|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
quote: Retro, I'm afraid this is a tissue-thin argument. You are trying to wring a drop of doubt out of a stone of evidence. My interpretation of the quote from the above textbook is that the biologists fully accept that evolution occurred and the matter of belief is in regard to the current taxanomical arrangements based on the current level of knowledge. However such taxanomical arrangements are tentative (as everything is in science to one degree or another) and could be revised if/when further evidence arises. Please prove that my interpretation is incorrect. I'm afraid that extensive reading by you will not convince you of the validity of the theory of evolution because you do not appear to be open to accepting the accuracy and validity of any evidence which is presented to you which might be inconsistent with your creationist beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, what wj has said is sort of provisionally correct. The split of organisms into families and so forth has gone through a long history. At one stage they were classed more on appearance than ancestry (hence the biblical bat called a bird), and through other methods over the centuries. The latest, called cladistics, is as wj said, and is rapidly becoming THE method of classifying organisms. Organisms are grouped together purely based on how closely they are related (ie., how long ago their most recent common ancestor lived). On this basis, we are closer to chimpanzees than we are to gorillas; but we are closer to gorillas than we are to orangs. In any case, Retro, the main thrust of wj's post was correct. Scientists 'believe' these things. Based upon evidence. You can 'believe' something based on faith, based upon wishful thinking, based upon nothing, based upon paranoia, based upon evidence...based upon almost anything. To say you 'believe' something is not to say anything about how accurate that belief is. You have certain beliefs based on your religious faith; scientists have beliefs (some of which conflict with yours) based upon evidence. Neither belief is inferior or superior because of their basis - they are inferior or superior based only upon which most closely corresponds with reality. As wj said, your argument (in the post referred to only, mind you) IS tissue-thin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: John Paul:It's been a while but here goes: 1)That is what science is for. Through science we should be able to make the determination schraf is asking for. If we had all the answers we wouldn't need science. 2)This question refers to YECs. The fact is the radiometric dates aren't always remakably consistent with each other. It is more likely that three different dating methods on one sample will yield three different "dates". 3) Who said "all the fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event"? Death occurred before the flood and continued after the flood. Also not everything that has lived and died has become fossilized and we haven't looked in every place for these fossils. What if what you seek is under the Antartic ice cap, well below the land surface? ------------------John Paul [This message has been edited by John Paul, 05-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Science doesn't use the word "kind", therefore science cannot define it. Creation "science" uses the word kind, so it therefore needs to define what it means and by what method and criterion different "kinds" are identified. Since Creation 'science' claims to be real science, then it must define it's terms, yet I have never been provided, nor have I ever been able to find, a sufficently firm and clear, non-Bible-based reasoning behind the criterion used to tell one 'kind' from another. The only conclusion that can be reached is that "kind" is a religious term, not a scientific one, despite Creationist's claim to the contrary.
quote: Right, like I mentioned above, the times that they are not consistent are well-understood and predicted. Even still, let's hypothetically say that they were incorrect 20% of the time. (In reality, it is only wrong a few percent of the time, but I'll give you this huge number just for argument's sake) How do you explain the other %80 of the time that all the dating methods corroborate each other remarkably well? So, since when do scientific methods have to be 100% perfect at all times for them to be reliable??
quote: Really? Please provide evidence of this rather fantastic claim!
quote: True Creation, for one. Anyone who says that the GC was formed by a Noachian flood, for others.
[QUOTE]Death occurred before the flood and continued after the flood. Also not everything that has lived and died has become fossilized and we haven't looked in every place for these fossils. What if what you seek is under the Antartic ice cap, well below the land surface?[/B][/QUOTE] You still have to explain the GC and the fossils that are known, and these do not indicate a worldwide flood event that happened a few thousand years ago. You also completely avoided my question. Why have we not found a SINGLE flowering plant fossil in the lower layers of the GC?? [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-24-2002] [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-24-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5679 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: How do you figure? This is demonstrably wrong ( http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm ). This is but one example, consistent dates are legion. However, with your sleight of hand this could be true. For example, we know that different systems have different closure temperatures. So let's say we date a granite with U-Pb, Ar-Ar on hornblende, Ar-Ar on biotite and Ar-Ar on K-spar. We will, indeed, get different dates. Is this a slap on the methods? Hardly! From diffusion experiments, we know that the closure temp of zircon is above 850 C, for hornblende is is ~500 C, for biotite ~350 C and K-spar contains a domain structure that has been investigated. Domains begin to close ~350 C and continue to close to the Ar-system down to 100 C (Meert et al., 2001; Gondwana Research; Meert et al., 2001 Tectonophysics contain examples and further references). There are two interesting points about these experimental and field results. The first is that we are able to document the cooling history of a pluton. Secondly, we can study the magnetic signature of the pluton (also temperature dependent) and obtain an age for the magnetization of the rocks. The correspondence between magnetization age and independently correlated magnetizations is excellent.
quote: JM: Well, a number of your creationist brethren have claimed this in the past and present! Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=16&t=1&p=22 Here's 4 methods, representing 187 samples dating K-T tektites to within ~1% Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
But the analog recording of an e-fish still spans the in the gap. Good luck
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
degreed Inactive Member |
Salute to Brad, of course, for illuminating that particular dark corner of our respective universes...
Schraf, what if most creationists with scientific backgrounds believed that the accepted dating forms worked perfectly, that fossils were laid down over millions of years, etc. What questions remain? Why would God put a beautiful physical framework in place, leave plenty of evidence for the age of the universe, and then rush it in 6,000 years? I realize that you are asking some of the same questions, but i'm not sure that yec will ever allow for real, objective debate. Of course, if we all read Hebrew, there might have never been yec's... But if God really did take the kind of time that we can measure cosmologically, then what other creationist questions do you have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Hmm. Maybe first you could explain what stripe of creationist you are. OEC? ID? How literally do you interpret Genesis/the Bible? What do you believe? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] You still have to explain the GC and the fossils that are known, and these do not indicate a worldwide flood event that happened a few thousand years ago. You also completely avoided my question. Why have we not found a SINGLE flowering plant fossil in the lower layers of the GC??B][/QUOTE] --Respectfully, concerning Shraf’s belaborings and Degreed’s response, both. --Flowering plants not existing beneath certain plate layers and the GC ... Perhaps MANY plate layers are pre-flood in most parts of the world (with and without fossil graveyards--that were due to catastrophes). Please enlighten me (us) on the significance of your questioning. Does it really ‘prove’ no recent global flood or no flood induced GC? --Does your flowering plant inference also rule-out oil being formed ‘post-flood’? (Again, forgive my lack of knowledge geology, I’m still studying much conflicting data) --Many evolutionists conclude catastrophic nearly global flood(s) have occurred without compromising their position. --The genesis flood, regardless of any scientific mechanism, for many YECs (like myself), did take place, indeed. The real mechanism was undoubtedly supernatural (similar to Sodom & Gommorha, the creation of Eden, the dispensations of the Bible, Christ’s death & resurrection, etc.). I’ve read YEC literature which gives scientific mechanisms (comets, tides, canopy breakdown, plate tectonics, and hosts of other explanations for the 40 days/nights of global deluge. Yet, I, too, believe it was supernaturally induced, not very explicable by scientific mechanisms. The number 40 is a ‘supernatural’ clue here. As a YEC I defy any biblical creationist who states this was not a ‘supernatural event, dispensation, and covenant (by God). Mechanisms are arbitrary here, if supernatural. Scientifically proving the ‘rain’ alone didit is nearly impossible. But that the deity didit must be inferred. --Degreed (and others), might you not scientifically consider?:Are there not variations of YECs and ToEs/ToMs (theory of mutation), besides the so-called ‘nave’ ones ? Consider: Humphrey’s theorizes ‘general relativistic’ time dilation at the ‘event horizon’ within universal gravitation. I myself follow a special-relativistic time dilation model (E=mc(^2)), or ‘increased gamma’, at the instant following the ‘big bang’. The latter model seems to account for extreme solar time dilation in numerous (radiometric) clocks. --Do not radiometric clocks perpetrate fraud to the unsuspecting public regarding the solar time intervals of the GC?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Pre flood sediments should contain plant fossils, not to mention mammals, trilobites, dinosaurs, all-extinct-organisms-with-extant-organisms etc. together. So, you still have a problem, regardless of whether you consider a "plate" pre-flood or not. Also, how did an entire sedimentary bed flip-flop over post-flood beds, & STILL manage to date younger to older from top to bottom?
quote: Evidence that ALL inundations were catastrophic, please.
quote: Why retreat to a Godidit position on the flood, but then try to use science to explain aspects of cosmology? What is a solar time dilation, & how does it affect radiometric clocks? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: --Because after what I perceive must have been a ‘supernatural’ flood (to be possible), there should be scientific evidence supporting such a flood afterwards. If science does not confirm the global flood, then no global flood took place. I search for the evidences of the flood because I am a scientist and physician (always questioning and testing nave statements of science, medicine, and reality) as well as believing in biblical proofs as God’s Word. When my biblical ‘faith’ is weak I rely on science and its methods to help my conscience, overall. The events of the cosmos (observed and/or inferred) are our present reality and must be dealt with scientifically and ethically, both.
quote: 1) Using E=mc^2 (special relativity): The instant(s) after the big bang, ‘gamma’ may have been high (i.e., significant relativistic dilation in time from earth’s perspective), due to a force of expansion at or near the speed of light especially near the periphery. This would cause solar time to be dilated relative to constricted radiometric clocks. Distant stars would only appear ‘light years’ away etc. Please, you may infer the math with regards to electromagnetic effects on atomic clocks relative to our solar clock. Molecules, essentially, may have become old by their own clocks in the instant(s) following the bang. (Note this is NOT Humphrey’s universal event horizon theory) 2) Interestingly, Barry Setterfield conveniently theorizes the speed of light has just now decelerated to a constant, which is ‘too coincidental’(which ToEs and YECs both reject). Yet, there may have been a higher speed of light at the beginning of the ‘big bang’ as well, perhaps infinite c. This would also invalidate atomic time as constricted relative to solar time. 3) The non-relativistic YEC would ultimately (in all conscience of science and math) say that God created it all apriori and ex-nihilo, with ‘matured’ observed molecular events manifesting a solar time dilation as well, and would thus be c/w Ch. 1 of Genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: schaf:Science doesn't use the word "kind", therefore science cannot define it. John Paul:I am sure there are plenty of words that science, at one time, did not use but it uses now. Do you think alternating current was used at the inception of science? What about the Tesla Coil? Did that exist when science was first conceived? The city of Troy was once thought to be a myth- guess what archaeology (a branch of science) turned up? schraf:Creation "science" uses the word kind, so it therefore needs to define what it means and by what method and criterion different "kinds" are identified. Since Creation 'science' claims to be real science, then it must define it's terms, yet I have never been provided, nor have I ever been able to find, a sufficently firm and clear, non-Bible-based reasoning behind the criterion used to tell one 'kind' from another. John Paul:Why does it have to be non-Bible-based? That doesn’t make any sense. The Bible is a collection of history and philosophy books. Archaeology uses history books why can’t Creationists? Also the field is relatively new and does not have the resources that evolutionists have, but there is literature out there. schraf:The only conclusion that can be reached is that "kind" is a religious term, not a scientific one, despite Creationist's claim to the contrary. John Paul:And I conclude that you are too clouded by your dogma to think objectively. quote: schraf:Right, like I mentioned above, the times that they are not consistent are well-understood and predicted. Even still, let's hypothetically say that they were incorrect 20% of the time. (In reality, it is only wrong a few percent of the time, but I'll give you this huge number just for argument's sake) How do you explain the other %80 of the time that all the dating methods corroborate each other remarkably well? So, since when do scientific methods have to be 100% perfect at all times for them to be reliable?? quote: schraf:Really? Please provide evidence of this rather fantastic claim! John Paul:What is fantastic about that claim? A meteorite called Allende:Pb-207/Pb-206 = 4.50 by Pb-207/U-235 = 5.57 by Pb-206/U-238 = 8.82 by Pb-208/T-232 = 10.4 by Sr-87/Sr-86 = 4.48 by Two agree. Three do not.
quote: schraf:True Creation, for one. Anyone who says that the GC was formed by a Noachian flood, for others. John Paul:As I have stated, death occurred before the flood so there is no reason to believe fossilization didn’t also occur before the flood. The formation of the GC has what to do with fossils? Couldn’t there be fossils in the ground and then the flood event shifted things around? quote: schraf:You still have to explain the GC and the fossils that are known, and these do not indicate a worldwide flood event that happened a few thousand years ago. John Paul:99% (or more) of the fossils we do know about do not support the ToE. What would I expect to see if there was a global flood? Millions of dead things buried in sediment all over the world. Guess what we see? I would also expect to see marine organisms on and in mountains. Guess what we see? schraf:You also completely avoided my question. Why have we not found a SINGLE flowering plant fossil in the lower layers of the GC?? John Paul:What part of not everything that has lived and died has become fossilized and we haven’t looked in every place for these fossils, don’t you understand? Trying to use the fossil record for anything other than studying the fossils it contains is only an exercise in speculation with no objective way to test that speculation. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
JP,
quote: Please explain how they do not support evolution, & explain how they support creation sciences world view.
quote: Yup, millions of dead things that are ordered in such a way that no creation scientist has ever explained. Mainstream geology & evolution do. So, JP, here’s the challenge, if creation science is exactly that, then it will make predictions that are borne out. Let’s see if it can, & it does. Please make a prediction of your flood model & how it relates to fossil occurrence in the GC. In doing so, please be sure to identify pre-flood sediments, so we can examine the fossils contained within them, & let us know where they are. You even have the advantage of knowing the nature of the fossil record w.r.t. the gc. You may wish to predict the appearances (& disappearances, where applicable) of prokaryotes, single celled eukaryotes, trilobites, any crustacea, angiosperms, gymnosperms, pteropsida (ferns), ammonites, humans, whales, plesiosaurs, birds, & pterosaurs, & see if those predictions are met by your hypothesis. Also, please fit the following transitional sequences into your catastrophic, rapid deposition model. Nothing controversial here, all representing genera & below, that creationists tell me are post flood baraminic radiations. Intraspecific. Taxonomic group. Age. Variant character. Source. Fusilinid-Lepidolina multiseptata Permian, Proculus diameter (Ozawa 1975) Foraminifera-Afrobolivina afra Cretaceous, Megalospheric proculus (Reyment 1982b) Bivalve-Nuculites planites Ordovician, Prescence of anterior fold (Bretsky & Bretsky 1976) Transpecific & Transgeneric. Coccolithiphorids-Chiasmolithus-Sullivania Paleocene, (Bralower & Parrow 1996) Trilobites-Six interspecies transition series Early/Middle Paleozoic, Mammals-Tetonius-Pseudotetonius Eocene, (Rose & Brown 1984) Lots more if you want them. [everything hereafter added by edit]Please use existing evidence, & not evidence you hope to find. After all, you wouldn't let me use the ol' I'm-sure-fossil-evidence-of-feather-developement-will-turn-up argument. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is not positive evidence for anything either, & as such cannot be used when making predictions. Although it is true we haven't seen everything in the gc, it does beg the question, where are the pre-cretaceous fossil angiosperms, when angiosperms are so common in the cretaceous & after. Anyhow, I'm sure problems such as this will be resolved in the flood scenario-fossil model that follows. Here's a hydrodynamic fossil sorting prediction to compare & contrast against, along with the rock types that we would expect to find them in. From top to bottom. GlacialFluviatile Dunes & Loess.Post flood Beach Deltaic Continental shelf deposits.Late flood.Laterally transported, mixed, terrestrial plant & animal fragments Turbidites, contourites.Largely unfossiliferous Flocculated clays, cherts, limestones..Tree trunks & stumps, planktonic unicellular monista, protista, graptolites. Noncolloidal claysPlant seeds & spores Silts.....Larger insects Fine sandstone...Small marine invertebrates Medium/coarse sandstoneLarge birds Conglomerates....Small vertebrates Basal breccia...Medium/large vertebrates Basal chaos....Reef & stromatolites fragments (Science & Earth History 1999, Arthur N Strahler, p373) Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 05-29-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4722 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Are Mark's innumerable example/models really conclusive of anything other than 'way out' speculation, i.e., supporting an uncanny theory of mutationals)? Do they beg the question of mutations without proving the mutations?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024