Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 76 of 409 (679613)
11-14-2012 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
11-13-2012 2:34 AM


Re: One Silly Misconceived Road Trip
Watched the video, boy is it a misbegotten piece of nonsense. You guys actually think it reveals anything of value?
Yes, it reveals the mindset and psychology of some creationists.
First, how can you justify the basic craziness of getting a bunch of clearly average believers together with professional scientists and think anything about the creation-evolution debate could be revealed this way? The "creationists" on the bus trip hardly know anything about creationism or the Bible either for all I can tell, or science of any sort.
Actually one of the them, Phil is the chairman of a creationist organization in Northern Ireland and has a Bachelor of Education degree from Stranmillis University College in Religious Studies. http://creation.com/phil-robinson
Clearly the whole point was to break through their belief with what they consider to be the enlightening truths of science.
No one is disputing that was one of the main purposes of the road trip, to see if they could present scientific evidence to creationists to see how they would react.
Which is the point of EvC too.
And what is wrong with that? Serious investigation of evidence, testing, discussion, deliberation, and peer review are the halmarks of scientific inquiry.
Nobody cracked a Bible that I noticed. Did I miss it?
I am sure that there were hours of video that are lying on the cutting room floor. Some of this discarded film, I imagine, showed people reading Bibles and the like.
Then there were the sad excuses for "science" that were used to "challenge" this poor sad lot of "creationists. I could hardly believe the silliness of the "experiment" the geologist did to "prove" that a Flood couldn't have cut the Grand Canyon. A bucket of water poured on a slight slope. Huh? I did a whole long post on this at my blog, but I don't feel like repeating it here yet.
I didn't really like the editing of the video, there were better examples of evidence for the evolution of the grand canyon they could have used. However, much of the evidence provided by the scientists was also left on the cutting room floor as alluded to by one of the scientists in the program, Dr. Don Prothero: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...tionist-road-trip
The film did a poor job showing much evidence for an old Earth and biological evolution in my opinion. The amount of evidence against a young Earth is astronomical and any 1 hr film exhibiting would not do it justice.
Oh and Jerry Coyne "challenged" them with the ridiculous idea of a whale being on the ark. Well, don't you see, it wouldn't fit, you couldn't HAVE a whale on the ark. Well, no you couldn't and they didn't. Sea creatures were not on the ark, why would they be? They had a planet covered with water to live in. Good grief.
I agree. I didn't really understand that line of reasoning either. However, how do you explain the extinction of dinosaurs.
And, what else. Oh yes, the dinosaurs. I never understood why it seems so improbable to some that humans could have occupied the same planet with these beasts.
There is no evidence at all that shows they lived at the same time. Dinosaurs and humans fossils have never ever been found in the same stata. No dinosaur bones are found above the Cretaceous—Paleogene (K—Pg) boundary, no human bones are found below. Radioactive dating indicates there are 60+ million years between the two. Also, dinosaur bones are are always petrified or fossil imprints (organic matter replaced by mineral) whereas human remains are very rarely petrified.
Remember, some of you guys said this video was, I think, "enlightening?" You need to get out more.
I felt it was enlightening to see how obstinant creationists are in their blind faith. However, being a former creationists, it was more "enlightening" to see how I once believed the creationist crap.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 11-13-2012 2:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:23 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 77 of 409 (679631)
11-14-2012 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
11-13-2012 11:32 AM


Re: One Day / Ananias and Sapphira
Yes, Percy, They would have GIVEN away things to the poor, but the unbelievers did not share in their temporary voluntary association of believers anly. There is no report that other churches ever did the same, though perhaps a few did, because again it was voluntary. It was not a recipe for state-run communism where everyone is forced to give and share.
And again, Ananias and Sapphira were not punished for selfishness but for lying to the Holy Spiri. They had control over their possessions as Peter said and could have given and kept back any portion they wanted, but they lied to make it look as if they'd given all when they'd held back some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 11-13-2012 11:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 11-15-2012 12:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 409 (679632)
11-14-2012 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Coyote
11-13-2012 11:45 AM


Re: Evolution is not science creationism does not bring knowledge
Coyote, I'm using "theory" as an explanation that has never been proved or disproved, which is the case with evolutionary theory. You claim there is evidence for it, I claim the evidence supports creationism as well or better than evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Coyote, posted 11-13-2012 11:45 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2012 12:54 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 79 of 409 (679634)
11-14-2012 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Coragyps
11-13-2012 8:54 AM


Re: Evolution is not science
Yes, Coragyps, geologists gave up on a young earth long before radiometric dating had come along, but they'd been deceived by Hutton's ridiculous subjective interpretation of Siccar Point and similar silly cogitations. Have you seen pictures of Siccar Point? Does it look like there's any difference between the degree of erosion/weathering of the upper strata versus the lower? But millions of years are claimed to have passed between the formation of the two. You guys are easily deluded. And I've given a perfectly reasonable explanation many times for how unconformities were created AFTER all the strata were laid down, which they were in the Flood.
Edited by Faith, : typos

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 11-13-2012 8:54 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 80 of 409 (679636)
11-14-2012 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Tangle
11-13-2012 7:45 AM


Re: Evolution is not science
Sorry, Tangle, there's really nothing in Geology as such that contradicts a young earth. That's all imposed on it when you get to the Geological Column, which is ridiculous. I don't know how you guys continue to look at such neat horizontal slabs of rock as in the Grand Canyon and think they could have been deposited over millions of years and remain so untouched by any kind of disturbance. The only disturbance that occurred was the cutting of the Canyon itself which obviously occurred after all the strata were in place. But apparently you guys are under a spell and can't see the reality for what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 11-13-2012 7:45 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Tangle, posted 11-15-2012 4:44 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 81 of 409 (679637)
11-15-2012 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Panda
11-13-2012 8:13 AM


Re: bottleneck
The bottleneck you have in mind, Panda, occurred about 4300 years ago at the Flood, not 6000 which was the Creation. And my answer to that challenge is that how a recent bottleneck shows up genetically today, with its drastic reduction to homozygosity for all the traits that define the breed, otherwise known as "fixed loci," isn't how it would look after the Flood bottleneck when there had to have been far greater genetic diversity, meaning far more heterozygosity, also a great many more functioning genes which have since become dead or junk DNA. The junk DNA is one piece of evidence for that great bottleneck, and I would assume that a great reduction in heterozygosity was also an effect although we wouldn't be able to prove that. If there was 98% heterozygosity before the Flood and only 20% afterward (I believe it's something loike 6% now if I recall correctly), that is a huge difference in genetic diversity as a result of the bottleneck that we wouldn't be able to see today because we are used to far less heterozygosity and regard it as normal. Now when there is a bottleneck it can so severely reduce the reduced heterozygosity that it threatens the wellbeing of the creature. That would not have been the case when there was so much greater genetic variability than there is today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Panda, posted 11-13-2012 8:13 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 11-15-2012 5:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 409 (679639)
11-15-2012 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by DevilsAdvocate
11-14-2012 6:58 PM


Re: Dinosaurs
Hello Devils Advocate, how do I explain the extinction of dinosaurs? Well, the great majority of them obviously died in the Flood, as can be seen in the many dinosaur beds where they're all jumbled together. Those that were saved on the ark must not have found a very congenial environment in the post-Flood earth and didn't survive long. Nevertheless there are stories of "dragons" that aren't too too long ago, that could be reports of the few survivors.
And since I believe the strata were all laid down in the Flood I believe all the creatures whose fossils are preserved in those strata lived together before the Flood and drowned in that event, which of course includes humans and dinosaurs and the whole rest of the fossil record. You impute a time period to the various strata so you think that the different creatures that are found in different strata lived in different eras from each other. Seems to me that if that were the case you should find practically the whole fossil record in various stages of evolution in each layer, since it's absurd to think there was a time CHARACTERIZED by the creatures that are found in particular layers, like a Dinosaur period. Truly absurd. There's a whole layer that spans thousands of miles in the Grand Canyon region which is packed with nautilus sea creatures and just about nothing else. Was that the Nautiloid era? I guess you guys are deluded enough to think so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-14-2012 6:58 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-15-2012 6:29 AM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 83 of 409 (679642)
11-15-2012 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
11-14-2012 11:48 PM


Re: Evolution is not science creationism does not bring knowledge
Coyote, I'm using "theory" as an explanation that has never been proved or disproved, which is the case with evolutionary theory.
If you are discussing science, it is necessary for you to use the terms as scientists use them. You don't get to make up your own definitions.
Go back and read the definitions again, with particular attention to "theory" and "proof."
Neither means the same to scientists as it does in the vernacular, or apparently, to you.
A theory is the highest level of confidence in science. There is no "proof" in science, as there is in mathematics and a few other narrow applications.
In other words we don't go from wild-ass guess to guess to hypothesis to theory to proof to law, or some other imagined order.
In spite of what creationists and other laymen might imagine, theory is the highest level of confidence.
And the theory of evolution is a better explanation for it's supporting data than the theory of gravity is for it's supporting data.
You claim there is evidence for it, I claim the evidence supports creationism as well or better than evolution.
You are talking apples and oranges. Evolution, as I'm sure you have been told repeatedly, is change in the genome over time. Creationism is how that genome came to be.
They are entirely different subjects!
The theory of evolution would work equally well if the origin was:

1) Natural,
2) The result of some "divine" creation,
3) Panspermia, coming from outer space,
4) Time travel, brought from the distant future, or
5) Something else.
Again, your imprecise thinking and definitions are making discussion of scientific matters unnecessarily difficult.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 11-14-2012 11:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:07 AM Coyote has not replied
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 2:27 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 409 (679646)
11-15-2012 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Coyote
11-15-2012 12:54 AM


Re: Evolution is not science creationism does not bring knowledge
I know how you guys weasel around about the word theory and I don't care. It doesn't matter if it's the highest you've got, it's still wrong, it still has no evidence that establishes it and that's the real reason it has to be called theory. it's all fantasy, I gave my definition and I'm off this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2012 12:54 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:32 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 4:49 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 409 (679648)
11-15-2012 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
11-15-2012 1:07 AM


Re: Evolution is not science creationism does not bring knowledge
OK my nerves are getting frayed so I'm taking another break. I'll try to deal with the last post more thoughtfully later. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 86 of 409 (679656)
11-15-2012 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
11-14-2012 11:58 PM


Re: Evolution is not science
Faith writes:
Sorry, Tangle, there's really nothing in Geology as such that contradicts a young earth.
The problem with this bold assertion is that the entirety ie ALL geologists disagree with you and have done for over a 100 years.
That's hundreds of thousands of professional geologists and millions of scholarly papers saying that you are wrong.
But that doesn't bother you at all does it. Faith's faith can not be shaken by mere facts.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 11-14-2012 11:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 87 of 409 (679657)
11-15-2012 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
11-15-2012 1:07 AM


Re: Evolution is not science creationism does not bring knowledge
I know how you guys weasel around about the word theory and I don't care. It doesn't matter if it's the highest you've got, it's still wrong, it still has no evidence that establishes it and that's the real reason it has to be called theory. it's all fantasy, I gave my definition and I'm off this thread.
Take your dumb lies with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 88 of 409 (679659)
11-15-2012 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Faith
11-15-2012 12:11 AM


Re: bottleneck
Faith writes:
The bottleneck you have in mind, Panda, occurred about 4300 years ago at the Flood, not 6000 which was the Creation. And my answer to that challenge is that how a recent bottleneck shows up genetically today, with its drastic reduction to homozygosity for all the traits that define the breed, otherwise known as "fixed loci," isn't how it would look after the Flood bottleneck when there had to have been far greater genetic diversity, meaning far more heterozygosity, also a great many more functioning genes which have since become dead or junk DNA... ...That would not have been the case when there was so much greater genetic variability than there is today.
So, according to you, removing 99.99% of the human population does not show up as a genetic bottleneck because you think there was massively more heterozygosity in the 8 people on the ark then in the 7 billion people that currently exist.
Faith writes:
If there was 98% heterozygosity before the Flood ...
We have DNA from people who lived more than 4300 years ago - and it doesn't show more heterozygosity.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:11 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:56 PM Panda has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 89 of 409 (679665)
11-15-2012 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
11-15-2012 12:23 AM


Re: Dinosaurs
Well, the great majority of them obviously died in the Flood, as can be seen in the many dinosaur beds where they're all jumbled together.
Yet there is an order in which these dinosaurs are found. You will not find Triassic and Jurassic dinosaurs in the same layers, just like you will not find human, horse or any modern mammel remains in the same strata as dinosaur remains.
And since I believe the strata were all laid down in the Flood I believe all the creatures whose fossils are preserved in those strata lived together before the Flood and drowned in that event, which of course includes humans and dinosaurs and the whole rest of the fossil record.
You can believe whatever you want, that does not make it factually correct.
You impute a time period to the various strata so you think that the different creatures that are found in different strata lived in different eras from each other.
How else do you have different strata with different types of sedamentary and metamorphic rock, limestone, shale, sandstone, mudstone, quartzite, shist, granite, etc. These types of rocks form by different geological processes, some of which would be impossible to explain by a 40 day worlwide cataclysmic flood.
Seems to me that if that were the case you should find practically the whole fossil record in various stages of evolution in each layer, since it's absurd to think there was a time CHARACTERIZED by the creatures that are found in particular layers,
Yes, because we find all animals on the Earth today living in all the same areas of the Earth as every other animal, fish on land, elephants in the water. Your reasoning is ridiculous.
There's a whole layer that spans thousands of miles in the Grand Canyon region which is packed with nautilus sea creatures and just about nothing else. Was that the Nautiloid era?
No, that would be the precambrian and cambrian, before the appearance of land animals.
I guess you guys are deluded enough to think so.
You guys? How about 99.999% of science your knucklehead. Who is deluding who?

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:51 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1419 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 90 of 409 (679694)
11-15-2012 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by nwr
11-09-2012 5:44 PM


Re: One Day
In most of the cases that I am aware of, the teachers union negotiated retirement benefits. They would have preferred a pay increase. They settled for retirement benefits, as a kind of delayed payment for their services.
At least here in New Hampshire, teachers are part of the New Hampshire Retirement System, and the benefits are what the state says they are. The teachers don't get to negotiate with the School Boards for that like they do for salaries (and other benefits).
Edited by Aware Wolf, : Added quote for context

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nwr, posted 11-09-2012 5:44 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024