Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 226 of 336 (501484)
03-06-2009 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Coragyps
03-06-2009 12:21 PM


You seem mad
Why is that?
I think I have done a fairly good job at trying to express how it is that creation science is a scientific study of the evidence just as evolution is..I mean, at least to the degree that it is possible, anyway.
You seem unnerved by the possibility that creation could have a leg to stand on. Is that because it might then give some credence to Scripture for those of us who have faith in God? I only ask this because most Catholics do not want to accept Scripture as the authority of God. Would this shake things up for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Coragyps, posted 03-06-2009 12:21 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 12:37 PM Kelly has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 227 of 336 (501485)
03-06-2009 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:25 PM


Re: The predictions have been made.
The evidence confirms the creation model better than the evolution model. Most known facts that confirm the creation model were made long before Darwin, and by creation scientists.
But still you give no examples, not one case of a prediction made by creationists and then later confirmed; instead you present an irrelevant list of past scientists.
As far as is known, the scientists of the past listed below believed in a literal Genesis unless indicated with an asterisk. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution.
Ah, clairvoyant scientists! (You realise most of the people in that list died before The Origin of Species was published?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:25 PM Kelly has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 336 (501486)
03-06-2009 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:32 PM


Re: You seem mad
I think I have done a fairly good job at trying to express how it is that creation science is a scientific study of the evidence just as evolution is
The thing is, you haven't done that at all!
To do that you owuld have to outline the theory, the evidence that supports it and the predictions it makes. We have nothing like that from you.

How does creationism not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:32 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 229 of 336 (501487)
03-06-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:25 PM


Re: The predictions have been made.
Odd - your list seems to get a little thin after evolution was proposed, why is that?
By the way, did you know that Newton didn't accept the Einsteinian ideas about physics as well? I guess we should chuck Einstein out.
Anyway.
Evolution predicts:
1. That some people will have hair.
2. That somebody will discover evolution
3. That planet earth will exist.
4. That cats meow.
5. That Australia will be discovered, and that one of its cities will be named after a British Monarch and another after a British Prime Minister.
6. That in March 2009CE, Kelly will participate at the EvCForum.
All of these predictions have come true.
Now - so far we have the following predictions made by Creation Science that are 'failed':
Failed predictions
1. no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found {by virtue of there being no way to validate this prediction is true since we don't know how to tell what a 'type' is}.
2. there should be a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature {by virtue of there being no logical pathway from "Life was Created" to "Therefore there is a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature."}
3. The fossil record does not show a total record of all life forever.
{If there is a 'disintegrative principle' in operation, we wouldn't expect there to be.}
Any other ideas Kelly?

PS: AiG are a religiously orientated group. The clue is in the title. See their statement of faith for further details of their 'scientific and not religious' position. Ahem.
Oh and AiG also says that "No new species have been produced." is an argument that Creationists should NOT use.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:25 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:48 PM Modulous has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 230 of 336 (501488)
03-06-2009 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Kelly
03-06-2009 10:24 AM


Re: Even when I give examples of the model for creation
Kelly writes:
Taking the time to really get into it has proven to be a huge waste of time on a forum like this one where your messages are quickly lost under a barrage of posting or responded to with ad hominem posts.
Arrogance and insults tend to attract a lot of attention.
Consider my message Message 92 which basically went unanswered.
I already called attention to that post, and both I and Lyx2no have provided summaries of your descriptions of creation science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:24 AM Kelly has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 231 of 336 (501489)
03-06-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by New Cat's Eye
03-06-2009 12:37 PM


Creation "science"
I think I have done a fairly good job at trying to express how it is that creation science is a scientific study of the evidence just as evolution is
The thing is, you haven't done that at all!
To do that you owuld have to outline the theory, the evidence that supports it and the predictions it makes. We have nothing like that from you.
Responding to the topic of the thread: we do know what creation "science" is.
As described above, it is: no theory, no evidence, and no predictions (and no scientific methodology either).
Creation "science" is just a lot of claims that stem from a literal reading of the bible and that can't be disproved by scientific evidence--because religious belief trumps any evidence.
Its the exact opposite of science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 12:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:54 PM Coyote has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 232 of 336 (501490)
03-06-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Kelly
03-06-2009 10:43 AM


Re: That's not true...
Kelly writes:
Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics is the mechanism that makes macroevolution impossible.
Since macroevolution is just the sum of lots of microevolution, if microevolution is possible, which you've already conceded, then so is macroevolution.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:43 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:52 PM Percy has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 233 of 336 (501491)
03-06-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Modulous
03-06-2009 12:38 PM


It was a matter of bandwidth, really
Just After Darwin...
Richard Owen (1804—1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806—1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807—1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808—1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809—1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810—1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810—1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811—1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813—1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817—1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818—1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819—1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819—1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819—1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820—1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821—1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822—1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822—1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823—1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824—1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824—1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826—1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827—1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828—1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831—1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831—1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834—1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842—1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843—1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844—1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845—1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849—1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation....
Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. Andr Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918—2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915—1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892—1979) Surgeon
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
And I disagree about your statement that any of those predictions from the creation model have failed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 12:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 1:10 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 234 of 336 (501493)
03-06-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Percy
03-06-2009 12:46 PM


That's an extrapolation
And Creation Science does a very good job at proving why it is impossible. It boils down to the universal laws of conservation and decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 12:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by onifre, posted 03-06-2009 1:07 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 295 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 6:53 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5496 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 235 of 336 (501494)
03-06-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Coyote
03-06-2009 12:46 PM


You just confirm my point..
And that is that there are many of you here in this forum who just do not know what creation science really is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 12:46 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by onifre, posted 03-06-2009 1:08 PM Kelly has not replied

olivortex
Member (Idle past 4778 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 236 of 336 (501495)
03-06-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:27 PM


Re: Very old texts?
You're right, being old is not disqualifying.
I think is hould have said un-scientific texts.
Kelly, Darwin is the background and did not use allegories to tell any truth or predictions in the sense that you mean it, unlike the Bible is said to do. He just opened a door, a perspective. Unlike many other people, he fought his inner self because of what he has observed and concluded. He was a christian; a believer. He could have become a pastor. By the way as many scientists say, you have the right to believe in a creator and still keep on looking for explanations through observation.
Darwin ignored some things, in a time when there was no genetics, not the fossil record we have today, etc. His theory has been completed by different kinds of evidence that all tend to confirm it. The Bible does not ask us to confirm anything, but just to believe in what it tells us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:27 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 1:26 PM olivortex has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 237 of 336 (501496)
03-06-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:52 PM


Re: That's an extrapolation
The more you ignore this the more you make yourself look evassive.
It boils down to the universal laws of conservation and decay.
How does creation NOT violate the same law?
And what do you mean by decay, what is decaying?
And how does the law of conservation apply to an open system that continuously receives energy from an outside source?
The laws of conservation only apply to closed systems...

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:52 PM Kelly has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 238 of 336 (501497)
03-06-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:54 PM


Re: You just confirm my point..
And that is that there are many of you here in this forum who just do not know what creation science really is.
Yes, mainly, you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:54 PM Kelly has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 239 of 336 (501498)
03-06-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:48 PM


Re: It was a matter of bandwidth, really
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation....
That's still a very short list - I can give you over a thousand modern scientists all named Steve or derivatives thereof that accept evolution. What does this demonstrate exactly?
And I disagree about your statement that any of those predictions from the creation model have failed.
Feel free to defend them rather than just gainsaying me - I've even given you hints and tips on how to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:48 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 1:44 PM Modulous has replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 240 of 336 (501499)
03-06-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:11 PM


Re: You are confused
Hi Kelly,
Creationists only reject the idea of macroevolution
Yes, they only reject that which is in conflict with their preconceived notions about what is 'true'.
My first exposure to this 'science' was some ideas as to why radiometric dating was apparently flawed.
At first the arguments presented seemed plausible so I began to look into radiometric dating further.
I came across the isochron method and read up on that. That seemed to put the nail in the coffin on the creationist argument but I went back to the creationist side and asked about their rebuttal to this technique of dating to which their previous objections did not apply or hold any weight. Since this group existed I figured they must have some valid reasons behind their viewpoint, so I expected that they'd open my mind to the reasons why the isochron method was flawed. Well they had no counter argument against it. They simply shrugged and said all rocks display isochrons as though it was some inherent property of rocks in general and insignificant.
It was at this point that I saw that their 'science' was nothing more than a willful dismissal of facts that were/are in disagreement with what they think is fact and trumps reality.
In another thread I mentioned ERV patterns that are identical in humans and chimps. Have you even looked at that evidence? How do you rationalize that away? How do you suppose that patterns that arise randomly in nature match one another exactly in two different species?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:11 PM Kelly 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