|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dating Methods Controversy Discussion | |||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Here is a good article about radiometric dating. It is not only scientifically-sound, it is "from a Christian perspective".
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/Wiens.html Also, you do realize that the idea of a worldwide flood and that the Earth is young was rejected by Creationist scientists almost 200 years ago, well before Darwin's book. Rev. Adam Sedgwick, also a Geologist before science was professionalized, was a strong proponent of Flood geology, but had to change his views after seeing that the evidence in nature did not support this view.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood21.htm This modern religious movement to try to ascribe scientific merit to a Bible story is just that; a religious movement and it does not stand up to scientific inquiry. You are welcome to believe that a flood happened, of course, but just don't pretend that science supports it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
You should be aware that cutting and pasting information from another source without attribution is very strongly discouraged here.
I found what you had posted at Answers In Genesis. Here is the site address for everyone:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/213.asp#r9 In addition, I noticed that you left out a particularly interesting passage: "However, the critics (who in any case err by relying on the incomplete data of fallible scientists, rather than the infallible God who knows all data) leave out some vital information that sheds light on the origin of 'varves'." Why did you specifically exlcude this reference to the infallibility of God mixed with supposed scientific research? Also, the references are mostly to creationist publications, not peer-reviewed scientific work. Of the couple of scientific sources listed, one was only a meeting abstract, which is far, far from a published, peer-reviewed paper. The source material for this article is very weak.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Reality: Fossils are rare.
Reality: Fossilization occurs under unusual circumstances, which is why they are rare. Reality: The most common fossils found are of those animals which live in places subject to sudden burial, such as tidal areas. (Think Trilobite) Proposition: Worldwide flood caused all fossilization and the geologic layers as we see them today. Problem: Why don't we find billions and billions of fossils, especially land animals?IOW, why are fossils rare? Problem: Why are the fossils we have found overwhelmigly weighted towards those that were bottom-dwelling sea creatures? Problem: Why do we find fossil footprints in so many of the layers? Wouldn't the layers had to have been dried and compactd first? Problem: In the Grand Canyon, one can see *sucessive* upright forests preserved in the layers. Conclusion: As Creationist Geologists determined nearly 200 years ago, the Geologic record was not formed by a single catastrophic flood event, but by many small local events over a very, very long time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Are you telling me that you have, with an open, willing mind, studied Evolutionary Biology, Geology, Paleontology, and Physics, as well as the Bible, and then come to the conclusion that science is all bunk? No, you believe what you believe because of your faith, regardless of the evidence. I doubt that you have done much study of any science at all. (The non peer-reviewed stuff that the ICR and AIG puts out doesn't count.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: When you make claims about how natural events happened in the past, or happen now, you (almost without exception) simply state them as true without including any supporting peer-reviewed scientific evidence. By contrast, I often include references to the scientific literature in my posts, or sometimes a link for more information which lists credible references.
quote: I am not criticizing your person at all. I am criticizing the lack of references in your posts to any actual good research to support your claims . It's easy to rattle off a long list of "X happened because of A, B, and C" when you don't take the trouble to back up what you say with real references to the peer-reviewed literature. When A, B, and C are causes that are contrary to what the fields of Physics, Biology, Geology, and Paleontology have come up with, you need to provide some pretty extraordinary evidence.
quote: It means that you come at the problem with what you are "supposed" to find, and make up a story, no matter how outlandish or unrealistic or just simply wrong, to try to make the evidence fit your religious views.
quote: Scientific theories are based upon positive evidence, testable hypotheses and potential falsifications. Nobody simply makes stuff up to fit a theory. Making stuff up is very, very frowned upon in science. Science is EVIDENCE-BASED.
quote: ROTFL! How can you interpret evidence? You most likely haven't even been exposed to much of the evidence, particularly if you only hear of it filtered through the Bible folks. You gave a long "interpretation" of the evidence regarding pterosaurs and it was clear to me that you, forgive my bluntness, don't know the first thing about pterosaurs.
quote: OK, here's a few. Define "kind". If the various radiometric dating methods are all incorrect, how is it that they are all wrong in such a way that they are amazingly consistent with one another? Why do flowering plants, including whole forests of flowing trees in sucessive layers, appear very late in the fossil record, if a global flood sorted everything by density? If there was a global flood, then why do we find fossil footprints in every geologic layer?
quote: This is not an argument from authority. An argument from authority is one in which a famous or important person or institution is invoked to try to add credibility or power to an argument. For exapmle, alien abduction advocates boast that John Mack, also an alien abduction proponent, lends credability to their cause because he is a Harvard professor, instead of arguing the actual evidence for the abductions. The ToE revolutionized the life sciences and is one of the most important scientific advances ever made. None of Biology would make any sense at all without it. The Answers In Genesis site ignores much of the last 300 years of scientific advancement, so the source you often list is maintained the kind of people who want to set science back. Therefore, if you support AiG, you want to set us back, too.
quote: You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it in greater detail. How much college-level Biology, Geology, or Physics have you studied? What books by Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins have you read? (And I mean the whole book, not quotes) How about Origin of Species? To be honest, much of the stuff you write about science indicates to me that you haven't done much study of any of its disciplines.
quote: This silliness about 'the theory of uniformitarian evolution' is just Creationist-speak for science not invoking miracles. Tell me, how would inquiry be benefited by scientists being able to say "Godidit" every time they couldn't explain something? You like science as long as you can somehow use it to support your religious views.
quote: Look, what would falsify your interpretation of the Genesis account in the Christian Bible for you? Nothing, right? Then you have faith that it is true, regardless of the evidence. Simple.
quote: I am sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but a great deal of what you have been saying when you think you are talking about evidence is just a whole lot of unsupported ca-ca, or better yet, directly contradicted by the evidence. You have not made it clear to me that you have thought or studied very much about pterosaurs, for instance, because you said several wrong things about them previously. At the very least, you are terribly sloppy in the way you argue, as if anything you decide to make up about how you might think things could be, or would like them to be to fit your story better, will suffice. Also, you have quoted other authors work on several occasions without attribution, which I always view with suspicion. In general, you give the impression of somone unaquainted with how science is done and of the basics of Evolutionary Biology, Geology, Paleontology, and Physics, yet you feel perfectly comfortable criticizing the fields. I care not a single bit if people are Creationists. Just don't call your religion science. Any information counts as long as it is valid, untill I have another reason otherwize, I will say that you are trying so hard not to say that you are simply prejudice towards Creationism based on science, evidence, theories, etc. or not.[/B][/QUOTE] ------------------"Never trust something that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps it's brain"--Mr. Weasley
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024