|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why creation "science" isn't science | ||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I meant that for you...as far as i'm concerned,the Noachian world wide flood never happened so it cant have any cause. And this
will be my position until someone presents me with undeniable proof that it did...and by that I mean proof than can only be explained by a world wide flood." --The first thing I would say is, proof, you will not find, evidence you will find, evidence that can only be explained by a world wide flood is plausable, as I have found throughout the ToE its always a matter of it could have happend this way too. Give me a specific aspect for the Flood to explain and I will attempt an explination. -------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
I'll give you three.
1- There are trees which have been identidied as being about 8000 years old through their rings. If there had been a world wide flood 4450 years ago,then the oldest living tree could only by 4449 years old. 2- The some glacier formation in the poles have been identified as being nearly 40 000 years in age. That kinda messes up the entire biblical time table,including the flood. 3- There are civilisations,such as the Egyptians,the Babylonian/Sumerians,the Mayans and the Chinese which presents us with compelling historical evidence that their beginings date back AT LEAST well before 3000 BC...with no mention of any world wide flood in their historical records...which would mean that either the flood occured WELL BEFORE 2455 BC or it didn't happen at all. In fact,the Mayan calender represents very precisely that in 2012,we we be at the end of a mayan cycle...which lasts 26 000 years! [This message has been edited by LudvanB, 01-27-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I'll give you three."
--Great "1- There are trees which have been identidied as being about 8000 years old through their rings. If there had been a world wide flood 4450 years ago,then the oldest living tree could only by 4449 years old."--I have encountered this problem before, I wrote this short article a couple months back using many quotes. quote: "2- The some glacier formation in the poles have been identified as being nearly 40 000 years in age. That kinda messes up the entire biblical time table,including the flood."--I agree, this would mess it up, so to start, how did they date these glacier formations anyway? "There are civilisations,such as the Egyptians,the Babylonian/Sumerians,the Mayans and the Chinese which presents us with compelling historical evidence that their beginings date back AT LEAST well before 3000 BC...with no mention of any world wide flood in their historical records...which would mean that either the flood occured WELL BEFORE 2455 BC or it didn't happen at all. In fact,the Mayan calender represents very precisely that in 2012,we we be at the end of a mayan cycle...which lasts 26 000 years!"--Mind if I can see this evidence? And possibly a reference to how they depict the relevance of the Mayan callender? ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Umm, TC? Why do you go to such lengths regarding carbon dating when the example Ludvan gave you has nothing to do with it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Umm, TC? Why do you go to such lengths regarding carbon dating when the example Ludvan gave you has nothing to do with it?"
--Well really, I didn't go to much of a lenth, it was a disk, a click, and a copy paste away, with ofcourse a quick refinition of the material. Besides---> 'Claimed older tree ring chronologies are dependent on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon14 dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.' -------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
The tree ring argument is considered to be valid by most scientists. Thas all i can say about it. The age of the glaciers were mesured by the amount of layers that form them. As for the ancient civilisations,they all have historical records that goes back 3000 BC and since the Mayan cycle will end in 2012 and is 26000 long. so it stands to reason that this cycle began 25992 years ago...well before the stated date for the creation of earth according to the book of Genesis. And there is good reason to believe this to be accurate,since the mayan calender is the most precise calender know to man..even more precise than the ones we use today,which are given a 1-5% error margin by historians. No historian has been able so far to find ANY fault with the mayan calender. I'm not saying that this automaticaly means that the Bible is wrong mind you but there is strong evidence to suggest that it is.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"The tree ring argument is considered to be valid by most scientists. Thas all i can say about it."
--So we withdraw Dendrochronological argument, once again this is the strenght of science, not its weakness, and doesn't give a fatal blow to any theory, though it is evident for the Dating of the Flood. "The age of the glaciers were mesured by the amount of layers that form them."--I understand what you are getting at now, well actually these aren't annual layers, I'm not sure whether they are seasonal/ cold,warm,cold,warm or whatnot of them, but I think cold/warm,cold/warm is a good one. There was a plane that went down called the 'lost squadron' in I believe in the 1940 in Greenland. When they went there to go get it, they found it was burried in hundreds of feet of ice, and when they went down there to get it they found numerous of these 'annual' ice layers, many hundreds of them, so they cannot be annual layers, I always wondered why they never tested this, ie plant some sort of device in the ice and come back a couple years later or something of that nature. "As for the ancient civilisations,they all have historical records that goes back 3000 BC and since the Mayan cycle will end in 2012 and is 26000 long. so it stands to reason that this cycle began 25992 years ago...well before the stated date for the creation of earth according to the book of Genesis."--I even remember reading of these records in my World History class, pretty much the same thing you are telling me now, though they never discussed these historical records accept that they go back to these dates or how they dated them. "And there is good reason to believe this to be accurate,since the mayan calender is the most precise calender know to man..even more precise than the ones we use today,which are given a 1-5% error margin by historians. No historian has been able so far to find ANY fault with the mayan calender."--What is this mayan calender? Is there a good article on it somewhere or a place it is discussed? I always get this and always wonder how they know that it shows events that took place in these times. "I'm not saying that this automaticaly means that the Bible is wrong mind you but there is strong evidence to suggest that it is."--I have yet to find it. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/maya.htm
here a short article about the end of the mayan calender.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"here a short article about the end of the mayan calender."
--I read it, its great and all, but it does not at all answr my question. My question is how do we know that say the mayans began 3115 BC is it by oral tradition? Historical documents? Radiometric Dating? What is it? They even themselves make reference to my question but never discuss how they got this date: quote: ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
We know that according to Mayan writings,their calender lasts for 26000 years,divided into 5 cycles of equal lengh. From that,we can only infer that there is a reason why the mayan Calender is build that way and the obvious logical conclusion is that it began 25990 years ago. And if in fact it did begin 25990 years ago,then the world is at least 25990 years old and not merely 6000 like the Bible says. Of course,it could be that the Mayan just picked that number out of the clear blue sky for some obscure reason but the fact that their calender is otherwise incredibly precise does lend some credence to their claims.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"We know that according to Mayan writings,their calender lasts for 26000 years,divided into 5 cycles of equal lengh. From that,we can only infer that there is a reason why the mayan Calender is build that way and the obvious logical conclusion is that it began 25990 years ago."
--Seems logical, though incorrect if you look at what it is based on such as is evident by this very quote in the link you gave me: quote: "And if in fact it did begin 25990 years ago,then the world is at least 25990 years old and not merely 6000 like the Bible says."--Not the best conclusion to lean towards. "Of course,it could be that the Mayan just picked that number out of the clear blue sky for some obscure reason but the fact that their calender is otherwise incredibly precise does lend some credence to their claims."--So far, I can agree, their callender is quite amazing, though it does not at all seem to be based on a 'number out of the clear blue sky for some obscure reason'. ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-27-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RetroCrono Inactive Member |
I haven't read through this whole topic but anyway, here's my two cents.
My grade 8 science teacher told me that science is the study of everything. This is the best definition I've ever had of science. However, when taking part in science, this, as you all probably know do. You conceive a hypothesis (it doesn't have to be testable, the big bang is not testable, only on computer screens where by the results are designed, not tested. This isn't a real big bang!) You then get evidence to support your hypothesis then it becomes a theory. Simple! If the evidence contradicts the theory, get a new hypothesis. Creationist propose the Bible as there hypothesis, they then go out and gain evidence to make it a valid theory. Creation and ToE are the two best theories, if you dissaprove of one, jump ship and take on the other theory. Don't sit back and claim one of them isn't science. I don't see how creation isn't science. It follows the best definition I've ever been given of science and also abides with the workings of a scientific model. What is so hard to undertand? Everything in science starts of with a belief, no matter how straight forward (such as gravity) it seems, it is still just a belief.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
TrueCreation, Retrochrono:
Since cobra hasn't seen fit to respond, I hereby challenge either of you to provide an operationalized theory of Creationism. I refer you to my post #154 in this thread. In that post I provided a succinct, operational definition and explanation for evolution. The explanation provides falsifiable statements, testable hypotheses, a mechanism, even a graphic representation. It also provides a basis for developing predictions. If Creationism can not approach this level of debate, then your contention that it is "scientific" is specious. In other words, time to "put up or shut up".
|
||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Variation is not the same as speciation. "Variation" is the word biologists use to describe the differences between individuals, not species. You cannot use them interchangeably, because they mean different things.
quote: No, wrong, incorrect. There are MANY, MANY, MANY things which are considered fact in science which have never been directly observed. I have already pointed these out to you, but you seen to want to ignore them, so I'll try again Some are: We have never directly observed electrons, yet their existence is considered fact.We have never directly obseved black holes, yet their existence is considered fact. We have never directly observed the structure of a water molecule, yet it is considered a fact that the molecular structure is H2O. We have never directly observed the center of the Earth, yet it is considered a fact that it is hot. Etcetera.
quote: All science is inference. See above. What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution. Be specific. Also, can you explain to me how to tell one "kind" from another?
quote: Did Copernicus directly observe a heliocentric solar system, or was he just fooling himself?
quote: Huh? My point was that you are claiming that we have to be able to DIRECTLY observe a phenomena to consider it a fact, and I provided an example which clearly shows this notion to be wrong.
quote: Uh, remember our discussion about Kent Hovind, and the whacked-out ideas he has? Let's not forget that he got his "PhD" from a diplomamill housed in a suburban split-level. Here's some other nifty things creationists have done to make themselves look silly, or worse; dishonest:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html quote: No, I mean YEC; the idea that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that everything was specially-created by God, Noah's Flood etc. etc. The idea that the Earth was 6-10K years old was rejected about 200 years ago, by Creationists, BTW, Before Origin of Species was published.
quote: I think, as others have said to you, that you don't even know enoug about what you have already rejected to know what it is you are talking about. This is clear. Did I read somewhere on this forum that you are a teenager?
quote: OK, now try hard to understand here. If we did not develop bias TOWARDS the evidence, then we could never make any conclusions AT ALL. You are using only the common, perjorative definition of "bias", and you are not making any effort to learn that there are other definitions, even though it has been explained several times. Here is an example: When I woke up this morning, the sun had risen. In fact, the sun has risen every single morning for as long as I can remember, and as long as any human can remember. Therefore, I am BIASED towards the idea that it will rise again tomorrow morning. There is nothing BAD about having this bias. In fact, it would be silly and rather stupid to not hold it; to wonder, every night, if the sun would rise the next morning. We ALL have lots of biases which are perfectly logical and based upon past experience. This is also what science does. In contrast, I am biased AGAINST the idea that the moon is made of cheese. If someone proposed that idea to me, I would be likely to dismiss it out of hand. It is not BAD that I hold this bias against this notion. I reject an unlikely or unsupported idea in favor of a well-supported and logical idea; that the moon is rocky. Get it now?
quote: This is irrelevant, and was my point the first time. Like I have said over and over again, if the ToE was found to be completely falsified tomorrow, it doesn not mean that Creationism is correct. A true scientific theory does not live or die by the life or death of a different theory. What you are proposing is replacing a falsified scientific theory with an unscientific religious notion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: *sigh* Look, I have just explained to you all about the process of peer-review. It can't be scientific peer review because Creationism isn't scientific. And please, do not go off now about how I can't use the ICR or CRS as examples of what Creation "science" is. If you are willing to say that they are doing scientific peer-review journals, then you should accept them as defining what Creation "science" is. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-29-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024