured argument from you on any topic (and I said that on purpose to give him another hour's homework trying to prove me wrong). So let me provoke you. Tell me what, in its general thrust, is untrue about evolution. Tell me what burgeoning body of evidence is going to overturn the theory. Tell me how I'm demeaning the generality of science by saying that evolution is true. I only said evolution is true, not any other theory. I just happen to know enough about evolution to know that it can longer be denied by evidence and reason. Not in every detail, as I keep on saying, but in its general thrust. If you don't agree with that, let's have it, please. You really are being a bit of a silly billy about this, aren't you? It's true. It just is. Only a bloody creationist twerp would deny evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 03:50 PM

Despite that he regularly used "evolution" and "the theory of evolution" interchangeably from then on including the wonderful "the searing truth of evolutionary theory"

There's some subtlety I can't get here. "Evolution" obviously isn't identical with any "theory of evolution"- the one is an attempt to explain the other- but in the context of opposing someone who is refusing to accept the obvious existence of either, it's a peccadillo if an offence at all. I'm sure you wouldn't complain about someone who talked about "the searing truth of gravitational theory" to a nutcase who was trying to persuade you to jump from the 16th floor.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: frogprince
Date: 27 Apr 12 - 04:02 PM

Just for the halibut, let's try it this way:

It is the position of most scientists at this time that combined evidence from all disciplines of science appears to indicate that evolution has occured and continues to occur.

Snail, question 1: do you find that statement acceptable, and appropriate to the nature of science?

Question 2: do you think that propagating that statement would help substantially to combat the propagation of YEC ?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 06:29 AM

Steve Shaw

Well, sigh, I see I'm still being stalked by The Slimy One. It's rather odd, Snail, that you seem to spend around ten times longer quoting other people's opinions than you do offering your own. In fact, I'm having trouble recalling much of a structured argument from you on any topic (and I said that on purpose to give him another hour's homework trying to prove me wrong).

Note the subtlety of Steve's debating technique. I responded to a post by frogprince. I am sorry if you consider that to be stalking. Those opinions that I quoted represent my position pretty well and demonstrate that I am not alone in that position.. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I think this covers my point of view pretty well -

Science requires observation, hypothesis set up deliberately to be vulnerable to shooting-down, experiment with controls, processing of data, construction of theories (not truths), communication of information and peer review, all of which serve to inform the next steps.

Are you OK with that?

So let me provoke you. Tell me what, in its general thrust, is untrue about evolution. Tell me what burgeoning body of evidence is going to overturn the theory. Tell me how I'm demeaning the generality of science by saying that evolution is true. I only said evolution is true, not any other theory. I just happen to know enough about evolution to know that it can longer be denied by evidence and reason. Not in every detail, as I keep on saying, but in its general thrust. If you don't agree with that, let's have it, please.

Yet again, riddled with ambiguity. When you say "evolution" do you mean the process* or the theory? (There are, of course, a number of theories but let's not get too bogged down.) You accused me of talking crap for not getting the distinction right before.

I will attempt to answer the question I think you are asking. I have no reason to believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is untrue and have never, for one moment, suggested anything of the sort. I have already said this several times.

As a bit of an aside, did Darwin actually use the term evolution? Can't find my copy at the moment but the title of his book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". He is actually talking about speciation rather than evolution.

You really are being a bit of a silly billy about this, aren't you? It's true. It just is. Only a bloody creationist twerp would deny evolution.

I think I am being remarkably sensible and patient in the face of someone whose primary method of debate is personal abuse and stonewalling bluster. I am not really talking about evolution, I am talking about science and the scientific method. About how it works and why it works and what, for me and I suspect for you, makes it better than religion. Science is not about declaring inviolable truths, it is about asking questions. As TIA said "Scientific Dogma" is the most ridiculous oxymoron of all! ". Are you saying he is wrong? "Evolution is true." is dogma.

* According to one of my old university text books "Biological evolution means change in the characteristics of descendant populations of organisms."

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 07:30 AM

Paul, my point in quoting Steve's "the searing truth of evolutionary theory" was to point out his ambiguity about whether he is talking about "evolution" or "The Theory of Evolution" and, while I was at it, to illustrate his somewhat evangelical style.

Since you have given a clear description of the distinction between "evolution" and "the theory of evolution", I'm not sure why you describe it as a subtlety that you can't get. They are different things. If I were to jump from the 16th floor, I would be propelled to the ground by gravity. Somebody with less urgent matters on their mind might be able to use the theory of gravity to calculate how long before I splatted on the pavement but it wouldn't be the theory that killed me. Are you suggesting that before 1687 I could have jumped with impunity because there was no theory to tell me I would fall? If you think it's a peccadillo, tell Steve. He was the one who accused me of talking crap for not realising which he was talking about. (As I say above, I'm still not sure which he is talking about and I'm not sure that he is either.)

However, since you mention the Theory of Gravity it gives me a useful opportunity. For a kick off, try "Gravity is true!". Er? What? OK, let's try "the Theory of Gravity is true!". Two problems there 1) the scientific method does not allow you to describe a scientific theory as true which is the point I've been trying to get over for some time and something which Steve himself has stated a couple of times. 2) Newton's Theory of Gravity isn't true. It was superceded in 1916 by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Unless you happen to be passing near a massive body or travelling at near light speeds they produce indistinguishable results so for all practical purposes Newton's Theory is perfectly usable but it is not TRUE as such. It could be that in the nearly 250 years that it stood unchallenged (rather longer than the Theory of Evolution so far) some enthusiast might have declared "It's true. It just is. Only a bloody creationist twerp would deny gravity." but if they had they would have been speaking no more scientifically than the twerps they were condemning.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 08:21 AM

I used to know a chap called Ali Butt.

frogprince

It is the position of most scientists at this time that combined evidence from all disciplines of science appears to indicate that evolution has occured and continues to occur.

"most scientists", "at this time", "appears to indicate". Not exactly a hugely confident statement is it? I think as you wrote you probably began to realise that things weren't quite that simple.

I think I've made most of my points above but this is getting interesting. In a way, the comparison Gravity/Theory of Gravity with Evolution/Theory of Evolution doesn't really work. Gravity is part of our everyday experience. Things fall on is, we fall off things we stay here on or near the surface of the Earth. There is no such direct observation of Evolution. What we observe are organisms. We can observe the similarities and differences between those alive today by looking at their physical structures and sequencing their DNA. We can look at the fossil record and see the changes over time. Evolution is more a human concept to explain how those changes and differences came about than an actual observable phenomenon of nature. As such it is, perhaps, more a part of the theory of evolution. Discuss.

1: do you find that statement acceptable, and appropriate to the nature of science?

It's OK in its general intention but rather vague and simplistic and, as I said, rather lacking in confidence.

2: do you think that propagating that statement would help substantially to combat the propagation of YEC ?

No. For the creationists themselves it would simply bounce off their armour. They are not susceptible to reason. For anyone else it is what Pete calls "argument from authority". Scientists say this so don't argue. I think any intelligent human being would rather be given some reasoned arguments and solid evidence.

Right. I really have got to get in some practice for this evening and tackle bucket loads of folk club admin.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 08:27 AM

Just want to cut and paste Sailor Jack's wonderful comment to me a few posts up;

"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."

No reason, just want to read it again. I thought it was wonderful.

sniff.. Never been told I had an opinion before. Or at least, I never realised denying fiction as fact was to have an opinion. I thought an opinion was either to believe, deny, agree or refute. You can have such thoughts on the quality of fiction I suppose, but to say that my use of words such as fairy stories is to have an opinion on them?

I thought Sailor Jack started this thread by asking if creationism taught as fact holds kids back, and then reckons I am insulting creationists by pointing out I reckon that they are!

I wonder if pete is slowly getting a convert to his delusions here? After all, he told Jack he agrees with his assessment of me.

Me? I just want to be loved really. All this pointing out that reality may have a place in this debate is just a sounding board for me to use words like superstition, fairy story (ok, phrases too) and rational.

In case anybody hasn't noticed, although enough people have pointed it out; It is absurd to debate science and superstition as equal sides of an argument. If you refute evidence, you have to provide evidence or contrary indications that could lead to evidence. With regard to evolution, the big book of fairy stories as our nautical friend seems to to have an issue with, is not evidence. Fiction is not evidence. Superstition is not evidence.

Mind you, without a comfort blanket, things can get kind of lonely I suppose. So THAT's why I want to be loved!

Keep banging the rocks together guys...

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 09:08 AM

I love you Ian. But no wet ones.

But you are all spending too much time with boneheaded pete- set out the evidence, and time after time he just replies that he doesn't believe it, and quotes some crazed antiscience fundamentalist website that he doesn't understand either. Given the quality of thought that has clearly gone into his belief system, it's tripe and he may as well be left to it. Just slap his mates down when they try to take over the schools and poison the kids. Like Breitvik's nutty belief system, it's also dangerous.

This isn't totally anti- religion - I know some first rate believers- but as someone pointed out ages back, there are two kinds of believers- those whose scripture is a book of answers, and those who have a book of questions. And I'd add that the first lot see their answers as laws to be imposed on others, while the other type see the questions as problems that they have to wrestle with themselves.

As for "evolution" vs "theory of evolution" I still say that in the context of trying to persuade someone not to think they can fly, it's nitpicking. Especially as there isn't a single thing called "The Theory Of Evolution"- theories have been, well, evolving since before Erasmus Darwin (the grandpa) was dissuaded from publishing his theory in the 18th century. And that was because he realised that an outraged Church would have destroyed his doctor's practice. Some things don't change.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 09:30 AM

If you were thirsty, Paul, which would you rather be given, a glass of water or a description of a glass of water? Either way, take it up with Steve. He's the one who said "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 doesn't make a lot of difference to me. As far as I am concerned both "Evolution is true." and "The theory of evolution is true." (both of which Steve has said) are invalid, non-scientific statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 09:53 AM

""And I'd add that the first lot see their answers as laws to be imposed on others, while the other type see the questions as problems that they have to wrestle with themselves.""

And that statement, Paul, should be carved onto stone tablets and mounted in a prominent position in every church and every religious education class. I'm sure J.C. would approve, and most likely his spiritual father too.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 10:23 AM

Do you know what, Snail? You're boring. Bloody boring. You're not a bloody snail after all, are you? You're a limpet. Just to show how daft this is getting, just consider this statement of yours. No, really consider it: I have no reason to believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is untrue... Good! You are therefore accepting that we can actually use words like "true" and "untrue" in this context. So tell me this. If you see no reason to "believe" (very scientific, by the way!)that the theory is untrue, then you have reason to believe it's true. Yeah? Now one more thing. If I say evolution is true (which it is), I am not stating dogma. I am stating an overall conclusion derived from masses of evidence that long ago propelled evolution, in its general thrust, beyond any doubt that could arise via evidence and reason. There will be tweaking to be done for ever more, of course. Darwin didn't get everything right and neither have many of the subsequent workers in the field. If I say that gravity is true (which it is), that is not dogma either. It is a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence and reason. Gravity cannot be denied. Newton may not have got it quite right, Einstein may not have got it quite right, tweaking may be required but gravity is undeniable and it's perfectly OK for anyone, scientist or no, to say so. There is a big geranium in a pot on my windowsill. It is not dogma to say that. It is true. I'm looking at it right now. I won't bore you with the evidence that it's there and the reasoning I used to conclude that there's a big potted geranium on my windowsill. It's absolutely OK to say what's true if it happens to be true without pedants snapping at your heels, accusing you of being dogmatic. If I told you that Liverpool FC were the greatest team of all time (which they are ;-)), and refused to listen to the abundant(though not necessarily conclusive) evidence to the contrary, then you could justifiably accuse me of being dogmatic. Part of the reasoning I should have applied to all the available evidence is missing. That's why religious zealots are dogmatic. They are failing to apply the whole (or any) of their skills of reasoning. Go and find yourself a nice rock somewhere in the intertidal zone, why don't you. As for debating, you don't debate. You quote other people and you react. You work on the backs of other posters, so kindly save us from your criticism on that score.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 10:33 AM

I think I've lost track of who is for or against what. I do hope we don't begin debating 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 10:35 AM

Very true, Bill, very true.





Am I allowed to say that?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,SFJNo
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 10:46 AM

Er, limpets are snails.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 12:18 PM

I'm against it, if that's any help Bill. And 42 angels, but not morris dancing or salsa.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Apr 12 - 02:03 PM

Er, limpets are snails.

Ish.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 08:45 AM

Limpets were always temperature sensors mounted on armoured conveyers when I bothered to work for a living... Seriously, I never saw the word in any other context till I had been fixing the buggers for a few years. Sheltered upbringing I suppose. (I recall wondering if limpet mines were temperature sensitive...)

Now, snails and things similar to snails I can contribute to the debate with. Slugs are like snails and spend time selling Big Issue to more affluent snails.

Ok Bill. You win. I've lost track too.

I'm happy to say pete is right, the combined cerebral content of everybody else is wrong, and Iona can return to the debate in triumph. Whatever....

We have evolved. We seem to be evolving into a theocracy, but I recall someone (Steve?) saying we cannot evolve to a previous state. Try saying that to the God Botherers.. They are worse than their superstitious ancestors. (With apologies to all sailors and their friends.)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 09:10 AM

Steve, if you don't want me to respond, don't ask me questions.

You are therefore accepting that we can actually use words like "true" and "untrue" in this context. So tell me this. If you see no reason to "believe" (very scientific, by the way!)that the theory is untrue, then you have reason to believe it's true. Yeah?

No. I am amazed to discover that someone who I had presumed to have a thorough scientific education has absolutely no grasp of elementary science theory. It IS possible to consider the possibility of a theory being untrue in fact it is necessary. Have you never heard of falsifiability? It is NOT possible to say a theory is true. You have said as much yourself. For instance you said "Science requires observation, hypothesis set up deliberately to be vulnerable to shooting-down, experiment with controls, processing of data, construction of theories (not truths), ". Why have you gone back on that? Of course, if you do say a theory is untrue and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory.

Let's try an analogy. You want to employ someone in a job with security aspects so you run a criminal records check on them. 1) They come out clean. Does that mean they are not a criminal? You don't know. It may just be that they never got caught. 2) They come out with a criminal record. Does that mean they are a criminal? Yes, unequivocally. The same applies to scientific theories; you may be able to prove them false but you can never prove them true.

This is the basis of TIA's debate with Pete.

From TIA on 25th April -

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?

TIA has provided his criteria for falsifiablity. He is able to do this because the theory of evolution is a scientific theory.

Pete has not provided his criteria for two reasons. 1) Creationism is not a scientific theory. 2) He doesn't understand the question. Neither, it would appear, do you.

By stating "Evolution is true", something sacrosanct, not to be challenged, you have set it on an equal footing to creationism which is precisely what the creationists want.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: TheSnail
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 09:28 AM

You are mistaken Ian. Given the wear and tear on a gastropds under surface, especially as they get more portly with age, what they are shouting is Bigger Shoes.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 02:52 PM

Snail: Of course, if you do say a theory is untrue and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory.

But Steve says: Of course, if you do say a theory is true and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory.

But we scientific types are loath to make the transition from theory to truth. It goes against our instincts. But I repeat. Evolution occurs and that is incontrovertible. The accumulated evidence long ago went past the tipping point. These are the facts of the matter, however much you like to play with words instead of thinking. As long as I've taken all the evidence into account and used my reason to its maximum extent to interpret that evidence and reach an honest conclusion, I am not being dogmatic. Wrong word, wrong context. Now I'm fed up of this. No matter what I say you'll nitpick. Arguing with you is like pissing into a strong wind.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 04:23 PM

penny-i dont know who dawson is.dr clifford wilson got his info from jeannie mack who claimed to have unearthed the triolobite in the same limestone strata as dino prints.i agree that no "independant" documentation seems to exist.i cannot tell if this lady is a liar or not and dr wilson is now dead.hence the comment that tia need not renounce his evolutionism yet.
i am uncertain of what you are saying re carbon.that is my limitations'not your post doubtless.are you saying that carbon testing on once living things can only register in thousands of years but when found in diamonds is limitless?


it has been mildly amusing reading the evolutionists arguing with each other and as i think was noted by one side,giving credance to my contention that it is a belief system ;not scientific fact ,while others repetively continue their argument from authority without presenting evidence.
   "evolution a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true,but because the only alternative,special creation,is clearly incredible"
prof dms watson.

i think someone above made a comparison between creation/bible and the manifesto of the norway killer-own goal;that manifesto was largely based on darwinian doctrines.yet another example of the danger of teaching error to impressionable minds!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 04:26 PM

pete: You are clearly not clever enough to understand it, and too stupid to see that the conversation isn't about your "beliefs".

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 04:29 PM

Well, pete, the way things are going (he said with exasperation), one does have to wonder whether Snail is an "evolutionist" at all! You do not understand what was said about C14 dating. No-one actually said you can "date" diamonds, etc., that are millions of years old using carbon dating. Go back and carefully study the posts that have caused you to come to this conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 05:40 PM

""certainly the method dates further back than 6000 yrs but that hardly helps your millions of yrs position since the decay rate has vanished in only thousands.""

-snip- 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.-snip-

-snip-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).-snip-

You would certainly be more knowledgeable Pete, if you took the trouble to READ what is posted, rather than assuming what others will say "because they're stupid evolutionists".

Please feel free to point out exactly where you found the word "millions" in my post, and while you are at it please remember that the whole was not my invention, but the accumulated work of some very accomplished scientific minds backed by reproducible evidence.

58000 - 62000 years is more than enough to blow Young Earth Creation out of the water for most people with a few working brain cells.

I'm sorry if this comes over as disrespectful, but your post has the same effect for me, since you do not show me the respect of responding to what I actually say.

You asked for a run down on C14 accuracy, and then twisted the answer.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 29 Apr 12 - 06:18 PM

The reference I found to a Paluxy River dinosaur indicated a finder called Carl Baugh, who published about this discovery, and others, in 1987

This is a non-creationist discussion of the site.

Paluxy

Baugh has a very dubious reputation, even, apparently, among creationists. I've seen references to the people you cite as well, now. I suppose it could be a different trilobite, but it was not seen in situ. Given the way trilobites are usually found, there should have been others still there to be seen with the dinosaur fossils.

If you are going to sing about Piltdown, you need to read up about Dawson. He and Baugh had much in common.

Carbon dating only works, as I stated, on things which have been alive. Not diamonds. Other radio-isotopes are available for older non-living things, with longer half-lives. I see there are claims about dating being applied to diamonds and C-14 being found in them. I have read an examination of this claim, which points out that with variation of current in the measuring device, the quantities of each isotope should change together, but in the creationist experiments, C-14 changed more, which implied contamination. (Not deliberate.) There is also the possibility of nitrogen included in the crystal matrix (I saw about this on a quite separate TV program) being subsequently changed by radiation.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Penny S.
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 03:22 AM

And Breivik used what he wanted to build his document, including Christianity. People like him will always bend anything to their world view. Rather like the crusaders Breivik emulated - I recall that de Montfort, in his enthusiasm to kill Cathars, said that it didn't matter if his men slaughtered faithful Christians as well, because God would know his own, and wiped out a whole town.

Cheap point, pete. Not your best.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Musket
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 03:46 AM

What is an evolutionist? Is it a branch of a belief system?

Perhaps pete can tell everybody where to find information on these people, and perhaps see if anybody on Mudcat is a member of their sect? The he / she and pete can have a nice debate on equal terms...

I know that stamp collecting exists, that there is evidence that it exists. But it would be bad grammar to say I believe in stamp collecting. (IF I did go that far, I would be an unbeliever anyway, but digressing seems popular on this thread...)

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 06:44 AM

Ian Mather

What is an evolutionist? Is it a branch of a belief system?

Sounds about right. I would say it is someone who has let evolution take the place of a religion in their life.

Steve Shaw says -

one does have to wonder whether Snail is an "evolutionist" at all!

Let me assure him that I most certainly am not.

But Steve says: Of course, if you do say a theory is true and you have good evidence to back up that claim, it ceases to be a theory.

I had to read that several times to work out if Steve had made an editing mistake or something but, no, I think he really means it. It seems that he no longer considers evolution (or the theory of evolution or Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, it becomes steadily less clear which he is speaking about.) to be a theory and, therefore, not part of science. So what does he think it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: saulgoldie
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 06:55 AM

Once again...process...reproducible results. If you don't "believe in" science, then you are obliged to refrain from using any device or participation in any activity that has "evolved" through the use of the scientific *process* of investigation.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 09:02 AM

Well, Snail-guest, there was no editing mistake, I assure you. I put my version alongside yours as it represents the natural, logical converse of what you yourself said. Now let's take a look at this little gem: It seems that he no longer considers evolution...to be a theory and, therefore, not part of science.

"Therefore"? Dearie me. So science is all theories and nothing else. Well that isn't very brave, is it. Science is about seeking the truth. If we can never be brave enough to say that we've found some truth, then what's the point of doing science at all? There is a lot more science to be done in the field of evolution. We don't know all there is to know about it and almost certainly never will. But there is a nugget of truth in there. The evidence we have that points to evolution taking place is massive and is incontrovertible. Evolution definitely takes place. Only religious nutters with their eyes, ears and brains tight shut deny it. The precise mechanisms and what drives them are still being studied and always will be. But the nugget of truth is that evolution happens. That much is true. The theory of evolution by natural selection takes in far more than this nugget, which is why I can only say that (the theory of) evolution is true in its general thrust. I think I must have typed that phrase, which you conveniently ignore and which thoroughly immunises me against accusations of dogma, about a dozen times. If you don't agree that (the theory of) evolution is true, in its general thrust, let's hear your evidence. If you think that science isn't about looking for truth, let's have that as well. There is in my garden a fig tree. I can provide incontrovertible evidence for it. I can give you the grid ref., take photos of it, get you round to see it if you doubt me, get independent experts in to confirm its presence, show you the deeds to prove that it's my garden and not someone else's, get its DNA sampled to confirm that it is a fig tree and not something else... After all that, I say that it's true that there's a fig tree in my garden. Anyone who thinks it's not true will have an uphill struggle to counteract all my evidence (in fact, it would be an impossibility). I'm happy to use the word "true", by the way, in the way I'm accustomed to using it even if there are philosophical pedants who think I'm misusing the word (poor things). When I'm down the pub telling you that I have a fig tree, I'm not being dogmatic. I might have trouble persuading you that I'm not being dogmatic, but I have the evidence to show that I'm not. The tree is really there. That's where we are with evolution. Exactly that. Now the evidence for the tree's presence is incontrovertible, but if you were to ask me how it got there, how long the seed took to germinate, how the soil in my garden affects its growth, how the cold snap last winter affected it, how long it will live, whether it will produce seed true to type...well I can't answer those questions now, but they are all vulnerable to further research. I would be overreaching myself if I told you that I understood all there is to know about my tree, but I do know that it's true that it's there in my garden. I got to that point not by being dogmatic but by evidence and reason. That's where we are with evolution. If you don't agree that evolution, in its general thrust, is true, let's have it. Otherwise Mr Thicky here (aka me) doesn't really get what you're supposed to be arguing about.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 08:29 PM

"""Therefore"? Dearie me. So science is all theories and nothing else. Well that isn't very brave, is it. Science is about seeking the truth.""

It really isn't a question of bravery Steve. Since today's scientific knowledge is no more than a consensus of opinion, open to modification based on further evidence, it is nothing less than foolhardy to claim that it represents "truth" in any form whatsoever.

The demise of the "Phlogiston Theory" is a very good case in point. Scientists of the day believed that burning removed something which they named "Phlogiston" which had a negative mass, thereby increasing the mass of the resultant product.

Then came the discovery of oxygen, which is credited to Joseph Priestley, though Scheele and Lavoisier also had some input, and the theory was turned on its head with a new understanding of oxidation.

The point is that NO scientific knowledge is ever fixed and immutable, so to claim that it is will at best be suspect, and at worst totally erroneous.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 12 - 08:48 PM

I am not claiming that scientific knowledge is fixed and immutable. There is nothing fixed and immutable about evolutionary theory and that is well worth celebrating. But trying to compare what I'm saying with phlogiston theory is plain daft. The scientists of the day were guessing. They had no body of evidence for the existence of a substance called phlogiston. Speculation is not evidence and their reasoning went way beyond what was justified by their observations. In the case of evolution there is an overwhelmingly-huge body of good, solid, reproducible evidence that it occurs. It is not going beyond the bounds to say that the fact of evolution is incontrovertible. Not the details or the mechanisms or even some of the evidence, but the notion, the idea, the concept in its general thrust. You are never going to see that overturned. That evolution happens is not "a consensus of opinion." Like my fig tree, it's true. It's there. Like my fig tree, there's still plenty to work on. But....evolution, in its general thrust, is true!

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Stu
Date: 01 May 12 - 04:13 AM

"it is nothing less than foolhardy to claim that it represents "truth" in any form whatsoever"

Not true. Science doesn't claim to represent absolute truth, although that is it's ultimate aim, because that truth helps us to understand the universe we live in, but it does claim to represent the truth as we understand it at present.

In this claim to truth it's correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 May 12 - 05:25 AM

The problem there is inherent in the terminology Jack.

It begs the question "whose truth"?....Once you slide off unambiguous terms such as "theory", "evidence", reproducible experiment", "knowledge" and "proof", into subjective realms such as "belief", "truth" etc., you open the door for YECs like Pete to say "My truth is truer than yours".

To cite scientific evidence, you need to do so scientifically, and although I deplore Snail's campaign of dislike and disdain toward Steve, I do feel that on this one point he is essentially correct.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 12 - 05:26 AM

That's right. And as science becomes, er, more scientific (quite a leap from those phlogiston days to today, eh?), scientists become ever less dogmatic. The null hypothesis rules! Assuming that something must be false unless there is evidence. This principled approach (and I know I'm being a bit of idealist) has the virtue of allowing science to claim genuine truth when it finds it. Why not? That is, after all, what science is searching for. Only an idiot would claim that the whole of evolutionary theory is true, done and dusted, book closed, end of. But the gist of it, the thrust (shoot this man, somebody), is no longer vulnerable. So much of the detail is still very vulnerable, but no-one is ever going to come along, using evidence and reason, and be able to say that evolution does not occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 12 - 05:27 AM

I was responding to Jack there.

Subject: RE: BS: Young Earth Creationism Eureka!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 12 - 05:31 AM

Is truth always subjective then?

"Belief" is another matter. That word somehow implies acceptance beyond what reason can deduce. The phlogiston guys poisoned their theory with too much of it. On the one hand, we're not all Mr Spocks. On the other, the more we rely exclusively on evidence and reason, the more sound science becomes.