Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uniformitarianism & Age of Creationists' Earth
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 10 of 54 (450139)
01-20-2008 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by obvious Child
01-18-2008 6:38 PM


Hi Obvious Child,
This is quite typical of the creationist attitude to scientific findings. If the findings can be made to look as though they support creationism, they are true. If they make creationism look bad, they're false, perhaps even a deliberate hoax.
Take the example of the fossilised hadrosaur found in 1999, apparently with soft tissues preserved. (for more detail, there is a discussion here in this thread.)
Before the find, scientific thought was that no soft tissue could be preserved for millions of years.
The hadrosaur find brought this into dispute, and scientists had to ask if they had been wrong about their theory. Perhaps soft tissues could survive.
The creationist response was peculiar, if predictable. If scientists said that no soft tissues could survive millions of years, then this find must be younger than millions of years old! It must be more recent. Of course, all that they have to base this on is the former opinion of the scientists that the tissues could not survive for millions of years. The fact that scientist were revising their theory meant nothing. It was a fact that soft tissues could not survive, thus the hadrosaur proves a young earth.
Creationists are dismissive of science only until it appears to serve their interests, or can be made to seem as though it does.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by obvious Child, posted 01-18-2008 6:38 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by obvious Child, posted 01-21-2008 5:13 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 22 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 8:22 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 24 of 54 (484329)
09-27-2008 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by b0ilingfrog
09-27-2008 8:22 PM


Hi b0ilingfrog, nice to have you on board.
It is not like evilutionist don't do precisely what you are accusing creationists in this case.
You might like to be more specific about what I am accusing people of. If you have a problem with some specific statement that I have made, please quote it, so that we can discuss things clearly. If you're not sure about how to format quotes, hit the "peek" button (next to the reply button) to see how I made these quote boxes. There is also lots of help here
Before the find "scientific" thought was expressed as fact that no soft tissue..yadda yadda. No problem we can just change the facts. Again.
I think that you are over-egging this. Before finds that suggested soft tissue (as I understand it, soft tissue fossils are still being examined and the findings are mostly pretty tentative), the expectation was that no soft tissue could fossilise. This was simply a theoretical expectation, not a fact.
The fact once was that no soft tissue fossils had been found.
Now the fact is that some fossils do seem to possess soft tissue.
What should science do about this state of affairs? Stick its head in the sand and defiantly shout "No! There is no such thing as a soft tissue fossil! It's impossible!"? Clearly not.
The proper thing to do is to examine all available evidence (i.e. observed facts) and re-assess theory to better explain those facts, along with all other known facts. Theory can and should change in response to new information.
What I am critical of is the creationist habit of cherry picking specific aspects of biological or geological science that have been superseded and clinging onto the old theory as though it were held as gospel by the scientific community, whilst simultaneously trying to present the new information as though it had falsified entire fields of scientific endeavour. This is dishonest and speaks of a lack of understanding of how science works.
Another reason why it would be difficult for "evilutionists" to treat creationist research in the way that creationists treat scientific research, is the extreme paucity of creationist research papers. How can scientists cherry pick creationist theories that have been falsified when creationists don't do proper research, don't publish their work in scientific journals and never seem to change their minds, even when their ideas have been refuted an thousand times?
So when the fact comes out you bet the creationists said whoopee.
Of course. Creationists will make great mileage out of anything that they think can be tortured into supporting their viewpoint. Proper science on the other hand, is neutral. It shouldn't matter what viewpoint the evidence supports, what is important is the strength of the evidence itself.
Science responds by saying sorry that's not a fact anymore.
Just you cite me one respectable scientific source making such a statement. Go on and try. You won't succeed. Know why? Because science isn't in the business of creating facts. Scientists create theories, theories that are held tentatively and are subject to change in the light of new evidence. That is entirely healthy. That is how science is supposed to work, as opposed to creationism, which just clings on to outdated falsified theories, just so long as they chime with the Bible.
I as a creationist only have a problem with interpretation or with it being stated as fact. I admit openly to being dismissive of that.
Well good, you should be. The problem here is that you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The idea that soft tissues could not fossilise was never considered a "fact". No-one here ever claimed that it was a fact and I doubt very much that you will be able to cite any scientist claiming that it was a fact. I wouldn't even go so far as to describe the idea as a theory (a high accolade in science). Let's call it an expectation, based upon theory and observation. It has now has doubt shed upon it. So what? That's how science works!
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-27-2008 8:22 PM b0ilingfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 5:32 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 26 of 54 (484350)
09-27-2008 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Coyote
09-27-2008 9:45 PM


Re: Soft tissues?
Hi Coyote,
Nice article. I never meant to give the impression that soft tissue bearing fossils were to be regarded as fact, but I do think that it is fair to say that recent discoveries have cast some doubt upon the previous view that no soft tissues would ever be found in fossils. The whole thing is a perfect study in how science and especially scientific tentativity are supposed to work.
I particularly like this quote, which gives an accurate view of how scientists approach their ideas;
quote:
"I believed that preserved soft tissues had been found, but I had to change my opinion," said Thomas Kaye, an associate researcher at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington. "You have to go where the science leads, and the science leads me to believe that this is bacterial biofilm."
Before the "soft tissue" findings, Kaye probably never thought that soft tissues would be found in fossils, but as the available evidence changed, he changed his views. Now, armed with better evidence, he has changed his views again. That is how things are supposed to work!
This is stark contrast to creationists, who are loathe to change any of their beliefs.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 9:45 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 09-27-2008 10:38 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2008 11:33 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 32 of 54 (484433)
09-28-2008 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by b0ilingfrog
09-28-2008 5:32 AM


Thanx Granny Magda
Can I just call you Granny?
Be my guest!
As to it being typical of creationist to embrace the same science they are lampooning to make a point. No different than evol ones quoting scripture. As far as I see it same intent same results.
Many evolution proponents quote scripture because many of them are Christians. They are every bit as sincere in their religious beliefs as you are in yours, it's just that their version of Christianity doesn't seek to deny reality by insisting upon a literal interpretation of Genesis.
I agree the "soft tissue" is only speculatory as far as I am concerned.
In fact soft tissue is not a fossil by definition (unless the definition of fossil has changed)
Agreed. "Fossils containing soft tissues" would probably be the best way to phrase it, if a genuine example were confirmed that is.
For the sake of argument if it really is soft tissue science could at least ask if maybe this specimen is not millions of years old and perhaps young enough to fit their concept of just how long soft tissue can remain "intact". A surprising number were all too willing to reconsider million year old soft tissue than a younger sample than previously accepted. Make any sense?
Good question. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that genuine soft tissues are found in a dinosaur fossil. We would then have two alternative explanations for this observation.
a) In rare cases, soft tissues can survive much longer than was previously thought.
b) Soft tissues can only persist for a short time and thus the dinosaur fossil is much, much younger than previously supposed.
The problem is that explanation b contradicts a great many other areas of scientific enquiry. It throws into doubt most of geology, all of palaeontology, all forms of dating and so on. That's fine, questioning orthodoxy is a good thing, but in these cases fields such as radiocarbon dating are based upon a wealth of evidence. This evidence takes the form of literally hundreds of thousands of observations, none of which contradict an old Earth.
Now, should we discard this wealth of observed evidence? Should we discard entire fields of scientific knowledge, based upon one observation? Or, should we simply discard the one simple mistaken idea that soft tissues can't survive millions of years? To me it seems like a no-brainer.
Again I do not think it was intact soft tissue anyway.
No, me neither. A pity, I must admit it's disappointing, we could have learned so much from preserved dinosaur soft tissues. As it happens though, we must follow the evidence where it leads and not where we wish it would lead.
But Yes the Scientific community most certainly does cherry pick. It made me mad when I found out but they do.
Well, I was talking about creationist propagandists cherry picking from scientific research that they barely understand. You wont find scientists cherry picking creationist research, because; a) there isn't much to pick from; and b) they don't need to.
Scientists are not interested in creationism. It is irrelevant at best, a minor irritant at worst. The teaching of creationism in schools is perhaps a more serious matter, but that is another topic.
Proper science is neutral. I agree with that. I am not wearing blinders I know how science works. I also know money ruined the scientific process as surely as it ruined pro sports.
As for peer reviewed scientific journals, ideas and claims not consistent with uniformity rarely survive the peer review process.
Money may be a big issue in, say, the pharmaceutical industry, but I think you are perhaps underestimating how much money is involved in evolutionary biology. I don't really think it is an issue here.
As for the peer review process being unfairly stacked against creationism, you need to actually submit papers before they can be peer reviewed, unfairly or otherwise. This rarely happens. Creationists seem largely uninterested in publishing their ideas in the proper manner, preferring instead to circumvent the usual scientific process and aim straight for the lay audience or the schools.
I strongly suspect that if someone such as Intelligent Design hero Michael Behe were to submit a paper to, say, Nature, they would jump at the chance to publish it. I'm sure they would relish the chance to point out his many blunders. Behe has wisely avoided this.
I rejected uniformity in the fifth grade.
Well, with respect, that sounds to me like the root of your problem. Fifth grade seems a little young to decide that one knows geology better than the worlds most eminent geologists, does it not?
These claims you say are refuted in these journals how are they refuted? I can tell you before I go look that 90% are "refuted" on the basis of uniformatarian criteria. It is not science, has never been proven and is supported exclusively on censorship. It is supported by allowing interpretations to be perceived as evidence.
I'm not sure what claims you are referring to here., but I will say that the basic assumption of uniformitarianism is that the basic laws of physics and their manifestations in the physical world were the same in the past as they are today. That seems entirely reasonable to me and if you disagree, it is up to you to point out evidence that physical laws or geological processes were formerly different. If you can't do this (and to date, no-one has) then there is no reason to suppose that physics was any different in the past to how it is today.
When I learned the Principle of Uniformity it was the doctrine of gradualism and I was taught that there were no global catastrophes like the flood. By the way global flood was specifically cited as the one example of catastrophes that violated the Principle of Uniformity.
Well you were taught wrong my friend. Either that or you simply misunderstood what was being said. I suggest that you read RAZD's post above, because he explains this very well.
Uniformity does not mean what you seem to think it does!
Now that only 8th grade graduates and not very many even of them sincerely believe in things like the flood and God there WAS a global catastrophe. Yup. Wiped out the dinosaurs.
But there's a big difference. There is evidence for the Yucatan impact. There's a bloody great big crater for a start. Furthermore, there is a debris layer, known as the K-T boundary. I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read up on it.
The Flood on the other hand, is not supported by evidence. In fact, the evidence contradicts it.
It is the methods used to suppress anything that might remotely infer there is any validity to bible.
I'm sorry, but there is no such conspiracy, except in the minds of creationists, who would rather imagine themselves to be a persecuted minority, than accept that their cherished beliefs might actually be in error.
I actually have a problem with interpretation being deceptively presented as fact even more than when it is expressly stated as such.
Care to provide an example?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 5:32 AM b0ilingfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 5:37 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 44 of 54 (484500)
09-29-2008 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by AnswersInGenitals
09-28-2008 7:32 PM


Re: Insects in amber?
Hi AnswersInGenitals,
If you can get hold of it, a BBC nature documentary called The Amber Time machine, by David Attenborough, is worth a look. Having just watched it, I have a few answers for you.
Soft tissues are very much preserved in amber, depending on what you mean by preserved. They're there, but in very bad shape. Using an electron microscope however, researchers have been able to observe individual cells and even the nuclei of those cells.
There have been numerous attempts to extract DNA from amber fossils, mostly involving termites and small bees, etc. The scientists were initially astounded and delighted to find fragments of apparently ancient DNA, but with further study, most of them are now convinced that the positive results were false positives, caused by contamination. A few remain optimistic that DNA fragments will still be found.
There have been chordates found in amber, including small lizards, anoles and geckos. There has even been a tadpole found! It is believed to have come from a small pool in a tree top bromeliad. This is supported by the incredibly fortuitous presence of an small frog egg in the same piece of amber. Some modern poison dart frogs lay these infertile eggs to provide their offspring with food as they develop in the bromeliad pools. Presumably, the bromeliad that this particular tadpole was in took a tumble and the little fella ended up stuck to a tree!
Here is a lizard in amber. I think this is genuine...
From here.
Hope this helps.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : I found a nicer picture
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 09-28-2008 7:32 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 46 of 54 (484504)
09-29-2008 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by b0ilingfrog
09-28-2008 5:37 PM


Like it or Not, The Earth is Old
b0ilingfrog,
Guilty, at this point I am YEC and do stick to as literal interpretation of Genesis as I can.
In my opinion, that is a mistake. The original authors of Genesis may or may not have intended it to be taken literally. Whatever the original intent, it becomes ever clearer that Genesis is not literally true. It just contradicts observed reality on too many counts.
Wealth of evidence is still there it is how we choose to interpret the evidence.
This is a familiar creationist refrain. When challenged to provide examples of alternative interpretations though, creationists tend to provide only misinterpretations.
The evidence for an old Earth comes from many different disciplines and is based upon many different methods. They all agree on an old Earth and constant physical laws.
I admit there are lots of things I do not understand about science.
Join the club! I admit to it too. There is a lot to learn and no-one could possibly know it all. That is one of the charms of science; there is always something new to learn. It's also a good reason to listen to what those who know far more than us have to say about the age of the Earth. Experts from multiple fields are near unanimous on an old Earth, with the tiny minority of dissenters objecting on primarily religious grounds.
Anyhow, Uniformity is as yet assumed and not repeatable so it really is a matter of choice. From your perspective I make the wrong choice.
It is not a matter of choice. Perhaps it would be if the evidence was 50/50 or inconclusive, but this is not the case. Geology supports an old Earth. The various forms of radiometric dating agree on an old Earth, as do dendrochronology and ice core samples.
All the available evidence points in one direction. Choosing to take the opposing view is rather bullheaded, which explains why the only people to take this view do so out of religious dogma.
The recent research on sedimentology and stratigraphy?
What research?
On conspiracy, it is more logical to assume there is one even when there is not, than to assume there isn't one.
Are you kidding? Following that logic will lead you down all sorts of crazy paths. Does that apply to 9/11 conspiracies? The moon landing?
Evidence that conflicts with the accepted model is stamped anomalous and and ignored. We all tend to believe that such anomalies are rare.
There may not be smoke filled rooms of evol ones plotting to suppress evidence and may never have been. The funding goes to maintaining the status quo. Money is the issue everywhere.
Would you care to provide some examples of creationist research being unfairly treated?
As far as money goes, creationist organisations are not short of cash. If they are determined to get creationism taken seriously as science, let them fund some research. Perhaps they could spend a little more on science instead of use donations from the faithful to build mega-churches.
Take your pick on being taught wrong or not paying attention in class or I am lying. Like I said I never claimed I was any good at being Christian.
I do not believe you are lying. You strike me as very honest. Also, I am no expert on Christianity, but it is my understanding that you are not required to be "good at it". All you're required to do is lead a decent life.
Read what Lyell had to say about it. That is as close as I can get to proving what I and my classmates were taught.
Lyell died over a century ago. Geology has moved on quite a bit since his day. It is now known that the early Earth was very different to what we see today, although it was still governed by the same basic laws of physics. Nonetheless, Lyell never ruled out catastrophic events. His uniformitarianism was simply a belief that most of the processes that formed the Earth's geology were the same as those we see in action today. It is an idea that has been largely vindicated.
I restate that the evidence is the same I choose to question the manner in which it is interpreted. The millions of years paradigm was built on the assumption of uniformity as defined by Lyell. Even if it was correct it was not science.
Answer me this; if we are not to assume that physical processes in the past were the same as (or similar to) today, what are we to believe?
If physical processes were different, they must have differed in a specific way. In what way were they different and how would we know?
Unless we can point to specific evidence that a specific physical process differed in a specific way, why would we assume that the geology of the past was any different to today?
Feel free to take as long as you like in replying. I'm not going anywhere. Please try to put some blank lines between the paragraphs though. I think Adminnemooseus is starting to get a little vexed...
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by b0ilingfrog, posted 09-28-2008 5:37 PM b0ilingfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024