Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 11:51 PM
70 online now:
Coyote, Jon, Modulous (AdminModulous), Tanypteryx, Theodoric, zaius137 (6 members, 64 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,102 Year: 24,943/28,606 Month: 2,244/1,786 Week: 459/647 Day: 64/79 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Religious Nature of Evolution, or Lack Thereof
JonF
Member
Posts: 2831
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 119 of 212 (111422)
05-29-2004 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by almeyda
05-29-2004 7:09 AM


More garbage
Almeyda, how about posting stuff in your own words rather than linking to long audio clips of lies? In an audio clip it's difficult to focus on specific issues and it's impossible to check references; I suspect that you like audio clips for exactly that reason.

As a side comment on your post in New Topics, I strongly suggest that your hour-long clip of Sarfati be disallowed. Sarfati's a worse liar than Ham or Wieland, and I've seen all he has to say on the subject; it's not worth one minute's attention, much less an hour. If you have something to say, say it.

Ham and Wieland either know nothing about how the Earth is dated or they are deliberately lying about it. They are useless as a source of information about the age of the Earth. They are recycling old and tired misrepresentations and spouting ignorant garbage.

I note a blatant lie right at the beginning: "the only way to measure elapsed time is to be there measuring it with a stopwatch; you can't scientifically measure anything older than your own lifetime". (That's not an exact quote, but it's close).

His claim that the "assumptions" of radiometric dating are unprovable is old news. It is sort of true in a strict interpretation, but you might as well say that by the same standard you can't prove that gravity exists. The "assumptions" of radiometric dating have been and continue to be checked and cross-checked and validated to a fare-thee-well.

They mention the "studies" in which creationists have managed to get obviously wrong dates for recent flows by not following standard procedures (that is, cheating). They do not mention the cases in which recent lava flows were correctly dated, such as Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years. By not telling you how the creationist studies were flawed and by not giving a realistic accont of the abilities of dating, they are lying by omission.

And, of course, they pull the standard creationist trick of ignoring isochron dating and concordia-discordia dating, (and the vast majority of dates measured today use one of these methods), in which the "assumptions" they list are relaxed or not used at all.

All in all, a total waste of time, and nothing there that I haven't seen a hundred times before, and nothing there that hasn't been discussed and debunked in this and many other forums. Dressing it up in an audio clip doesn't add anything; it's just much less interesting and useful thatn a written presentation with references.

If you really want to learn about radioisotope dating, see Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. Until you've read that and understood it (whether or not you agree with it) you have no business commenting on the age of the Earth and radioisotope dating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by almeyda, posted 05-29-2004 7:09 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2831
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 129 of 212 (111548)
05-30-2004 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by almeyda
05-30-2004 9:23 AM


Re: IRe: almeyda
But heres a quick link on Dr Humphreys book & its attacks from critics. (Not as relevant as i would want to show, but its something).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp

That's pretty funny. It remindds me of Nixon declaring vitory in Vietnam.

Of course, Humphrys' claims to have answered his critics, but he hasn't; he's just waffled and waved his arms. The fundamental (but far from the only) problem with his hypothesis is that it is contradicted by the eveidence and he jsut won't admit that. His refusal to engage Ross's criticisms in an appropriate forum is also telling. He insists on a formal debate, which is not how science is carried out. Science is carried out by written discussion with time for research and reflection.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by almeyda, posted 05-30-2004 9:23 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2831
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 137 of 212 (111769)
05-31-2004 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by almeyda
05-31-2004 7:38 AM


Re: IRe: almeyda
Evolution is accepted because it explains God away and the need of a deity.

Sorry, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Evolution is accepted because it is the best theory that fits the evidence.

People want God out the picture so they can then live the way they want to live.

Obviously not true, given the number of Christians who accept evolution.

This message has been edited by JonF, 05-31-2004 08:20 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by almeyda, posted 05-31-2004 7:38 AM almeyda has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2831
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 157 of 212 (113571)
06-08-2004 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by DarkStar
06-08-2004 1:46 AM


Re: Getting back on track now
ow many evolutionists in this forum are of the mind that a god, any god, guided creation through the process of evolution

I thinkl it's possible. It certainly can't be tested scientifically, it's a matter of faith.

[/qs] and does this in any way support the idea that evolution is a religion?[/qs]

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by DarkStar, posted 06-08-2004 1:46 AM DarkStar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by DarkStar, posted 06-08-2004 9:09 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014