Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 166 (8186 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2014 5:23 PM
69 online now:
1.61803, Aurelia, Faith, frako, jar, Jon, PaulK, Tanypteryx (8 members, 61 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: sausan
Post Volume:
Total: 744,070 Year: 29,911/28,606 Month: 1,640/3,328 Week: 416/674 Day: 59/70 Hour: 2/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Christ making statements about Creation
Arphy
Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 61 of 83 (522977)
09-07-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by truthlover
09-06-2009 9:12 AM


Re: Evolution, Lewis, and MacDonald
You missed my point. You commented on C.S. Lewis, and you were suggesting that had he seen creation science, by which I now see you mean Henry Morris and friends.

This seems to be an incomplete sentence.
I was commenting on Lewis in return, NOT on creation science in general (at least in that comment). I was pointing out that Lewis would have had nothing to do with the type of Christianity creation science espouses, no matter what era he lived in.

ehh...How would you know this. This is pure speculation. Maybe you're right maybe you're wrong. There is no way of knowing this.
Well, take it that way if you want.

Yes, i will thank you. Obviously you don't don't like the implications.
The thing that restrains me is knowing Kenneth Miller's reaction to a meeting with Ken Ham. Ken Ham is not even trying to speak truth. He's just trying to defend Genesis, and he's really not very worried how ludicrous he has to be to do so. (Example, "What would a flood produce? Billions of death things all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things all over the earth?")

Haven't read/seen/heard this meeting so can't comment too much. However, Kenneth Miller is the poster boy for christians who believe in evolution, therfore I can see why Ken Ham would choose to attack his view of Genesis. To show the world that theistic evolutionists DO NOT take a biblical worldview. People may say they believe in God, do they also believe in God's word? Is God truthful? As a christian I believe it is important to trust God's word above man's.
"What would a flood produce? Billions of death [sic] things all over the earth. What do we find? Billions of dead things all over the earth?"
What is ludicrous about this statement?
They're desperate because they believe that their whole religion will collapse if they are wrong.

No, But the whole logic behind the redemption plan falls. You can still believe in Jesus although there is no real logical reason for doing so.
arguing with a young earth creationist is like arguing with a two-year-old.
So, in order to defend themselves they result to telling lies about others...I now know that's simply standard operating procedure for "creation science."

Wow, you really are very loving! Hmm...
So I brought it up and said it because you were saying that people don't believe in Christ because of evolution. Really, there's nothing true about that.

Now you are blatently lieing. You make an unsubstantiated claim. Firstly, there are many testimonies where evolution has been a major barrier (e.g.http://creation.com/sonias-testimony). 2nd, I have serious doubts about whether I would have stuck to christianity at times if it were not for creation science.
I know that in general Bible literalists don't care what the Bible says unless they already agree with it, but let me hope you may be an exception: Jesus said that his testimony to the world was the love and unity of his disciples (John 13:34-35; 17:20-23). Paul talked about a demonstration of the Spirit, power, love, and faith.
Now why would you take these verses literally? You have double standards.

The fact is, creation--which is evolved whether we like it or agree with it or not--still testifies to the heart the power and nature of God. Those who spend time outside of a city and in nature are still moved with a sense of awe toward the creator--even Charles Darwin, who doubted the existence of one.


That's because creation was as God said so. But anyway, talk to an athiestic evolutionist and they will scoff at you. When you say "wow, look at that amazing mountain, God is so good". The evo would just laugh and say "actually it is just a whole lot of rock that has undergone weathering, uplift, etc. all due to natural processes, there is nothing mystical about it."
or
"wow, look at that amazing animal, God is so good". The evo would just laugh and say "actually that animal is the way it is because natural forces acted upon it's ancestors so that it just happens to look like it does because it gives it a better survival chance, there's nothing mystical about that either."
Again you have got double standards. On the one hand you say that completely natural processes that have no need for a god, produced what we have today. And then you say that this speaks of a god. The logic doesn't work, it is just plain weird.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 9:12 AM truthlover has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 383 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 62 of 83 (522979)
09-07-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Arphy
09-07-2009 7:20 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Yes most geologists and biologists disagree with my position.

I'd hazard a guess and say "all".

Back then however these people that were critical of Uniformatrism or Darwinistic viewpoints had criticisms that were not answered, rather their voices were just drowned out.

No they weren't drowned out, all that has EVER been asked is that some proof and some scientific examinations of the facts come to the fore. Despite 150 years of IDiots and creationists telling us that evolution is a passing fad, it's only getting better.

arphy writes:

granny magda writes:

So in a nutshell, you think that scientists spend their days doing research, getting it completely wrong and not noticing? You think they spend all their time interpreting a philosophy? You think that you know better, despite your lack of expertise? When was the last time you were in a lab or on a field trip?

I wouldn't say completely wrong. However their extrapolations are often very fanciful.


You're an armchair quarterback, Arphy. Shame on you. Just why do you think you are capable of dismissing hundreds of thousands of people, working over hundreds of years, to build up a mass of information the like of which has never before been collected in one place in all of antiquity as "often very fanciful"?

You don't know the first thing about their work.

They also don't "spend all their time interpreting a philosophy". It's just that in many instances they will interpret evidence in the light of their worldview.

Quite the opposite. They have taken a look at the EVIDENCE and that has shaped their world-view.

Only IDiots, Creationists, YEC's, OEC's and that ilk decide on a world view and pervert or ignore the evidence.

Do you know why I can say that? Because creationism has had it's day. Faith alone has been the stake set in the ground to determine truth for over a thousand years and look where it got us? Precisely nowhere.

A thousand years of darkness versus a few hundred years of enlightenment. I think the progress in our understanding speaks for itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Arphy, posted 09-07-2009 7:20 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Arphy, posted 09-08-2009 6:40 AM greyseal has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 63 of 83 (522985)
09-07-2009 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by jaywill
09-06-2009 10:43 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Oh dear. I had hoped, in the face of previous experience to the contrary, that there was a possibility of a sensible dialogue with you. I can see now that I was over optimistic.

You know full well what the facts are; I have already presented them. Now if you dispute those facts, please, by all means, pull up a thread and dispute them. You will be, in effect, disputing the entirety of the geologic record, but feel free.

What I am not willing to do is play silly and childish games with you. You have had your facts. Now dispute them properly or withdraw gracefully.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by jaywill, posted 09-06-2009 10:43 PM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 64 of 83 (522987)
09-07-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Arphy
09-07-2009 7:20 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
No it wasn't a comprehensive list.

No, but why bother with lists anyway? As you are aware, there are only a vanishingly tiny handful of young Earth geologists out there. Science does not depend on appeals to authority, so I see little point in lists like yours.

Back then however these people that were critical of Uniformatrism or Darwinistic viewpoints had criticisms that were not answered, rather their voices were just drowned out.

Great. That's something we can get our teeth into. What concerns? When were they voiced and by who? What evidence can you present to show that they were in fact right?

This would make a great thread in itself, where we could discuss it to our hearts content, without being as off-topic as we are here.

I'm not pretending, that's the way I see it. You believe it isn't just an "interpretive philosophy" which isn't necessarily true either.

It's just that in many instances they will interpret evidence in the light of their worldview.

Great. Again, this is something we can get stuck into.

What evidence has been misinterpreted? How so? How was it affected by the researchers worldviews? What evidence do you have that contradicts the mainstream interpretation?

It is all very well saying "They misinterpret the data!". What you must do in order to be taken seriously is demonstrate to us exactly where these errors occur.

However their extrapolations are often very fanciful.

Fanciful;


Click to enlarge

Not Fanciful;


Click to enlarge

Joking aside, how much science experience do you have Arphy? Exactly how well placed do you think you are to sit in judgement over entire fields of study? Do you hold any expertise in geology at all? I kinda doubt it...

Nonetheless, you seem to imagine that you understand scientific pursuits about which you know nothing, better than those who have studied for years to gain a high degree of expertise and who actively engage with the science every day of their professional lives.

So you think that because we are not "the view of the masses" that therfore we are wrong. Sorry I just don't see the logic in that.

I'm not saying that, not exactly. But ask yourself this; what is more likely? That an entire profession of extremely intelligent and highly educated scientists is mistaken (and all with the same mistake) or that you, with your no-expertise-at-all are misinformed?

The truth is that you have no basis upon which to criticise something about which you know nothing.

Granny writes:

upon a sober analysis of the text, there is little reason to believe that the Old Testament history has any validity.

Arphy writes:

or so you have been told.

So I have demonstrated above. I have clearly shown that reality differs from what Genesis claims. If you have a valid objection to that, please go ahead and present it. If not, perhaps you might like to give some serious thought to the idea that your precious Bible might not as all-knowing as you were told.

In summary, I would encourage you to take some of your specific objections over scientific claims to the appropriate forum and start a thread to discuss them. Otherwise we are going to be reduced "Is not!"/"Is too!" style waffle. I would start a thread myself, but I'm going to be away over the next few days, looking for fossils. The fossils I'm after are around 37-40 million years old; perhaps you would like to dispute that!

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Arphy, posted 09-07-2009 7:20 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Arphy, posted 09-08-2009 7:13 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4442
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 65 of 83 (523064)
09-08-2009 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by hooah212002
09-02-2009 7:32 AM


Ofcourse, that sounds smart atleast.

In reality, what book are you talking about precisely? I certainly would not state that the Pharisees thought that a book that wasn't written, or "books" rather, would fit with "their" scriptures.

The bible was written over thousands of years. It would be a pre-hoc fallacy to state that Jesus was trying to prove his book when technically he died before there was such a book. That would mean that you actually believed in Christ's phrophetic abilities.

So we have to infact agree with all of those unstated assumption in your post. Such as christ being a character.

I guess it then becomes fair of me to propose that such a novel be written within one lifetime, as expected from all other tales? I expect it becomes fair for me to state that there must only be one author like with all other fairytales?

.........sure, your post sounded smart, I'll give you that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2009 7:32 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by hooah212002, posted 09-08-2009 7:17 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 66 of 83 (523067)
09-08-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by greyseal
09-07-2009 9:00 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism

I'd hazard a guess and say "all".

Well your guess is wrong.
Despite 150 years of IDiots and creationists telling us that evolution is a passing fad, it's only getting better.

Really? Well maybe in terms of popularity, but not in terms of evidence.
You're an armchair quarterback, Arphy. Shame on you. Just why do you think you are capable of dismissing hundreds of thousands of people, working over hundreds of years, to build up a mass of information the like of which has never before been collected in one place in all of antiquity as "often very fanciful"?
You don't know the first thing about their work.

Sure I don't know and understand everything, but neither do you. I do know enough however, to make an informed decision. Anyway it isn't just Me vs the rest of the world. There are others including many who are highly qualified who believe the same things that i do.
By "mass of information" I'm guessing you mean science in general. Not all science directly relates to evolution, in fact a lot of it doesn't.
Quite the opposite. They have taken a look at the EVIDENCE and that has shaped their world-view.

Or so debaters for evolution like to say.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by greyseal, posted 09-07-2009 9:00 AM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2009 3:34 PM Arphy has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 67 of 83 (523075)
09-08-2009 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Granny Magda
09-07-2009 10:47 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Science does not depend on appeals to authority, so I see little point in lists like yours.

great, so will this stop the "Look i've got more of PhD scientists than you, so you're wrong" game that evolutionists like to play.

This would make a great thread in itself

sure, if i find the time to do so.

It is all very well saying "They misinterpret the data!". What you must do in order to be taken seriously is demonstrate to us exactly where these errors occur.

Again, sure i might start a thread if i find the time. Although this subject (or at least some of the "errors") probably would have been covered many times on this forum already.
Joking aside, how much science experience do you have Arphy? Exactly how well placed do you think you are to sit in judgement over entire fields of study? Do you hold any expertise in geology at all? I kinda doubt it...

Officially my highest science achievement is taking a number of Physics and Maths papers at university. What about you?
Nonetheless, you seem to imagine that you understand scientific pursuits about which you know nothing, better than those who have studied for years to gain a high degree of expertise and who actively engage with the science every day of their professional lives

Well, as with my last post it isn't about Me vs the rest of the world. There are people "who have studied for years to gain a high degree of expertise and who actively engage with the science every day of their professional lives" who believe what I believe. And I feel i know enough to make an informed decision.
The truth is that you have no basis upon which to criticise something about which you know nothing.

just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I know nothing about the subject.
but I'm going to be away over the next few days, looking for fossils.

Have fun.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Granny Magda, posted 09-07-2009 10:47 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Granny Magda, posted 09-11-2009 7:45 PM Arphy has not yet responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 383 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 68 of 83 (523135)
09-08-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Arphy
09-08-2009 6:40 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
I'd hazard a guess and say "all".

Well your guess is wrong.

"reputable". bam!

Seriously though, ID is sincerely lacking in anything approaching serious scientific papers. The real heavyweight seems to be...the paper that got retracted because it was sneaked in the back door.

Despite 150 years of IDiots and creationists telling us that evolution is a passing fad, it's only getting better.

Really? Well maybe in terms of popularity, but not in terms of evidence.

yes, very much SO in terms of evidence.

prepare for link-spam:

humans:
http://archaeology.about.com/od/hominidancestors/World_History_Beginnings_Early_Hominid_Ancestors.htm

the horse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

archaeopteryx:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

tiktaalik:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

That's the evolution of man (a real cursory first-found-link, there are better and more detailed), the evolution of the horse and two "transitional fossils".

That's only scratching the surface.

And support for ID has...? Some arguments for incredulity and zip that hasn't been refuted. I'm sorry, but all I see from the creotards are the same drab arguments that have been refuted all of a hundred years or more ago. I'm hesitant to call them lies, but the willingness to NOT correct the mistakes (and I can find you examples of AiG and other such sites willingly ignoring corrections) makes me call them "lies".

a mass of information the like of which has never before been collected in one place in all of antiquity as "often very fanciful"?
You don't know the first thing about their work.

Sure I don't know and understand everything, but neither do you. I do know enough however, to make an informed decision.

Judging by your handwavium in ignoring the mass of evidence (it's quite possible you've been homeschooled and/or have only been to institutions that don't expose you to real facts - I really don't know) you don't know it's there.

If you don't know it's there, and how well it fits together and how powerfully compelling it is, you are NOT able to make an informed decision.

I'm sorry, but either you say there is a massive conspiracy that every single scientist is in on (and apparently willingly) or they really all do believe what they say.

I find it extremely unlikely that all those people, dedicated to explaining the facts in a consistent manner could either deceive or self-deceive on such a massive scale.

I do NOT find it extremely unlikely that people told stories from birth who do NOT see the facts for themselves believe something else without proof - why would they when they've been taught to believe that the only proof they need is the one book they have before them?

Anyway it isn't just Me vs the rest of the world. There are others including many who are highly qualified who believe the same things that i do.

From what I've seen, these are many people taught in diploma mills of no standing in the scientific community from which they purport to belong, or the people themselves get a doctorate in another wholly unrelated area "soft" enough to be agreeable to their beliefs, which they then piggy-back on and use as an argument from (false) authority.

"dr" dino - MISTER Kent Hovind - springs immediately to mind. The banana guys (a really BAD example - it was genetically engineered by humans) Kirk Cameron (an actor) and Ray Comfort (evangelist) don't seem to have any scientific training either. One of the highest-trained is Ken Ham...with a Bachelor's degree in "applied science". It's not really stellar. AiG at least are honest about their intentions and many have basic degrees...just not often very good ones and not in the areas they evangelize about (evolution, cosmology, paleontology, genetics...).

They also throw in the card of saying that they are NOT scientific in their endeavour - they believe prima facie in the truth of the bible! That's more than enough to dismiss the lot.

By "mass of information" I'm guessing you mean science in general. Not all science directly relates to evolution, in fact a lot of it doesn't.

It's like this - all the many myriad dating schemes agree where they have overlap. The science behind the dating schemes proves these schemes are efficient and accurate. These all prove the date of the Earth itself and the things found in it.

The things found in the Earth (fossils, rocks, etc) can be accurately dated. The things show change over time in a consistent manner. The theories about how this change occurs is called "natural selection" and "evolution".

the theory predicted a mechanism whereby positive (or at least non-negative) traits get passed down to the next and the next and the next generations, whereby this change would occur and species develop.

This mechanism is the genetic code and mutation (and nit-pickers, yes I know that's not the only factor!). The genetic code tells us a lot about how animals, plants, fungi and more are all put together - and how they are related.

A synthesis of ALL this evidence tells us not only how old the Earth is, but when all the creatures on it now or in the past appeared - and often when they died out.

We can measure the distance from the Earth to the moon, to the sun, to the planets. We can measure the distance to the furthest galaxies we can see, and figure out they're moving (accelerating even).

Using all that evidence, it backs up the ideas put forwards (with the evidence as proof) supporting the age of the Earth, the age of our sun, the age of our universe...

What you're saying is, that all that evidence is faked or the scientists are ALL wrong, continuously, that there's a better, simpler, fuller explanation.

Well, I'm all ears. You'll get a Nobel prize in every single category if you have the theory, backed up with evidence, peer-reviewed, that trumps all of that.

Quite the opposite. They have taken a look at the EVIDENCE and that has shaped their world-view.

Or so debaters for evolution like to say

Yup. I've just shown you a tiny, tiny piece.

You can't even refute THAT - you'll be too busy. I don't blame you - that's a LOT of evidence. That's what I mean - this endeavour the human race is on to explain it's own history and place in the universe has gotten far too big for one person or even one single theory to encompass.

The theory that "godidit" had better have some major balls to back up that claim - it really has to refute a hell of a lot of work by a hell of a lot of people. So far, it's failed utterly, except in the minds of people who (and no insult is meant here) do not know any better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Arphy, posted 09-08-2009 6:40 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Arphy, posted 09-09-2009 8:22 AM greyseal has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 69 of 83 (523198)
09-08-2009 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 6:14 AM


I guess I have to break it down Barney/Crayola style for you:

YOU use the babble to prove jeebus because the babble says so, thus proving the babble because it says jeebus is who he says he is, therefor, the babble is right.

Any other account of jeebus being more than a crazy drunkard? OTHER than the babble?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 6:14 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 70 of 83 (523269)
09-09-2009 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by greyseal
09-08-2009 3:34 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
"dr" dino - MISTER Kent Hovind - springs immediately to mind. The banana guys (a really BAD example - it was genetically engineered by humans) Kirk Cameron (an actor) and Ray Comfort (evangelist) don't seem to have any scientific training either

Well guess who's been watching Youtube videos ?
Seriously is this where you find out all your information on creationists? Please if you think that you know the creationist position do some reading from actual creationist websites (like http://creation.com http://www.icr.org/ http://www.trueorigin.org/) instead of just youtube.
prepare for link-spam:

Right back at ya. It is in laymans terms which will hopefully be a bit more challenging for you then youtube videos.
This is getting a bit off topic but here they are:
http://creation.com/tiktaalik-roseae-a-fishy-missing-link
http://creation.com/are-there-apemen-in-your-ancestry
http://creation.com/archaeopteryx-unlike-archaeoraptor-is-not-a-hoaxit-is-a-true-bird-not-a-missing-link (while mainly dismissing the "it's a hoax" idea, it also has good points why it isn't a transitional form. But then again Archaeoptreyx "missing link" claims are a bit old school, yip its in the textbooks but most scientists studying bird evolution have moved on.)
http://www.icr.org/article/mythical-horse-series/

but the willingness to NOT correct the mistakes (and I can find you examples of AiG and other such sites willingly ignoring corrections) makes me call them "lies".

Really? Please show me.
I'm sorry, but either you say there is a massive conspiracy that every single scientist is in on (and apparently willingly) or they really all do believe what they say.

No I don't think there is a direct conspiracy, evolutionists really do sincerly believe it (at least as far as I know).
I find it extremely unlikely that all those people, dedicated to explaining the facts in a consistent manner could either deceive or self-deceive on such a massive scale.

It isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened in human history.
From what I've seen, these are many people taught in diploma mills of no standing in the scientific community from which they purport to belong, or the people themselves get a doctorate in another wholly unrelated area "soft" enough to be agreeable to their beliefs, which they then piggy-back on and use as an argument from (false) authority.

Again, it shows your lack of understanding of creation scientists and what they believe here is a nice list if you find that sort of thing helpful
http://creation.com/creation-scientists
Using all that evidence, it backs up the ideas put forwards (with the evidence as proof) supporting the age of the Earth, the age of our sun, the age of our universe...

Again you have only looked into what evolutionists say. Please go read some articles at the websites already named above.
that all that evidence is faked

No. I/we don't dismiss any actual evidence (i.e.observations made by scientists).
the scientists are ALL wrong, continuously, that there's a better, simpler, fuller explanation.

Yip many scientists have got it seriously wrong, and yes there is a better, simpler, and fuller explanation, hence why i am a YEC.
Well, I'm all ears. You'll get a Nobel prize in every single category if you have the theory, backed up with evidence, peer-reviewed, that trumps all of that.

By this you probably mean "Show me another materialistic, naturalistic, explanation (i.e. something that excludes God and the Bible) and I might believe it."
So no I am not going to put such a theory out. You have already rejected YEC theory that is backed up with evidence, has peer-reviewed articles, and "trumps all of that".
Yup. I've just shown you a tiny, tiny piece.

Oh dear. I am not a little kid. Why,do you guys act as if we had only heard of evolution yesterday. I have spent many years being interested in this topic, I have heard all these arguments before, and guess what, they aren't convincing. Again first read some actual YEC literature before you dismiss us.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by greyseal, posted 09-08-2009 3:34 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by greyseal, posted 09-09-2009 1:31 PM Arphy has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 71 of 83 (523277)
09-09-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Arphy
09-06-2009 5:53 AM


Interpretations
I just have a problem with many interpretations of the finds that they make.

This would be an excellent topic in a new thread!

Very often people use this "interpretations" line to dismiss evidence but when asked to show an alternative interpretation they don't show up.

The alternative has to explain all the evidence, manage to be not self-contradictory and have logic connecting the observations with the conclusions. Perhaps you'll be the first to show such a thing.

No one else has. No one has been able to find it on the web and bring it here. I'd be very, very surprised it you manage.

If you can't do it then drop the interpretations dodge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 5:53 AM Arphy has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 383 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 72 of 83 (523319)
09-09-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Arphy
09-09-2009 8:22 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Well guess who's been watching Youtube videos ?

Yep, I saw the infamous "bananaman" video - and they couldn't have been more wrong about plantanes and bananas if they'd tried. Or do you disagree?

and yes, I think I do know the creationist viewpoint - god created the world over a certain amount of time, the YEC viewpoint is 6 days about 4004 BC.

icr, for example, says this:

quote:
Our Mission

ICR equips believers with evidence of the Bible's accuracy and authority through scientific research, educational programs, and media presentations, all conducted within a thoroughly biblical framework.



Get that? It says it provides believers with evidence of the bible's accuracy...within a...biblical framework

i.e. they presuppose the correctness of the bible! NOT scientific. By definition.

I'm glad you've pointed me to some alternate viewpoints though, but sadly they're lying about tiktaalik not being "transitional".

It has limb bones and joints somewhere between fish and tetrapods (including shoulder, elbow and wrist) and it has a prehensile neck. Of course, it also lived almost exclusively in the water and had a fish-like tail...

Archaeopteryx is NOT a bird - it has teeth, three fingers with a claw and a long bony tail. It's also not quite a classic dinosaur (it has feathers and other changes that are "bird-like"). It's also NOT a hoax, which they grudgingly agree with. Scientists have "moved on" because it is literally case closed for them. They're sure. With all their questions being answered, please account for them all some other way. The long bony tail (for example) is just flatout ignored by ICR.

If the one's not a fish and not a reptile (demonstrably true!), and the other not a bird and not a dinosaur (again, demonstrably true!), what are they?

And as for the treatment of Lucy and the rest of the hominids, icr should be ashamed because it's wrong almost from top to bottom. There are far more than just one example of Australopithecus Afarensis, WITH the jawbones and skulls intact perfectly fine (try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominina_fossils for a picture of a Lucy-type-hominid skull, intact).

The only thing they get right is that Piltdown man was a hoax - which the SCIENTIFIC community debunked fine all by itself. Nebraska man was never more than a fanciful idea which never HAD any real scientific basis.

The horse lineage fallacy you present is nothing short of made up from whole cloth - the horse is a really, really well-known lineage and the pitiful attempt to debunk it ignores all the evidence and fails to understand what it represents at the same time - they complain that horse evolution "looks more like a bush than a tree". Well DUH, it should!

You should try http://www.talkorigins.org/ for a debunking of every single one of your examples - specifically because creationists are trotting out the same, tired, debunked, useless arguments as if they are fact, which people like you who don't know any better are swallowing whole.

I HAVE looked at the evidence - both sides - and the falsehoods are so far universally on the side of the ID and creationist side. In my opinion, with ALL the examples you've given being debunked, it is not I who hasn't looked at the evidence. You might like to know that the author of the "mythical horse" webpage (which quotes no sources, describes no facts and is patently an opinion piece and nothing else) holds, apparently, a Ph.D in "geological engineering" (and I applaud him for that, so long as it's not a diploma mill he got it from). However, quite why he feels himself qualified and able to talk about paleontology, taxonomy and evolution is beyond me - he isn't.

As for creationist websites not fixing mistakes, the following link is amusing at least: http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=228253

of course, TO has this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html which is interesting, and many others.

whilst probably not what I read a while ago, this link: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html (go to "Gish Impaled on the Horns of a Dilemma") shows exactly how (some, at least) creationists often react when confronted with evidence they don't like.

You talk, too, about real bona-fide scientists who disbelieve in certain commonly-held truths - yes they exist, although many people on the list you showed are dead, or have been for a long time and would have grown up before evidence to the contrary existed. Many of these types of lists are also wrong and in places irrelevant. The fact still remains that the majority of scientists (by a large margin), especially those qualified to talk in their field, do NOT believe in the literal accounts in the bible (many of the ones that do are weakly deist rather than theist in any account).

No. I/we don't dismiss any actual evidence (i.e.observations made by scientists).

I'll just say "do to" and pretend we have an ad-nauseum to-and-fro on that one already, ok?

you probably mean "Show me another materialistic, naturalistic, explanation (i.e. something that excludes God and the Bible) and I might believe it."

So no I am not going to put such a theory out. You have already rejected YEC theory that is backed up with evidence, has peer-reviewed articles, and "trumps all of that".


No, I honestly haven't rejected it! I have just so far seen nothing to support it! Your "I'm taking my toys and going home" response does nothing to set me on the straight and narrow.

Prove it to me - show me the big letters in fifteen mile high granite that says "IT WAS ME - GOD" and I'll gladly believe you're right.

I have seen no evidence - there are no little tags on creatures saying "made in heaven, (c)yahweh", no problems with the fossil record, no problems with the evolution of the horse, the whale, humans, dinosaurs, birds, amphibians, mammals...

why do you creationists always insist that atheists and agnostics and the rest of us haven't read creationist literature? I have! I can't believe we've read the same text when you agree with it!

I just read the ones you pointed out, and they get archaeopteryx wrong, tiktaalik wrong, Lucy wrong, the horse wrong, and I believe I've just shown you WHY it's wrong as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Arphy, posted 09-09-2009 8:22 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Arphy, posted 09-11-2009 8:07 AM greyseal has responded

    
Arphy
Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 73 of 83 (523561)
09-11-2009 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by greyseal
09-09-2009 1:31 PM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Get that? It says it provides believers with evidence of the bible's accuracy...within a...biblical framework
i.e. they presuppose the correctness of the bible! NOT scientific. By definition.

And there is no evolutionary framework? This is like saying that darwin knew everything there ever was to know about evolution. Of course not! he set out a framework in which scientists refine and add more detail. So evolutionists seek to provide evidence for their framework. Creationists do the same.
Tiktaalik: So you think that the arguments made in the article aren't enough?
Archaeopteryx: There is a quote in the article by Dr Alan Feduccia, an expert saying Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But its not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that. This was also the conclusion reached at the International Archaeopteryx Conference in 1984.
hominids:
There are far more than just one example of Australopithecus Afarensis, WITH the jawbones and skulls intact perfectly fine

And where in the article did you get this from? They never made that claim, in fact they said that there ARE MORE Australopithecus Afarensis fossils.
they complain that horse evolution "looks more like a bush than a tree". Well DUH, it should!

Why?
the following link is amusing at least: http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?t=228253

What the? I can't be bothered reading that many pages of internet debate. I read the first page and the only time somebody made an argument against Creationsists was that an article had not mentioned animal trackways and raindrops which are actually evidence for rapid burial so supports the Flood.
Gish Impaled on the Horns of a Dilemma") shows exactly how (some, at least) creationists often react when confronted with evidence they don't like.

And did you read Gish's reply? While the article did get me a bit sceptical of Gish at first, I found his reply very good. The final remarks by Arthur I find much less convincing then her initial arguments.
The fact still remains that the majority of scientists (by a large margin), especially those qualified to talk in their field, do NOT believe in the literal accounts in the bible

true. But does this argument falsify the biblical account? No.
I have seen no evidence - there are no little tags on creatures saying "made in heaven, (c)yahweh",
There are also no tags on fossils saying "I'm X million years old"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by greyseal, posted 09-09-2009 1:31 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by greyseal, posted 09-11-2009 9:04 AM Arphy has responded

    
greyseal
Member (Idle past 383 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 74 of 83 (523566)
09-11-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Arphy
09-11-2009 8:07 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Arphy writes:

And there is no evolutionary framework? This is like saying that darwin knew everything there ever was to know about evolution.


You do realise what you're saying, don't you?

Who came up with the theory of natural selection? Of evolution itself? Who created the framework?

DARWIN.

Darwin DID know everything there was to know about evolution - when he created it.

I'll add that his theory has been improved and expanded far beyond his original idea to illustrate the fact that knowledge only increases.

bible literalists, however, will NEVER step outside their already-held beliefs.

Do you, yet, understand the difference?

Tiktaalik: So you think that the arguments made in the article aren't enough?

No, I dont. ICR are wrong.

Fish don't have wrists, elbows, shoulders and prehensile necks.

Tiktaalik did.

Tetrapods don't live and breathe underwater.

Tiktaalik did.

It is not fish. It is not tetrapod. It is transitional between the two. That is the very definition of the word.

There is a quote in the article by Dr Alan Feduccia, an expert saying Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But its not. It is a bird, a perching bird.

Then Dr Alan Feduccia is wrong, expert or not. Scientists, I hasten to add, disagree a lot - but they agree about much more.

Birds don't have teeth, claws (of that sort), OR a long bony tail.

Archaeopteryx does.

It is not a bird. These facts are not "technobabble", they are not excuses. They are not hoaxes. They are true, undeniable, authoritative facts.

If you're not happy with the methods that a creationist came up with to classify animals then I can't help you - you'll have to come up with something better.

as for why horse evolution should look like a bush, think about it for a second - if evolution were obviously continuously guided by the hand of god, there would be no mistakes. What we see, however, are evolutionary dead-ends. The horse species branches out in it's ancestry into different paths, and not all of them were successful.

That's why it's a bush.

It's not a straight line. It's not always successful. This sort of result is expected from natural selection and random mutation. That's what we see. That's a good indicator that evolution is what we think it is.

I'm sorry if you and ICR can't understand that - I'd tell you to research more but you've been telling me and anyone else who would listen how much you know better.

freeratio.org link - well it's amusing, but what the result of that is, is that creationists CANNOT point to a single article that is without major mistakes. Read into that what you will.

Gish: yes, I read this bit:

quote:
To this day, in spite of additional oral and written rebuttals by scientists over the years, Gish continues to claim during debates and lectures that Triceratops has no transitional ancestors and that proposed ancestors do not occur early enough in the fossil record. (Debates: Shermer, 1995; also see Gish, 1994). This falsehood is also repeated in several subsequent books (1985, 1990a, 1995).

What didn't you understand? We can go through it again slowly if you'd like.

Gish was shown he was wrong.
Gish ignored these facts.
Gish still talks about these facts that have been proven wrong to people who don't know better.
Gish is unwilling to admit his mistakes.
Gish is a liar.

There are also no tags on fossils saying "I'm X million years old"

So,the dating techniques (which all agree with each other, despite being based on totally different substances) don't equate to "tags".

And you said you didn't ignore evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Arphy, posted 09-11-2009 8:07 AM Arphy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Arphy, posted 09-11-2009 9:03 PM greyseal has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 75 of 83 (523665)
09-11-2009 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Arphy
09-08-2009 7:13 AM


Expertise and Opinion
Hi Arphy,

great, so will this stop the "Look i've got more of PhD scientists than you, so you're wrong" game that evolutionists like to play.

Let's be clear, the fact that over 99% of life scientists believe in evolution does not irrefutably demonstrate that evolution is true. But it is highly indicative. For the layman, this should be a wake up call. People with far greater expertise than you or I are sending out a very coherent message. What exactly do you think you have which trumps their expertise?

Although this subject (or at least some of the "errors") probably would have been covered many times on this forum already.

Yes, the usual creationist canards about "misinterpretation of evidence" and the like have been debunked here many times before. We're gluttons for punishment though. I would be interested to see an example of an alleged evolutionist misinterpretation.

Officially my highest science achievement is taking a number of Physics and Maths papers at university.

So in other words, you have no expertise in biology. How can you claim that this is anything other than a very poor basis upon which to stand against the weight of opinion of those with far greater expertise?

What about you?

I have no academic qualifications worth mentioning, but then I'm not the one who's claiming that 99% of scientists are wrong about their own field, whilst I am right.

Well, as with my last post it isn't about Me vs the rest of the world. There are people "who have studied for years to gain a high degree of expertise and who actively engage with the science every day of their professional lives" who believe what I believe. And I feel i know enough to make an informed decision.

But why decide to take the side of those particular scientists? Why side with the minority? After all, if the reasons why the creation minority are correct are so elusive that they have eluded the overwhelming majority of scientists , they must be pretty obscure. What makes you think that you have been able to divine the correct answer, when so many other, ostensibly better qualified people, have failed?

What makes you side with them? I think we all know the answer. It is what you and all the Ph.D. scientists you might like to cite have in common; religion. You have simply chosen to side with the scientists who conform to your own religious dogmas. Science, evidence, alleged misinterpretations, they have nothing to do with it.

just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I know nothing about the subject.

I absolutely agree. My opinion is unimportant.

What is important though is the consensus opinion of a large number of highly educated experts who speak with the weight of a huge body of knowledge. Such an opinion cannot be easily dismissed. I think that if you want to demonstrate that the basis upon which you dismiss it is sound, you need to actively demonstrate what knowledge you do have. I would be very interested to hear some of the specific issues you have with evolutionary science and where you think the experts have got it so wrong.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Arphy, posted 09-08-2009 7:13 AM Arphy has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014