Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
75 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 8/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On creationists' beliefs
gene90
Member (Idle past 3055 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 9 of 59 (3925)
02-09-2002 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 12:22 AM


Some of the things you are listing are observations, others are abstract ideas. Why don't you explain these one at a time, and we can pick at them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 12:22 AM TrueCreation has taken no action

gene90
Member (Idle past 3055 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 10 of 59 (3926)
02-09-2002 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 12:22 AM


Some of the things you are listing are observations, others are abstract ideas. Why don't you explain these one at a time, and we can pick at them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 12:22 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 9:34 PM gene90 has replied
 Message 12 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 9:44 PM gene90 has taken no action

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 59 (3927)
02-09-2002 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by gene90
02-09-2002 9:00 PM


--Oops, deja vu.

"Some of the things you are listing are observations, others are abstract ideas. Why don't you explain these one at a time, and we can pick at them?"
--ok.

"There being amazingly preserved fossilized of various animals around the world, without evidence of landslide."
--Permineralized remnants of pre-existing animals being burried in the ground, without evidence of landslide, so you must preserve this animal relatively fully in-tact for the time that it remains on the ground, especially associated with various Fish that supposedly were burried over many many years at the bottoms of lakes or oceans. Undersea landslides (particularelly in lakes) are extreamly rare and almost never happen especially if on a leveled sea-floor. So you must preserve this Fish or other organism for hundreds or thousands of years in such a greatly preserved condition over this vast period of time.

"Dinosaur Red Blood Cells with evident hemoglobin"
--I don't see any way that Red Blood cells still with hemoglobin able to sustain itself for 65+ million years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/4232cen_s1997.asp

"Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones"
--Basically the same argument as is used with Red Blood cells, It would be hard for you to preserve DInosaur bones without permineralization over the vast period of 65 million years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/250.asp

"Existance of Comets"
--Comets should no longer exist with their life-spans as noted today, it would be hard to explain out of observable evidence on how comets should still exist.

"Various arguments on Saturns Rings"
--Some arguments on saturns rings such as how they are found today in such a consistant paturn, so well organized. It is estimated that it would take 30 billion years after the plausable impact theory of a moon being smashed to peices and condensing to attain its current orbit around saturn. Also the rings should have been pulled into the planet by its gravity as is shown that they are straying toward the planet, thus cannot be near as old as depicted.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v11n1_Saturn.asp

"Dendrochronological dating"
--Dendrochronology is support for the theory that every tree that is alive can be no older than 6000 years, and that most should be no more than 4,400 years, this is what is seen.

"Diamonds and Tectonic activity in their creation."
--It is thought that by natural processes, it takes millions of years for the formation of diamonds.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1402.asp

"Stalagtites and Stalagmites"
--The growth of Stalagtites and stalagmites is fully consistant with the dating of the earth.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 9:00 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 10:40 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

gene90
Member (Idle past 3055 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 12 of 59 (3929)
02-09-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by gene90
02-09-2002 9:00 PM


While you're at it, you can explain (1) (a)how the Earth has been blasted with at least 120 asteroid or cometary impacts in <10,000 years, (b)how our ancestors survived it, (c)why we aren't still suffering because of them why some of the craters are more eroded than others (d)why there have been no historical impacts of any significance, ie, why we should, assuming creationists are correct, be acquiring craters miles wide about once every 40 years or so (3a) why there have been four known mass extinctions in Earth's history and (b) how humans survived (c) left no unambigous record of the events (4) (a)if the evolutionist time scale is incorrect why geologists found most of the craters mentioned in (1) in the rock formations previously identified as being oldest even though many were found by accident rather than deliberate search (b)why those were more likely to be more weathered than the craters elsewhere and (c) why these are often buried and only found through gravimetrics and magnetometry (5) (a)why some mountain ranges are weathered stubs of their former glory as inferred from the gravimetric analysis of basement rock and other ranges are enormous and (b) still growing at a rate consistent with the evolutionary timescale and (c)why the Bible doesn't mention mountains being thrust up overnight which is just as well considering the kinds of heat and earthquakes the events would unleash anyway (6) (a)why if the Flood only lasted a hundred and something days there are fossilized coral reefs in Texas (b) how the sediment load didn't wipe out coral and other filter feeders all around the world (c) how the mix of fresh and salt water didn't wipe out most of the biology found in Earth's hydrosphere (7) (a) the absence of evidence that any cultures contemporaneous with Noah were disrupted by the Flood (b) the lack of evidence of genetic bottlenecks in every animal species on Earth (8) the anomalous redistribution of life following the Flood, ie, (a)why every species of desert animal on Earth is not inhabiting the Middle East (b) why the animals of Earth are not all cosmopolitan in distribution (c) who carried the animals to distant habitats with (d)foreknowledge of which animals would best survive there (e) why this is not mentioned in the Bible (9) Why fossil finds are not found sorted by density, ie, a layer of rock under a layer of shells under a layer of heavily cross-bedded coarse sediment under a layer of bones and teeth, under layers of28a)why every species of desert animal on Earth is not inhabiting the Middle East (b) why the animals of Earth are not all cosmopolitan in distribution (c) who carried the animals to distant habitats with (d)foreknowledge of which animals would best survive there (e) why this is not mentioned in the Bible (9) Why fossil finds are not found sorted by density, ie, a layer of rock under a layer of shells under a layer of heavily cross-bedded coarse sediment under a layer of bones and teeth, under layers of silt and ash, under a layer of pollen, containing a layer of partially petrified wood on top, fairly homogenous and stretching over all the continents (10) (a) absence of strained floating debris on high ridges (b) why we don't generally find piles of bones on high ridges (c) why there are no piles of loess deposits "upstream" of mountains

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by gene90, posted 02-09-2002 9:00 PM gene90 has taken no action

gene90
Member (Idle past 3055 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 13 of 59 (3941)
02-09-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by TrueCreation
02-09-2002 9:34 PM


I spent half an hour on a detailed response of your post but it got devoured by the posting process.

Simply put:

(1) Nobody I know of claims that Saturn's rings are as old as Saturn, general consensus is that they are fairly recent and are short lived. I am comfortable with the claims of AiG on Saturn's rings and see their argument as a strawman.

However your "30 billion years to form" is simply put, a misquote. Please be more careful, it is not an honorable behavior.

(2) Fossilization occurs from the outside in. If you have a high concentration of mineral dissolved in groundwater, the outside will fossilize and seal up the inside, preserving heme and some of the original biologicals. This is rare but I can accept (and expect) that it happens. Strawman argument.

(3) Burial is not required for fossilization because of the anoxic environments in lakes, swamps, and oceans, and landslides are not the only way things get buried in the ocean. (Currents deposit sand.)
The claims that rapid burial is always necessary and that burial requires a landslide are also strawman arguments.

(4) You mis-cited your diamond argument, the link you gave was a discussion of diamonds in the crust, not the length of time it takes to make a diamond. Misreference on your part. AiG mentions three different uniformitarian responses to the finding (itself by uniformitarians).

(5) Oldest tree is not necessarily as old as the Earth. If the oldest tree were 500 years old, would you claim that the Earth was only 500 years old? Of course not, it's silly. Then why do you use a bristlecone pine? Besides, how many other species get that old, and since there are so few even though the world is clearly at least 6k, why does only one species on the planet get that old? Argument non-sequitir.

(6) Stalagmite argument -- too vague for comment.

(7) "New" comets are appearing frequently, from the Oort Cloud, as inferred by their otherwise unexplainable aphelion distances and spherical distribution around the Sun. I know you folks don't like the Oort Cloud because it was inferred from astrophysical measurements rather than direct observation (because comets are so small and dark they cannot be detected from such great distances), but can you explain those aphelia in a better, more coherent, way?

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-09-2002]

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by TrueCreation, posted 02-09-2002 9:34 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7115 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 14 of 59 (3945)
02-09-2002 10:56 PM


im gonna kill all those straw man bastards. grrrrrr ill kill em and strip them of any honor. death be to straw men!!!!

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


toff
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 59 (4086)
02-11-2002 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by KingPenguin
02-08-2002 4:47 PM


Sadly, I note that neither TrueCreation nor KingPenguin, the most prolific posters on this an some other boards, have bothered to even try to answer my question. One simply dodged around it, while the other (incorrectly) accused me of making a generalisation. Read it again, KingPenguin. I'm asking a QUESTION, begging to be corrected if I have the wrong end of the stick. So how about you actually try responding to my original post, instead of just using it as a launching pad for your own statements?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 4:47 PM KingPenguin has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by TrueCreation, posted 02-11-2002 6:40 PM toff has replied

Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 59 (4094)
02-11-2002 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by toff
02-08-2002 3:18 AM


I suppose I will answer you're question.

quote:
Originally posted by toff:
It seems to me that any creationist who dismisses evolution must hold one of the following two positions:

1) A relatively small group of predominantly right-wing christians, most with no scientific training or education, led by people like Kent Hovind and Duane Gish, know more about biology, genetics, and many other sciences that contribute to evolutionary theory, than do the world's scientists, people who have studied these sciences all their professional lives, or

2) Evolutionary theory is a lie to which the world's scientists knowingly describe in an an effort to supplant/diminish belief in God.

Either of these two positions strikes me as absurd, yet I cannot see how someone who dismisses evolutionary theory cannot hold one or the other.

Am I missing something? Or am I correct, and one of the above two positions ARE held by the majority of creationists? If so, which is the most held belief?


Point one is ridiculous mainly because you try to point out that Creation Scientists have no credentials, which is plainly not true and IS an unreasonable discirimination. Then you try to say that science is a majority vote! You seem to have this view that scientists are all completely convinced about evolution. Not so. Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution. So consensus around evolution is probably not as extreme as you may assume.

Point two is a position that I don't think too many people hold, so it is not worth discussion.

Actually, I don't think too many people hold either of your points:

Point 3: Have studied a great deal on the subject of life and have come to the conclusion that evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists.

I believe more people would be able to say they are with point 3. Of course you don't like this point because it shows that Creation Scientists (and all creationists) can be reasonable, so I'm sure you will start yelling about the fallacies of my point. I don't care, it's not worth my time. If you are going to dismiss all Creationists as ignorant merely because they don't agree with you, than debating with you on this matter would surely be a waste of my time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by toff, posted 02-08-2002 3:18 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Peter, posted 02-11-2002 7:55 AM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 19 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 9:39 AM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 20 by lbhandli, posted 02-11-2002 11:35 AM Cobra_snake has taken no action

Peter
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 17 of 59 (4097)
02-11-2002 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 7:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I suppose I will answer you're question.

Point one is ridiculous mainly because you try to point out that Creation Scientists have no credentials, which is plainly not true and IS an unreasonable discirimination. Then you try to say that science is a majority vote! You seem to have this view that scientists are all completely convinced about evolution. Not so. Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution. So consensus around evolution is probably not as extreme as you may assume.

Point two is a position that I don't think too many people hold, so it is not worth discussion.

Actually, I don't think too many people hold either of your points:

Point 3: Have studied a great deal on the subject of life and have come to the conclusion that evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists.

I believe more people would be able to say they are with point 3. Of course you don't like this point because it shows that Creation Scientists (and all creationists) can be reasonable, so I'm sure you will start yelling about the fallacies of my point. I don't care, it's not worth my time. If you are going to dismiss all Creationists as ignorant merely because they don't agree with you, than debating with you on this matter would surely be a waste of my time.


Which aspects of evolution do you find implausible ?

All of evolutionary theory, just parts of it ?

What aspects of evolutionary theory lack supporting evidence, in your
opinion ?

I believe the original post was deliberately controversial to
make a point and gaurantee some responses. It was also relating
to individuals who 'dismiss evolution' not those who argue reasonably
about its accuracy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 7:04 AM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 9:59 PM Peter has taken no action

toff
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 59 (4120)
02-11-2002 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by KingPenguin
02-08-2002 4:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
A fact that helps proves creation is that we count down to and from the year of christ's birth, i highly doubt that people would just start counting from there and have it become worldwide without enough evidence to convince everyone that God does exist. if you actually had enough evidence to prove evolution and disprove creation, like so many of you claim, then surely we would be in the year whatever starting from mans first existence according to evolution.

Are you seriously putting forward the current western calendar as evidence for creation? I can't believe anyone would be that desparate for an argument. If that's evidence fo creation by your god, tell me - what are all the other calendars which have been used over time evidence for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by KingPenguin, posted 02-08-2002 4:47 PM KingPenguin has taken no action

toff
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 59 (4124)
02-11-2002 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 7:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I suppose I will answer you're question.

Point one is ridiculous mainly because you try to point out that Creation Scientists have no credentials, which is plainly not true and IS an unreasonable discirimination. Then you try to say that science is a majority vote! You seem to have this view that scientists are all completely convinced about evolution. Not so. Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution. So consensus around evolution is probably not as extreme as you may assume.

Point two is a position that I don't think too many people hold, so it is not worth discussion.

Actually, I don't think too many people hold either of your points:

Point 3: Have studied a great deal on the subject of life and have come to the conclusion that evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists.

I believe more people would be able to say they are with point 3. Of course you don't like this point because it shows that Creation Scientists (and all creationists) can be reasonable, so I'm sure you will start yelling about the fallacies of my point. I don't care, it's not worth my time. If you are going to dismiss all Creationists as ignorant merely because they don't agree with you, than debating with you on this matter would surely be a waste of my time.


Thank you. You answered my question. You subscribe to belief number 1. You, and others like you, the majority of whom hold no scientific qualifications, know more about the subject than those who have studied it for decades. I appreciate your honesty (although you tried to make your position sound a little better by hedging and trying to make it sounds more reasonable).

Oh, and a couple of other quick points - I neither said nor implied that "Creation Scientists have no credentials". I said that of creationists, most have no scientific knowledge or training. This is simply true, of creationists and indeed the general populace. Nice try, though.

And do you seriously believe that there are evolutionists who believe evolution is not plausible? Are you serious? If they don't believe it's plausible, then they're not evolutionists, are they?

Oh, and I wouldn't try to make your position sound better by citing that "many intelligent Creation scientists" hold it as well. I have yet to see a creation 'scientist' who has any (a) integrity or (b) an accurate picture of science in general or evolution in particular.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 7:04 AM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Brad McFall, posted 02-11-2002 11:38 AM toff has taken no action
 Message 27 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 10:33 PM toff has replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 59 (4137)
02-11-2002 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Cobra_snake
02-11-2002 7:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Point one is ridiculous mainly because you try to point out that Creation Scientists have no credentials, which is plainly not true and IS an unreasonable discirimination.

Actually if one is going to an authority one would discriminate based on credentials. This is very reasonable discrimination. Do you look to a doctor for health care? Why not a janitor?

And there are a strange number of creationists with questionable credentials:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
My particular favorite is Hovind who claims to have a PhD from a ranch style house.

Now, perhaps some of these folks do have something to say that is intelligent, but lying about their credentials is a pretty good way to get dismissed.

quote:

Then you try to say that science is a majority vote! You seem to have this view that scientists are all completely convinced about evolution. Not so.

Actually the consensus is overwhelming. If I walked over to the bio department and asked who questioned evolution I'd be laughed at. Because some people are loud doesn't mean they are serious individuals.

quote:

Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution. So consensus around evolution is probably not as extreme as you may assume.

That is an assertion in desperate need of evidence.

quote:

Point 3: Have studied a great deal on the subject of life and have come to the conclusion that evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists.

I believe more people would be able to say they are with point 3. Of course you don't like this point because it shows that Creation Scientists (and all creationists) can be reasonable, so I'm sure you will start yelling about the fallacies of my point. I don't care, it's not worth my time. If you are going to dismiss all Creationists as ignorant merely because they don't agree with you, than debating with you on this matter would surely be a waste of my time.


Actually, they are ignorant because they aren't doing science. Have you notice the utter lack of any scientific theory associated with creationism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-11-2002 7:04 AM Cobra_snake has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by LudvanB, posted 02-11-2002 12:06 PM lbhandli has taken no action
 Message 30 by The Barbarian, posted 02-11-2002 10:59 PM lbhandli has taken no action

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4265 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 21 of 59 (4138)
02-11-2002 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by toff
02-11-2002 9:39 AM


Guess what, I am not this time going to rush to print toff, but you? talking to me too?

The issue of evolution thinking has to do with the surface we are thinking about. I do know that what Cobra said is true and it is striking that the first illustration of rattlesnake fangs drawn curved were rejected by the "editors". Noam Chomsky latter went on to try to have cast by his handlers and/all public access TV sound bit as the fangs ofa tiger. That was still a snake not a bounce nor the product in the dryer as made for TV in NYC but I do not want to make another simple Mayr polemic on c/e boards, so unless it is time to ask again which end of the machine you move less are you sure you want what you just said to stand?

And I say this as speaking about what can be prooved as opposed the constantly undeviating opinion that c/e boards that insist on quality have only been able to generate up to date (1948?). For instance are you more in favor of a reserach program using Wright's Isolation by distance or Ford's ecological Genetics. I do agree with Provine on this point, that these days work in population thinking needs to fancy the interchange between Fisher and Wright more and more and not less and less and yet I do not see how creating this next test beyond balanced selection can be anything but designed. I do not drip venom out of both fangs of my wisdom. But sign with the best. BRAD At one time in my study of evolution thinking I had wished I was on my way to NZ but since then I have realized that there is Moss between Aust. and there as writ, nor did the opp materialize.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 9:39 AM toff has taken no action

LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 59 (4142)
02-11-2002 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by lbhandli
02-11-2002 11:35 AM


Kent Hovind is a crazy coot. The guy is an even worse plague for creationists than evolutionists ever could be. Anyone who listen to his seminar (twice in my case,the second time for pure entertainement purposes) can see exactly where he's comming from and quickly recognize a man clearly in love with the sound his own voice makes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by lbhandli, posted 02-11-2002 11:35 AM lbhandli has taken no action

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 59 (4155)
02-11-2002 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by toff
02-11-2002 4:03 AM


"Sadly, I note that neither TrueCreation nor KingPenguin, the most prolific posters on this an some other boards, have bothered to even try to answer my question. One simply dodged around it, while the other (incorrectly) accused me of making a generalisation. Read it again, KingPenguin. I'm asking a QUESTION, begging to be corrected if I have the wrong end of the stick. So how about you actually try responding to my original post, instead of just using it as a launching pad for your own statements?"
--I already responded to your original post, and as I can see from the only two, one or the other conjector, that it doesn't seem worth getting into as someone seems to have already made up their mind before starting. Unless you woul like to restate the question.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by toff, posted 02-11-2002 4:03 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 2:21 AM TrueCreation has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022