Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, Tanypteryx (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,466 Year: 18,502/19,786 Month: 922/1,705 Week: 174/518 Day: 48/52 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   QUESTIONS
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 113 (6041)
03-03-2002 12:50 AM


TC- could you tell me why the most experienced scientists laugh at creationism?

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by TrueCreation, posted 03-03-2002 3:50 PM quicksink has not yet responded
 Message 64 by KingPenguin, posted 03-10-2002 11:33 PM quicksink has responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 113 (6042)
03-03-2002 12:56 AM


TC

do me the honor of answering my questions...

you are talking to us about how creationism is just a different intepretation of the same evidence, and yet you refuse to answer the questions...

if creationism is true, you should have no troubles responding to the queries at hand.

prove to us that you can answer those tough questions, simply, clearly, and briskly...


Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 03-03-2002 2:22 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 48 of 113 (6060)
03-03-2002 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by quicksink
03-03-2002 12:56 AM


Hi, QuickSink!

If it's not too much trouble, could you begin using the teensy-weensy "reply" or "reply/quote" buttons when you're replying to a specific message, instead of the large "reply" buttons that are at the top and bottom of message pages. The little reply buttons exist at the bottom of each message. This makes it much easier to follow threads of discussions because it causes a link to the message being replied to to be included with your own message. Thanks!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by quicksink, posted 03-03-2002 12:56 AM quicksink has not yet responded

    
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 113 (6063)
03-03-2002 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by quicksink
03-03-2002 12:50 AM


"TC- could you tell me why the most experienced scientists laugh at creationism?"
--Because of many factors, when a christian is braught up these days, half are going to believe that science is stupid or does not want part in it because they have the idea that it is contrary to their biblical belief because of evolution. Thus, many are not even going to have the interest to start, which is finally starting to change these days, atleast a small percentage of the general population knows that creation science exists. Also because of problem of religion and bias, a naturalistic explinaiton for anything is much more atractive than anything a supernatural explination (even though there is much less of the super-natural than one would think). Fortunatelly creationists are beginning to step on some toes and get some attention. There is also the problem of censoring creationists out of technical journals because they may say instead of 'scientists belive', they would say 'so after God had created', or something along the lines of that.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by quicksink, posted 03-03-2002 12:50 AM quicksink has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 03-09-2002 7:09 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 113 (6064)
03-03-2002 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by quicksink
02-28-2002 8:08 AM


"here are some questions. I'd like to see if creationists can tackle them."
--If I must...

"1). Given that rats and rabbits are some of the most common animals in the world, shouldn’t we expect to find their remains in the same strata as some of the more common dinosaurs? The same question can be asked of whales and plesiosaurs, or of any modern mammal and any common dinosaur. Creationism has never presented a credible response to this dilemma."
--where do we find rodents and where do we find rabbits in the geo-column. I would expect them to be very close appearing in the fossil record. Also you sertainly would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs, though would appear shortly after the K-T boundary. Also I already explained the plesiosaur one, they would have died along with the rest of the dinosaurs, being forced to breath the air would have to stay considerably shallow in the water at times to breath, though it would be very cold for the top many meters of water by the effects of a slight nuclear winter. Whales are mammals and therefore produce their own body heat, being able to suffurface for breath vastly easier than the others, along with the dolphins and whales (even though they are relatives).

"2). It is probably a safe assumption that Nobel Prize winners are among the most brilliant scientists in the world. These are people who have demonstrated keen insight into some cutting edge scientific breakthroughs. If Creationism is a credible movement, then why aren’t any of these Nobel Prize winners Creationists?"
--I havent done the research, though I know the explination why it would be much more on the other side is from the history of creation and evolution, scopes (monkey trial), and the hoaxes of alleged evidences of human ancestory, etc. Refer to my previous message for a continuance.

"3). Why do multiple, independent methods all agree on an estimated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years?"
--Wouldn't know enough to argue this point.

"4). Can you provide a good reason, using Creation Science, as to why a bird would be more closely related (genetically) to a snake than a bat?"
--Reference?

"5). Gallup polls have shown that the more education that a person has, the more likely they are to reject Creationism in favor of evolution. This is even more apparent if the education is specialized in the sciences. What is the Creationist explanation for this?"
--See last post.

"6). Can you name a scientific advance that Creation Science has been responsible for? By this, I don’t mean something that Isaac Newton came up with long before the Theory of Evolution was proposed. I mean an advance that was arrived at using the Creationist model."
--Name something that had to be discovered under the influence of Evolution.. Evolution doesn't advance science, neither does Creation, science is advanced by knowledge through experimentation, and observation.

"8).There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one instance of any fossils that have been deposited "out of order"."
--This is fully consistant with Deposition theory as is being discussed in 'Falsifying Creation'.

"9). No varves, ice cores, tree ring ensembles, coral cores, or other examples of periodically accumulated accretion should be found to extend back beyond the time of the Flood. They do. Ice cores, drilled from stable ice plains, show 40,000 years of annual layers. Varves, which are mineral deposits, show millions of years of annual layers."
--Varves - There are many problems with varves, mainly being that fossils exist in such amazing form. Varves are easilly deposited by the Flood.

--Ice cores - Ice cores vary greatly by conditions and environment, location and elevation, etc. In some places you may find that there is a layer is created every season, in others, every year, in others, every month, etc.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by quicksink, posted 02-28-2002 8:08 AM quicksink has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by quicksink, posted 03-04-2002 4:36 AM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 56 by LudvanB, posted 03-09-2002 10:31 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 113 (6097)
03-04-2002 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by TrueCreation
03-03-2002 4:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"here are some questions. I'd like to see if creationists can tackle them."
--If I must...

oh, i'm quite sorry for inconveniencing you with these stupid questions...

quote:

"1). Given that rats and rabbits are some of the most common animals in the world, shouldn’t we expect to find their remains in the same strata as some of the more common dinosaurs? The same question can be asked of whales and plesiosaurs, or of any modern mammal and any common dinosaur. Creationism has never presented a credible response to this dilemma."
--where do we find rodents and where do we find rabbits in the geo-column. I would expect them to be very close appearing in the fossil record. Also you sertainly would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs, though would appear shortly after the K-T boundary. Also I already explained the plesiosaur one, they would have died along with the rest of the dinosaurs, being forced to breath the air would have to stay considerably shallow in the water at times to breath, though it would be very cold for the top many meters of water by the effects of a slight nuclear winter. Whales are mammals and therefore produce their own body heat, being able to suffurface for breath vastly easier than the others, along with the dolphins and whales (even though they are relatives).

wow... that sure was confusing... all i could discern was you mentioning that rats and rabbits are not found as fossils.

well, that's funny... now that i think of it, not one modern animal is found in the fossil strata... do you think that could mean that the earth is millions of years old, and so far there has only been time to foddilize very old animals? no, probably not... it REALLY means that for some strange reason which is known only by creationists, no modern animals were fossilized during the flood, and all primitive animals formed a nice pattern (another mystery)

quote:

"2). It is probably a safe assumption that Nobel Prize winners are among the most brilliant scientists in the world. These are people who have demonstrated keen insight into some cutting edge scientific breakthroughs. If Creationism is a credible movement, then why aren’t any of these Nobel Prize winners Creationists?"
--I havent done the research, though I know the explination why it would be much more on the other side is from the history of creation and evolution, scopes (monkey trial), and the hoaxes of alleged evidences of human ancestory, etc. Refer to my previous message for a continuance.

[roll eyes] here we go again... the good old "evolution has had a better marketing campaign" story...

btw- do you have any unbiased evidence to indicate a massive creationist conspiracy, or is this spoon fed to you through your reliable creationist sources?

don't you think that the most scientifically intelligent people in the world would have started to notice by now that evolution is a total fraud? Or are they, for low wages, dedicating their entire lives to some world wide conspiracy?

quote:

"3). Why do multiple, independent methods all agree on an estimated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years?"
--Wouldn't know enough to argue this point.

well why don't you do the research, and come back with that answer, hmm?

quote:

"4). Can you provide a good reason, using Creation Science, as to why a bird would be more closely related (genetically) to a snake than a bat?"
--Reference?

Let's not play these games...

quote:

"5). Gallup polls have shown that the more education that a person has, the more likely they are to reject Creationism in favor of evolution. This is even more apparent if the education is specialized in the sciences. What is the Creationist explanation for this?"
--See last post.

Dnag! you got me! I'm totally lying! (ay caramba!)

let's not play these games. i am not going to go digging thgough gallup's archive to find this one. if you insist, then i will, but come on. it seems to me that whenever you don't like a question, you play the reference card.

quote:

"6). Can you name a scientific advance that Creation Science has been responsible for? By this, I don’t mean something that Isaac Newton came up with long before the Theory of Evolution was proposed. I mean an advance that was arrived at using the Creationist model."
--Name something that had to be discovered under the influence of Evolution.. Evolution doesn't advance science, neither does Creation, science is advanced by knowledge through experimentation, and observation.

let me start;

evolution requires the existence of a neat and very ancient geological strata, arranged from most primitive to most advanced. I think we see that.

evolution requires a very, very old earth. We see that.

Evolution requires the obsservation of macroevolution- we see that...

Evolution requires the finding of half men half ape fossils/remains- we find that...

etc etc etc

now let's see about creationism:

it requires dating evidence of a 10,000 year old eartg- stolen by world wide evolutionist society- only known to creationists

requires the finding that stars are 10000 or less light years away if we are seeing them- god made light to appear that way (millions or even billions of light years away) but din't ask me why...

creationism requires the existence of fossils of all species that existed during the flood.... we only see primitive ones...

creationism requires all natural methods of measuring age (tree-ring dating, carbon dating, geneology from ancient cultures, valves, coral etc. etc.) to point to a 10000 year old earth... nope

creationism requires the existence of randomly deposited boulders across the planet... nope, sorry

creationism requires that all cultures that we know of began after the flood or before the flood... creationism also requires that we see around a 500 year gap in history as humanity rebuilds from the flood... it also requires records from cultures indicating a massive flood... nothing yet... (the egyptians were around before the flood because we were able to match their recordings of lunar eclipses, asteroids, etc. with the actual events...)

quote:

"8).There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one instance of any fossils that have been deposited "out of order"."
--This is fully consistant with Deposition theory as is being discussed in 'Falsifying Creation'.

i'll have to find out about that theory... but wouldn't it be simpler to say that geological findings suggestive of evolution are actually evidences of evolution?

quote:

"9). No varves, ice cores, tree ring ensembles, coral cores, or other examples of periodically accumulated accretion should be found to extend back beyond the time of the Flood. They do. Ice cores, drilled from stable ice plains, show 40,000 years of annual layers. Varves, which are mineral deposits, show millions of years of annual layers."
--Varves - There are many problems with varves, mainly being that fossils exist in such amazing form. Varves are easilly deposited by the Flood.

--Ice cores - Ice cores vary greatly by conditions and environment, location and elevation, etc. In some places you may find that there is a layer is created every season, in others, every year, in others, every month, etc.


aww- that's real sweet- so i assume that all these "mistaken" or inaccurate methods of dating coincidentally come to the same conslusion when it comes to the age of fossils, the history of our planet in the last 10,000 years, the age of egyptian artifacts, etc. etc.?

or perhaps all these dates point to a date that is far more similar to the creationist model, but we just don't know about it?

and what other problems can you find with the dating methods such as looking at egyptian/chinese geneology (and their recordings of natural phenomenas), coral cores, tree-rings, and all the other methods that corroborate eachother?

if they were all so incorrect as to suggest ridiculous dates, wouldn't tree rings suggest one wild date and carbon dating would suggest another? or wouldn't we see at least a hint from these dating methods that the planet is 10000 years old?

it seems to me that the best you can do is cast doubt on these dating methods, without giving a reason why they don't support the creationist model or why they corroborate one another...

and fyi, you missed a few questions...

thanks for answering them... finally someone is paying attention to them!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TrueCreation, posted 03-03-2002 4:15 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 1:23 PM quicksink has responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 113 (6139)
03-04-2002 11:07 PM


just pushing this to the top...

i don't think these questions have been answered as of yet...


  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 113 (6175)
03-06-2002 4:05 AM


is anyone actually going to answer these questions, or are they just too stupud... c'mon creationists- prove to us evilutionists that your theory has some foundation of fact, and then we can start talking.

let's go!


  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 113 (6373)
03-09-2002 4:05 AM


am i talking to myself, or am i just trying to prove something?

hello people? hello creationists? i have posed some questions at the beginning of this thread. someone can answer them soon...

one finds themselves constantly giving mouth-to-mouth to unanswered questions.


  
nator
Member (Idle past 454 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 113 (6383)
03-09-2002 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by TrueCreation
03-03-2002 3:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"TC- could you tell me why the most experienced scientists laugh at creationism?"
--Because of many factors, when a christian is braught up these days, half are going to believe that science is stupid or does not want part in it because they have the idea that it is contrary to their biblical belief because of evolution.[/QUOTE]

I suppose it depends on how you want to define "Christian", but I would say that only a small percentage of Christians are brought up as Biblical fundamentalists. Far fewer than half.

quote:
Thus, many are not even going to have the interest to start, which is finally starting to change these days, atleast a small percentage of the general population knows that creation science exists.

Creation science isn't science, TC, no matter how much you want to be.

quote:
Also because of problem of religion and bias, a naturalistic explinaiton for anything is much more atractive than anything a supernatural explination (even though there is much less of the super-natural than one would think).

Why is it bad to be biased in favor of the evidence?

quote:
Fortunatelly creationists are beginning to step on some toes and get some attention.

Really? Attention from whom? The public or scientists?

[QUOTE]There is also the problem of censoring creationists out of technical journals because they may say instead of 'scientists belive', they would say 'so after God had created', or something along the lines of that.[/b]


Poor, maligned Creationists.

They say they want to do science but can't seem to stop referring to their Christian Bibles.

Give me a break, TC.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TrueCreation, posted 03-03-2002 3:50 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 1:29 PM nator has responded

    
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 113 (6393)
03-09-2002 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by TrueCreation
03-03-2002 4:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"here are some questions. I'd like to see if creationists can tackle them."
--If I must...

"1). Given that rats and rabbits are some of the most common animals in the world, shouldn’t we expect to find their remains in the same strata as some of the more common dinosaurs? The same question can be asked of whales and plesiosaurs, or of any modern mammal and any common dinosaur. Creationism has never presented a credible response to this dilemma."
--where do we find rodents and where do we find rabbits in the geo-column. I would expect them to be very close appearing in the fossil record. Also you sertainly would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs, though would appear shortly after the K-T boundary. Also I already explained the plesiosaur one, they would have died along with the rest of the dinosaurs, being forced to breath the air would have to stay considerably shallow in the water at times to breath, though it would be very cold for the top many meters of water by the effects of a slight nuclear winter. Whales are mammals and therefore produce their own body heat, being able to suffurface for breath vastly easier than the others, along with the dolphins and whales (even though they are relatives).

LUD:there have been many theories advanced about certain dinosaurs,including plesiosorus,actually being warm blooded. In fact,we only ASSUME the dinos were cold blooded because they resemble large lizards but there is absolutely no way for us to know this today. And if rabbits had lived at the same time as dinos,we would find some along side them in the fossil records....no hydrological sorting can be THAT perfect.

"2). It is probably a safe assumption that Nobel Prize winners are among the most brilliant scientists in the world. These are people who have demonstrated keen insight into some cutting edge scientific breakthroughs. If Creationism is a credible movement, then why aren’t any of these Nobel Prize winners Creationists?"
--I havent done the research, though I know the explination why it would be much more on the other side is from the history of creation and evolution, scopes (monkey trial), and the hoaxes of alleged evidences of human ancestory, etc. Refer to my previous message for a continuance.

LUD:there have been many hoaxes advanced by scientists on ancient men and those hoaxes have been debunked by scientists...science is a self correcting process. Incidently,there have been many hoaxes by religious groups about their religion(shroud of turin,Ron Wyatt's boat shaped mud print,ect) and those two have been debunked by SCIENTISTS...guess we have to clean up your messes as well as ours...oh well.

"3). Why do multiple, independent methods all agree on an estimated age of the earth at 4.5 billion years?"
--Wouldn't know enough to argue this point.

LUD:so you concede then....progress...

"4). Can you provide a good reason, using Creation Science, as to why a bird would be more closely related (genetically) to a snake than a bat?"
--Reference?

"5). Gallup polls have shown that the more education that a person has, the more likely they are to reject Creationism in favor of evolution. This is even more apparent if the education is specialized in the sciences. What is the Creationist explanation for this?"
--See last post.

LUD:the explanation is rather simple....the more educated people get,the less they believe in fairy tales,santa claus,the easter bunny,the boogy man and so on and so forth...

"6). Can you name a scientific advance that Creation Science has been responsible for? By this, I don’t mean something that Isaac Newton came up with long before the Theory of Evolution was proposed. I mean an advance that was arrived at using the Creationist model."
--Name something that had to be discovered under the influence of Evolution.. Evolution doesn't advance science, neither does Creation, science is advanced by knowledge through experimentation, and observation.

LUD:genetic science comes to mind here.

"8).There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one instance of any fossils that have been deposited "out of order"."
--This is fully consistant with Deposition theory as is being discussed in 'Falsifying Creation'.

LUD:no its not because the segregation is too perfect and uniform....that makes the hydrological sorting theory completely questionable.

"9). No varves, ice cores, tree ring ensembles, coral cores, or other examples of periodically accumulated accretion should be found to extend back beyond the time of the Flood. They do. Ice cores, drilled from stable ice plains, show 40,000 years of annual layers. Varves, which are mineral deposits, show millions of years of annual layers."
--Varves - There are many problems with varves, mainly being that fossils exist in such amazing form. Varves are easilly deposited by the Flood.

LUD:explain.

--Ice cores - Ice cores vary greatly by conditions and environment, location and elevation, etc. In some places you may find that there is a layer is created every season, in others, every year, in others, every month, etc.

LUD:the only variation occurs depending on local environement and those environement are concistant (i.e.:the ice cores of one region may accumulate sheets every season while for the ice cores of other regions,that accumulation is annual. Those are consistant enough of the time to be depended upon)



This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TrueCreation, posted 03-03-2002 4:15 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 113 (6419)
03-09-2002 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by quicksink
03-04-2002 4:36 AM


"wow... that sure was confusing... all i could discern was you mentioning that rats and rabbits are not found as fossils."
--No Actually I said, and I quote:

quote:

where do we find rodents and where do we find rabbits in the geo-column. I would expect them to be very close appearing in the fossil record.

--This means that I would expect rabbits and rodents closely appearing in the fossil record.

--And..

quote:

Also you sertainly would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs, though would appear shortly after the K-T boundary.

--So I am saying that you 'would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs', thouggh would appear shortly after the K-T boundary. I can't find the point of confusion.

"well, that's funny... now that i think of it, not one modern animal is found in the fossil strata... do you think that could mean that the earth is millions of years old, and so far there has only been time to foddilize very old animals?"
--Bats are found fully formed for instance, also, almost all biological organisms will speciate, so you would not find many 'modern' animals in the fossil record, though you are incorrect that there are none there.

"no, probably not... it REALLY means that for some strange reason which is known only by creationists, no modern animals were fossilized during the flood, and all primitive animals formed a nice pattern (another mystery)"
--It isn't a mystery, I have already given the sorting mechenisms and they comply.

"[roll eyes] here we go again... the good old "evolution has had a better marketing campaign" story..."
--If you really wish to call it that, yes it does have a 'better marketing campaign'.

"btw- do you have any unbiased evidence to indicate a massive creationist conspiracy, or is this spoon fed to you through your reliable creationist sources?"
--Find any public school science or university text book.

"don't you think that the most scientifically intelligent people in the world would have started to notice by now that evolution is a total fraud? Or are they, for low wages, dedicating their entire lives to some world wide conspiracy?"
--It isn't a fraud, and it isn't a conspiracy, but the automatic rejection of a non-naturalistic explination for existance.

"well why don't you do the research, and come back with that answer, hmm?"
--If I had, you would come back to me with this again:

quote:

i will be perfectly honest- i can't participate in a lot of these discussions- i know very little concerning the particulars of science and geology

--I do understand this, and I have already admitted that I am basically in the same dillema. I would just refrain from asking a question that requires such knowledge when you cannot argue it.

"Let's not play these games..."
--No I am quite serious, please give a reference or emphesize in detail as to what is genetically so related. Codon sequence, nucleotide sequence, do you mean anatomy, celluar composition, or cytochrome C?

"let's not play these games. i am not going to go digging thgough gallup's archive to find this one. if you insist, then i will, but come on. it seems to me that whenever you don't like a question, you play the reference card."
--No actually it is to avoid an ongoing rambling on something irrelevant to the topic or something that you were not looking for. Also, take a look at what is taught when you are educated, or should I mean indoctrinated.

"evolution requires the existence of a neat and very ancient geological strata, arranged from most primitive to most advanced. I think we see that."
--This does nto require Evolution to be observed, it is a fact that fossils are in the ground in a relative sequence, this is not requiring Evolution.

"evolution requires a very, very old earth. We see that."
--No, actually in your case, you see a 12 year old earth, relativelly speaking.

"Evolution requires the obsservation of macroevolution- we see that..."
--Example. Also, I would highly doubt that you and even I have the knowledge to argue this point, as it branches off into many very detailed biological concepts in the molecular and celluar field.

"creationism requires the existence of fossils of all species that existed during the flood.... we only see primitive ones..."
--More accuratelly proto-organisms, I must stress the concept of speciation on this one.

"creationism requires all natural methods of measuring age (tree-ring dating, carbon dating, geneology from ancient cultures, valves, coral etc. etc.) to point to a 10000 year old earth... nope"
--The only one that does is Radioisotopic dating, the rest are relative dates or require the validity of C14 or other radioisotope.

"creationism requires the existence of randomly deposited boulders across the planet... nope, sorry"
--Emphesize.

"creationism requires that all cultures that we know of began after the flood or before the flood... creationism also requires that we see around a 500 year gap in history as humanity rebuilds from the flood... "
--I have found that the pre-dating of the Flood cultures, the only reference I have seen, depends on the validity of radioisotops, particularelly C14. Seems that if you can demolish radioisotops, you demolish the whole theory of an old earth and evolution would crumble befor it.

"it also requires records from cultures indicating a massive flood... nothing yet..."
--I've given you hundreds, even Talk.Origins is aware of this.

"(the egyptians were around before the flood because we were able to match their recordings of lunar eclipses, asteroids, etc. with the actual events...)"
--Really, this is interesting, anywhere where I can get more detail?

"i'll have to find out about that theory..."
--I have given it to these forums many times over. Do a search for it.

"but wouldn't it be simpler to say that geological findings suggestive of evolution are actually evidences of evolution?"
--Simplicity, is not at all a constituent of validity or truth.

"aww- that's real sweet- so i assume that all these "mistaken" or inaccurate methods of dating coincidentally come to the same conslusion when it comes to the age of fossils, the history of our planet in the last 10,000 years, the age of egyptian artifacts, etc. etc.?"
--I dont remember finding fossils in ice, nor do I remember finding egyptian artifacts in varves.

"or perhaps all these dates point to a date that is far more similar to the creationist model, but we just don't know about it?"
--Maybe you should say 'but I just don't know about it'.

"and what other problems can you find with the dating methods such as looking at egyptian/chinese geneology (and their recordings of natural phenomenas)"
--I have seen this posed before, I would like more information about it.

"coral cores"
--How is this evidence of an old earth?

"tree-rings, and all the other methods that corroborate eachother?""
--The oldest 'living' tree does not pre-date the flood. Also, tree-ring overlapping requires that radioisotopes give age.

"if they were all so incorrect as to suggest ridiculous dates, wouldn't tree rings suggest one wild date and carbon dating would suggest another? or wouldn't we see at least a hint from these dating methods that the planet is 10000 years old?"
--Because of the way that dendrochronology and C-14 are callibrated, its basically forced into accuracy and compliance. Mabye some of that 'thinking out of the box' would be a good start here as you have asserted so in another thread.

"it seems to me that the best you can do is cast doubt on these dating methods, without giving a reason why they don't support the creationist model or why they corroborate one another..."
--See above.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by quicksink, posted 03-04-2002 4:36 AM quicksink has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by quicksink, posted 03-10-2002 1:58 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 113 (6420)
03-09-2002 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
03-09-2002 7:09 AM


"I suppose it depends on how you want to define "Christian", but I would say that only a small percentage of Christians are brought up as Biblical fundamentalists. Far fewer than half."
--Thats because of the statment I just made, if they have the interest, they are going to get sucked into what they are teaching them.

"Creation science isn't science, TC, no matter how much you want to be."
--If you wan't to make a relevant statement, I have given you the way that creation science is, if your going to argue with me, you must argue with that model.

"Why is it bad to be biased in favor of the evidence?"
--This is not what I have said, I said that to most people a naturalistic explination is more attractive than a supernatural explination, and I have made the assertion that there is much les of the supernatural than one would think. This is because everything can be explained in naturalistic terms accept say, the origins, or the resurrection, or something of that likeness.

"Really? Attention from whom? The public or scientists?"
--Both.

"Poor, maligned Creationists.

They say they want to do science but can't seem to stop referring to their Christian Bibles."
--This is science. By your logic, if there even was evidence of a young earth, it would not be plausable because of your pre-conceived idea that it is not possible because we cannot give god a foot-hold.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 03-09-2002 7:09 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by LudvanB, posted 03-09-2002 11:21 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 63 by nator, posted 03-10-2002 8:45 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 113 (6440)
03-09-2002 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by TrueCreation
03-09-2002 1:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I suppose it depends on how you want to define "Christian", but I would say that only a small percentage of Christians are brought up as Biblical fundamentalists. Far fewer than half."
--Thats because of the statment I just made, if they have the interest, they are going to get sucked into what they are teaching them.

LUD:TC,young earth creationism was thought to be the truth for the better part of the last 2000 years...yet today,only a small minority in the US heartland still adere to it. Are you telling us that evolutionists are powerfull enough to reverse the mentality of an entire planet? No...of course no. People simply realized that YEC makes no sense and,aside from a few die hard fanatics,nobody seriously believes that anymore and they still believe that the earth is flat or that the earth is the goe center of the universe.

"Creation science isn't science, TC, no matter how much you want to be."
--If you wan't to make a relevant statement, I have given you the way that creation science is, if your going to argue with me, you must argue with that model.

LUD:the reason why creation science isen't actual science is because it starts with the conclusion allready defined,then goes to look for evidence it can interpret as supporting said conclusion and ignore evidence that opposes it(radiomatric dating,complete absence of any evidence whatsoever of 6 day creation/world wide flood/arks filled with all the land animals on earth,ect). Science has no moral attached to it...as soon as you attach a moral judgement,it cease to be science,period. Creation Science requires the WHY of everything....TRUE science just concentrate on the HOW.

"Why is it bad to be biased in favor of the evidence?"
--This is not what I have said, I said that to most people a naturalistic explination is more attractive than a supernatural explination, and I have made the assertion that there is much les of the supernatural than one would think. This is because everything can be explained in naturalistic terms accept say, the origins, or the resurrection, or something of that likeness.

LUD:It wasen't always like that TC. Primitive civilisations kept looking for supernatural hands behind every natural occurences...especially natural disasters. They kept looking for culprits in their society who may or may not have offended the Gods and punished them for every flood,earth quake,volcanoes,storms,and so on. Only the advant of science has quelled much of this superstitious nonsense because people were finally getting an explanation for what happened to them. Naturalistic aren't more attractive TC...you can blame or try to appease a God who "sends" a quake your way...But who can you blame/appease when you know that the quake occurs because of shifting tectonic plates due to a random geological mechanism? Many people prefer to believe that there is a guiding hand behind everything that occurs around them,mainly because the alternative,that we are actually on our own down here,just scares the living crap out of em. But most people are realising that we need to grow up as a race,which is a good thing.

"Really? Attention from whom? The public or scientists?"
--Both.

"Poor, maligned Creationists.

They say they want to do science but can't seem to stop referring to their Christian Bibles."
--This is science. By your logic, if there even was evidence of a young earth, it would not be plausable because of your pre-conceived idea that it is not possible because we cannot give god a foot-hold.

LUD:wrong...i give God ample foot hold. I'm convinced that God exists and that we all come from God...but not that God fashioned the earth 6000 years ago from nothingness...there's too much evidence against that,even though YECS choose to disreguard it and its not necessary either. I see no reason to be amazed at a God that throws a hissy fit and murders an entire planet simply because it didn't turn out the exact way he want it to. I do,however,find much more magnificiant a God that caters from afar and discretely over the course of billions of years,giving a poke here,a nudge there,patiently watching over us,waiting for the day when we are done learning all we can learn from this universe and are ready to rejoin with IT



This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 1:29 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 113 (6446)
03-10-2002 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by TrueCreation
03-09-2002 1:23 PM


quote:

"wow... that sure was confusing... all i could discern was you mentioning that rats and rabbits are not found as fossils."
--No Actually I said, and I quote:
quote:

where do we find rodents and where do we find rabbits in the geo-column. I would expect them to be very close appearing in the fossil record.

--This means that I would expect rabbits and rodents closely appearing in the fossil record.


I appreciate the insult to my intelligence.

quote:
--And..
quote:

Also you sertainly would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs, though would appear shortly after the K-T boundary.

--So I am saying that you 'would not see them in the same place as dinosaurs', thouggh would appear shortly after the K-T boundary. I can't find the point of confusion.


you need to brush up on your speeling and grammar.

quote:

"well, that's funny... now that i think of it, not one modern animal is found in the fossil strata... do you think that could mean that the earth is millions of years old, and so far there has only been time to foddilize very old animals?"
--Bats are found fully formed for instance, also, almost all biological organisms will speciate, so you would not find many 'modern' animals in the fossil record, though you are incorrect that there are none there.

I’m incorrect? Wow! Where are these fossilized humans then?

quote:

"no, probably not... it REALLY means that for some strange reason which is known only by creationists, no modern animals were fossilized during the flood, and all primitive animals formed a nice pattern (another mystery)"
--It isn't a mystery, I have already given the sorting mechenisms and they comply.

so you’re telling me that if you showed this theory to an unbiased archaeologist/geologist/scientist, they would have no problem? I doubt it…

quote:

"[roll eyes] here we go again... the good old "evolution has had a better marketing campaign" story..."
--If you really wish to call it that, yes it does have a 'better marketing campaign'.

so you’re saying that the most scientifically informed people in the world have been convinced by a better marketing campaign? Who’s running that marketing campaign, and why? Scientists are in pursuit of the truth.

quote:

"btw- do you have any unbiased evidence to indicate a massive creationist conspiracy, or is this spoon fed to you through your reliable creationist sources?"
--Find any public school science or university text book.

so tell me- why do all these universities and public schools teach evolution. Could it be because there is more evidence?

quote:

"don't you think that the most scientifically intelligent people in the world would have started to notice by now that evolution is a total fraud? Or are they, for low wages, dedicating their entire lives to some world wide conspiracy?"
--It isn't a fraud, and it isn't a conspiracy, but the automatic rejection of a non-naturalistic explination for existance.

ya hit the head of the nail- we dismiss your theories because they cannot be proved, and we have a natural explanation for the origins of life. It is your vocal protestant minority that keeps waving this half-assed evidence ein the air that insists that science makes a U-turn and investigate your unsupported theories, and it becomes really sickening.

quote:

"well why don't you do the research, and come back with that answer, hmm?"
--If I had, you would come back to me with this again:
quote:

i will be perfectly honest- i can't participate in a lot of these discussions- i know very little concerning the particulars of science and geology

--I do understand this, and I have already admitted that I am basically in the same dillema. I would just refrain from asking a question that requires such knowledge when you cannot argue it.


I am a twelve year-old boy who has only a basic understanding of plate tectonics, geology, and science for that matter. You are an adult that specializes in geology, is reading a biology text book, and a love for disproving science. Surely you can present something of interest- quote a website- that would suit me.

quote:

"Let's not play these games..."
--No I am quite serious, please give a reference or emphesize in detail as to what is genetically so related. Codon sequence, nucleotide sequence, do you mean anatomy, celluar composition, or cytochrome C?

let me be honest- I have not the slightest clue what you’re talaking about- but perhaps some other more experienced person in this forum could help me out. Also, I cannot seen to find the original question.

quote:

"let's not play these games. i am not going to go digging thgough gallup's archive to find this one. if you insist, then i will, but come on. it seems to me that whenever you don't like a question, you play the reference card."
--No actually it is to avoid an ongoing rambling on something irrelevant to the topic or something that you were not looking for. Also, take a look at what is taught when you are educated, or should I mean indoctrinated.

I am not an evilutionist drone, despite your strong belief of the contrary. I do know quite a bit more than the avberage child of my age.
How many creationists do you know that could explain the theory of relativity?

quote:

"evolution requires the existence of a neat and very ancient geological strata, arranged from most primitive to most advanced. I think we see that."
--This does nto require Evolution to be observed, it is a fact that fossils are in the ground in a relative sequence, this is not requiring Evolution.

but one could interpret it, and all other evidences, as evidence for evolution.
So where is this other mechanism that ordered the strata?

quote:

"evolution requires a very, very old earth. We see that."
--No, actually in your case, you see a 12 year old earth, relativelly speaking.

I see a lot more science that the average 40 year old.

quote:

"Evolution requires the obsservation of macroevolution- we see that..."
--Example. Also, I would highly doubt that you and even I have the knowledge to argue this point, as it branches off into many very detailed biological concepts in the molecular and celluar field.

you’re right- let’s leave it to people like stephen hawking and carl sagan, as well as all those highly experienced biologists and geologists who know their field like the back of their hand, but have been convinced by the finer marketing campaign of the evilutionists.

quote:

"creationism requires the existence of fossils of all species that existed during the flood.... we only see primitive ones..."
--More accuratelly proto-organisms, I must stress the concept of speciation on this one.

let’s not try t fill this issue with scientific technicals. We see primitive species deeper in the strata, and more adapted and modern looking ones at the top… On the issue of speciation, allow me:
Unless I am grossly mistaken, most creationists claim that speciation has never been observed and thus cannot have happened (this is false- search lake victoria- speciation- sand bar). Speciation is evidence of evolution, is it not. You seem to be swimming against mainstream creation-“science” when you say that speciation could have ordered these fossils, however that’s possible.
Maybe you could elaborate for the sake of the elementary student.

quote:

"creationism requires all natural methods of measuring age (tree-ring dating, carbon dating, geneology from ancient cultures, valves, coral etc. etc.) to point to a 10000 year old earth... nope"
--The only one that does is Radioisotopic dating, the rest are relative dates or require the validity of C14 or other radioisotope.

Firstly, how would that be evidence of creationism?
Secondly, you have not mentioned one dating method that goes against the old earth.
Thirdly, ancient geneology, tree-ring dating, coral core dating (dates back 40000 years, etcs, all verify beliefs regarding the age of the egyptians, chinese, and other ancient cultures. Radiometric dating, when used side-by-side with the above dating methods, works surprisingly well, considering the earth is only 10000 years old.

quote:

"creationism requires the existence of randomly deposited boulders across the planet... nope, sorry"
--Emphesize.

the flood would have deposited sediment layers and large boulders across the face of the planet… ar am I just stupid?

quote:

"creationism requires that all cultures that we know of began after the flood or before the flood... creationism also requires that we see around a 500 year gap in history as humanity rebuilds from the flood... "
--I have found that the pre-dating of the Flood cultures, the only reference I have seen, depends on the validity of radioisotops, particularelly C14. Seems that if you can demolish radioisotops, you demolish the whole theory of an old earth and evolution would crumble befor it.

c14 dating works well with all other natural and unnatural methods of dating. But you address that issue later.
And are you implying that if the theory of evolution crumbled, creation would be correct? Wow…

quote:

"it also requires records from cultures indicating a massive flood... nothing yet..."
--I've given you hundreds, even Talk.Origins is aware of this.

how would these records survive the flood?

quote:

"(the egyptians were around before the flood because we were able to match their recordings of lunar eclipses, asteroids, etc. with the actual events...)"
--Really, this is interesting, anywhere where I can get more detail?

I love this typical delaying tactic- pretend to be interested in something that completely demolishes your argument- but since you asked…
http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/answered.htm
an excellent site that addresses this and many other issues. Do a search on google as well.
http://www.moses-egypt.net/STAR-MAP_s2-FAQ.asp
there’s another that does not touch the issue of creationism versus evolution.

quote:

"i'll have to find out about that theory..."
--I have given it to these forums many times over. Do a search for it.

I have, and I do not understand how this could support the flood model…

quote:

"but wouldn't it be simpler to say that geological findings suggestive of evolution are actually evidences of evolution?"
--Simplicity, is not at all a constituent of validity or truth.

absolutel. But when you have two theories side-by-side, the one that explains the facts the most consistently using the least amount of unnatural phenomena and speculation wins the battle for the hearts of the scientist.
Disagree with that?
Well, the Bible states that God stopped THE SUN FROM ORBITING THE EARTH (“So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day” -Joshua 10:13b) Assuming that the Bible really meant that the earth stopped orbiting around the sun, we can assume that it would take god to completely defy the laws of nature. So clever, were these creationists, that they discovered the missing day in space. This is of course an urban legend. Oh well- god still did it.

quote:

"aww- that's real sweet- so i assume that all these "mistaken" or inaccurate methods of dating coincidentally come to the same conslusion when it comes to the age of fossils, the history of our planet in the last 10,000 years, the age of egyptian artifacts, etc. etc.?"
--I dont remember finding fossils in ice, nor do I remember finding egyptian artifacts in varves.

tree-ring dating, c14 dating, and ancient geneology dating all come to the same conclusion- the Egyptians are older than the flood.
Coral cores, varves, and etc all prove that the earth is far older than the creationist model.
But there is a reason for this, I;m sure. In fact, I bet all these methods really indicate that the planet is as old as the creationist model suggests it is…

quote:

"or perhaps all these dates point to a date that is far more similar to the creationist model, but we just don't know about it?"
--Maybe you should say 'but I just don't know about it'.

OK- I’ll say I and Stephen Hawking, the late Carl Sagan, all archaeologists, geologists, scientists, teachers, etc. Now, correct us all, will you. I’m dying to know where these dating methods are…

quote:

"and what other problems can you find with the dating methods such as looking at egyptian/chinese geneology (and their recordings of natural phenomenas)"
--I have seen this posed before, I would like more information about it.

I gave you the precious links, and possibly you could do some research of your own, if you are indeed so interested in this.

quote:

"coral cores"
--How is this evidence of an old earth?

coral cores date back 40000 years, for some reason.

quote:

"if they were all so incorrect as to suggest ridiculous dates, wouldn't tree rings suggest one wild date and carbon dating would suggest another? or wouldn't we see at least a hint from these dating methods that the planet is 10000 years old?"
--Because of the way that dendrochronology and C-14 are callibrated, its basically forced into accuracy and compliance. Mabye some of that 'thinking out of the box' would be a good start here as you have asserted so in another thread.

you haven’t addressed any of the other dating methods.
And please elaborate on the tree-ring c14 issue…

quote:

"it seems to me that the best you can do is cast doubt on these dating methods, without giving a reason why they don't support the creationist model or why they corroborate one another..."
--See above.

but that didn’t even seem to address the issue. The best you can present is doubt over the dating methods. But no evidence that the methods point to the creationist models, like they should.
Your arguments are just chsing evolution, but not strengthening creationism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by TrueCreation, posted 03-09-2002 1:23 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by KingPenguin, posted 03-10-2002 3:24 AM quicksink has responded
 Message 85 by TrueCreation, posted 03-11-2002 6:01 PM quicksink has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019