PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Creationism challenged!Dare u?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 8:31 PM on September 6, 2008 :
Quote from Demon38 at 12:32 AM on August 18, 2008 :

you can't be a biologist without accepting evolution.  And you can't do any real medical research without accepting evolution, either.


I simply bust say bull. Our church has a member, a Christian, who is a cancer specialist. My friend's mom is nurse, my other friends dad is a doctor. All Christians.




Being a Christian has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting evolution. Plenty of biologists and doctors accept evolution and attend church.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 8:39 PM on September 6, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 8:31 PM on September 6, 2008 :
Quote from Demon38 at 12:32 AM on August 18, 2008 :

you can't be a biologist without accepting evolution.  And you can't do any real medical research without accepting evolution, either.


I simply bust say bull. Our church has a member, a Christian, who is a cancer specialist. My friend's mom is nurse, my other friends dad is a doctor. All Christians.


So? A doctor is not a biologist nor are RNs. And many doctors and RNs do not do medical research.

Only a literal interpretation of Genesis contridicts Evolution. The problem with YEC beliefs is that it requires God to be the ultimate Deceiver.

Do you accept that your God is constantly lying to you every second of every day for your entire life?

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 12:00 AM on September 7, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]
I simply bust say bull. Our church has a member, a Christian, who is a cancer specialist. My friend's mom is nurse, my other friends dad is a doctor. All Christians.




Well, yeah, but most Christians, an overwhelming majority, around 98%, accept Evolution, because there´s no contradiction between the religion and the scientific theory. I recommend you read or watch some clips with Prof. Kenneth Miller, a Christian and Evolutionary Biologist. He´ll explain it much better than me.

So, any attempt to respond to the initial question asked?



-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 5:06 PM on September 7, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I simply bust say bull. Our church has a member, a Christian, who is a cancer specialist. My friend's mom is nurse, my other friends dad is a doctor. All Christians.

As pointed out by other posters, many Christians accept evolution.  Evolution does NOT equal atheisim.  Guess you don't understand christianity either...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:38 AM on September 8, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

back to the original quesiton of what should be taught in schools:

i consider myself to be a creationist.  (maybe even a young earth creationist.  i just believe that at some point in time, there had to be an intelligent creator of all things we know.  that's just my stance - not the subject of my argument, and certainly not the argument intended to arise from this thread.

i'm a strange bird i guess.  i'm a creationist, but i'm not so sure creationism - with it's differing points of view should be taught in schools.  the fundamental premise behind any form of creationism  is that there was a "god" or intelligent designer.  since there is absolutely no way at all to prove this,  it can't be taught as fact.
on the other hand, i WOULD, however like to see the evidence used to support the idea that the earth may not be quite as old as previously thought presented alongside just to present the debate within the scientific community.  yes, i know that the majority of the scientific community is absolutely compelled by what is thought to be factual evidence of evolution and natural selection being the driving force behind the differing species.  but there is a portion of the community with scientifc evidence that is contradictory in nature.  i would like to see both of those sides presented in order for classrooms to form healthy debate.

and i think that this is all that's really behind the issue that creationsists are rasing.  i don't think they want to force religion down anyone's throat (although there are those that do).  i think it's just a matter of being able to say.  look...this is what we've found; can we discuss this?  


(Edited by dijonaise 9/22/2008 at 8:01 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 2:30 PM on September 11, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i just looked back and realized that there were several more questions.  to try to be short, but succint, i'll just adress the issue of scientific evidence provided to support the thought that the earth may not be as old as vastly accepted.

1.  It has been scientifically proven that coal can be produced far more quickly than millions of years.
2.  there are verified records of fossilized human footprints and handprints in the same area and layer of sediment as with dinosaurs.
3. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old
4.  the moon is receading from earth.  at the rate of recession, if it were reversed to where the moon was actually toucing the earth, that would make the age a few billion years less.
5.  A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure.  yet scientists are unsure why coal has 14C in it.
6. there is helium in the atmosphere - 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old.  there are rocks that still contain so much that it's clear that not enought time has elapsed for it to escape.

there's more and more and more, but i'll stop there and await a reply.
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 2:58 PM on September 11, 2008 | IP
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 12:00 AM on September 7, 2008 :
Quote from JSF16 at 8:31 PM on September 6, 2008 :
Quote from Demon38 at 12:32 AM on August 18, 2008 :

you can't be a biologist without accepting evolution.  And you can't do any real medical research without accepting evolution, either.


I simply bust say bull. Our church has a member, a Christian, who is a cancer specialist. My friend's mom is nurse, my other friends dad is a doctor. All Christians.


So? A doctor is not a biologist nor are RNs. And many doctors and RNs do not do medical research.

Only a literal interpretation of Genesis contridicts Evolution. The problem with YEC beliefs is that it requires God to be the ultimate Deceiver.

Do you accept that your God is constantly lying to you every second of every day for your entire life?



Is god the ultimate deceiver, or are the scientists? If lets say NASA for example found evidence against the big bang, would they actually admit it? No, of course they wouldn't.

And actually, only 39% of Americans accept Evolution.





-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 8:12 PM on September 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And if scientists found evidence disproving the Big Bang, why would they keep it secret?  The same question could be asked of Evolution.

That isn't how science works.  When Einstein presented his theory of Relativity it wasn't instantly accepted (it wasn't easy to understand either).  But as evidence was gathered that supported it, it became generally accepted.  Is it the final word in describing space-time and gravity?  Probably not.

Why he didn't win a Nobel prize for Relativity is one of history's injustices. I believe it was because of some bias that the Swedish committee member had against him.  Einstein did win a Nobel prize, but that was for his theory on the photoelectric effect, I believe.

Was Einstein's theories something he produced from thin air?  Of course not.  He was working with the known facts of his time and trying to resolve inconsistencies that Newtonian physics couldn't explain.  He built upon the knowledge that was available at the time - and his genius took physics and cosmology to the next level of understanding.

The same thing would happen if someone presented a scientific theory that was contrary to the Big Bang or Evolution.  But it would either stand or fall by it's merits.

If you think scientists are hiding evidence supporting a Biblical creation, then you're welcome to continue thinking that.  But also know that you're argument isn't persausive.  I would suggest you read a little bit about the history of science.  It doesn't have to include Evolution.  Just get a feel for how the process  works.  The history of scientific development from the ancient Greeks to modern times is a facinating subject, I think.  

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:19 PM on September 11, 2008 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What is the basis for your supposition that if we found evidence refuting  a current theory it wouldn't come to light?  It can't be based on real world cases because theories are proven wrong (at least partially) with some regularity in the science world; normally it is only parts of the theory which are proven wrong so it is replaced with a new one that incorporates the new evidence.  There is no great scientific conspiracy holding back evidence supporting creationism, there just isn't any good evidence to support pseudosciences like creationism.

Also, the fact that such a low number of Americans accept evolution is in no way any indication of its validity, it just shows that our education system is lacking.  Outside the US the acceptance of scientific principles like evolution are much higher.
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 11:26 PM on September 11, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem with Creationism is that it starts with a conclusion (Biblical Genesis) and tries to find evidence to support it.  This is the opposite process of the way science works.

Science, on the other hand, examines the world and draws possible explanations to account for what is observed.  It bases its conclusions on observed empirical data.  

That's a BIG difference.




 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:49 PM on September 12, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And actually, only 39% of Americans accept Evolution.

Let's see your Source!  I don't believe this is true.  I think you're confused again...

And it's very sad that ANYone doubts evolution in this modern world.  Kind of like doubting a round earth...

(Edited by Demon38 9/12/2008 at 4:15 PM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:08 PM on September 12, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[/b]And actually, only 39% of Americans accept Evolution.


Here's one source I found.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

It says -
Among US earth & life Scientists:[b]
700 with respected academic credentials believe in Creationism - out of 480,000 total.  That comes to 0.14% of the total.  That means that 99.85% of US earth & life scientist accept Evolution.

Among the American public:
1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

                                                Theistic  Natural
                        Creationist     Evolution     Evo
General Public         44 %          39 %         10 %
Scientists:                 5 %          40 %         55 %

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.



Creationism:  God created man within the last 10,000 years.

Theistic Evolution:  Man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process.

Naturalistic Evolution:  Man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, God had nothing to do with this process.

I count myself in the 3rd group - Naturalistic Evolution.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:48 PM on September 12, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 8:12 PM on September 11, 2008 :

Is god the ultimate deceiver, or are the scientists? If lets say NASA for example found evidence against the big bang, would they actually admit it? No, of course they wouldn't.


Way to fail. Numerous products are based on an old Earth. Nuclear energy for one is based on the principles of radiaoctive decay. Which for nuclear reactors, means their fuel is very, very old. If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, nuclear power should not function as it does today. Therefore, God must be lying under a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Green Revolutions of the 70s were based partially on an evolutionary understanding of disease resistance, growth and specific genetic traits. Without evolution, there likely would not have been green revolutions across Asia. Your interpretation requires a liar God.

And actually, only 39% of Americans accept Evolution.


So? How does the fallacy of the bandwagon prove your argument is correct?

pathetic creationists. No skill.


 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 8:19 PM on September 12, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anyone got the time to refute dijonaise's ?

A simple talkorigins.org search will disprove his crap.

(Edited by admin 9/14/2008 at 8:52 PM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 8:20 PM on September 12, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.  It has been scientifically proven that coal can be produced far more quickly than millions of years.


I haven't found the source of the scientific evidence for the rapid formation of coal.  Can you point it out to me?


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:46 PM on September 12, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And actually, only 39% of Americans accept Evolution.



The poll results do show that more educated people are more likely to accept evolution than those with less education.  More scientifically educated people are far more likely to accept evolution.  

Results in polls can also vary widely depending on how you word the questions.  Take a look at the following two articles:

Science Test: New Poll Shows Support For Creationism Slipping
http://blog.au.org/2008/06/19/science-test-new-poll-shows-support-for-creationism-slipping/

Recent studies show that Americans’ views on evolutionary science have been relatively stable over the past several decades. Beginning in the 1980s, polls consistently found that between 40% and 50% of the American public accepts human evolution (2 , 3) , and 40–50% favors a biblical creationist account of the origins of life (3) . An analysis by the Pew Research Center shows that Americans’ views on evolutionary science vary with the phrasing of the question, however (3) . For example, when people are asked to choose whether humans developed over millions of years, with or without guidance from God (a Gallup poll question), more select evolution with guidance (38%) than without guidance (13%). A Pew poll question shows a different pattern of results. Respondents were first asked, without reference to a supreme being, if they thought humans evolved or were created in their present form. Those who accepted evolution were then asked if they thought it occurred through natural processes or with guidance. When asked this way, 18% reported that evolution occurred with guidance, and 25% accepted that it occurred through natural selection.

Quote above is from here:
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/short/22/1/1


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:34 PM on September 12, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, credit to dijonaise for at leaste trying to come up with some answers to the questions.
Thank you, appreciate it!

Now, first of all, the comment that only 39% of Americans believe in Evolution... I´ve heard loads of different figures, all suggesting that the majority of Americans do not "believe", or more appropriately, accept Evolution. If you ask 1000 people whether our planet is shaped as a circle or if it is flat, and the vast majority says they believe it is flat, that doesn´t mean that planet earth is flat, it means that the vast majority are stupid and uneducated. Go to ANY other Western country in the world, you´ll never get more than one in a thousand who deny evolution. I can make such a claim based on experiences from living in countries such as Sweden, Norway, Australia, Scotland, England, Spain, Italy, France, Singapore and so forth. You can´t find anyone denying Evolution theory there! So never think that universal truth is measured in mass appeal.

Now, here´s the thing. In science and scientific theory, facts are the first step, but they are far from being the most important. You see, you can´t do anything with facts. Grass is green. That´s a fact. So what? It doesn´t do anything just by knowing this. It is what comes AFTER the facts that are the important parts in science, namely WHY the grass is green, whether or not the reason for this is applicable in any other scientific field, does it contradict or confirm/strengthen any previous scientific theory, and so forth. And Evolution is extremely applicable. Had it not been, it wouldn´t have been true. Fact: We see diversion in the gene-pool over a substantial period of time. Therefore we can come up with an evidence-supported theory, backed up in many different scientific aspects such as biology and medicine, that dogs and wolfs, for example, derived from the same ancestors. The findings in the fossil record (archeology) confirms this. We know from genetic science that for the gene-mutation to make such a diversion, it would require X amount of years (several million). We know from carbo14 and many, many other experiments, that the  fossil found is an example of a creature that would have lived sufficiently long ago to have been an example of the ancestor we think it is. We know from paleontology that it has the right features  to be such a creature. We know from hundreds of different scientific fields that our planet is old enough to allow such a change to take place.

These are all different scientific experiments that confirm the evolution theory, all scientist in consensus, all facts pointing to the same direction. If there is one experiment that leads to another conclusion, contradicting all the other tests, this experiment is done again, and 99.99% of all the times it confirms the initial theory, showing there has been a fault in the initial experiment in one way or another.

Now, Creationism on the other hand work like this: They already have a In-Stone-Written theory deriving from a book, not a scientific field. They don´t do their own research or science whatsoever, all they do is look at the available scientific data, and make incorrect assumptions, ridiculous claims, biased conclusions, look for gaps or what they believe to be gaps in the scientific theory and then they raise their voices, claiming to have disproven Evolution and therefore Creationism must be correct. If you look at dijonaise "answers", none of them has anything that would confirm Creationism, even if they would disprove Evolution (they don´t).  

So, the question still remains: What proof do you have for creationism? "Disproving" or thinking that you have disproved Evolution is not proof for creationism. Period.

All the best

(Edited by Reason4All 9/14/2008 at 10:46 AM).


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 10:46 AM on September 14, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 8:20 PM on September 12, 2008 :
Anyone got the time to refute dijonaise's bullshit?

A simple talkorigins.org search will disprove his crap.



i truly don't appreciate a thoughtless reply such as this.  you are not contributing to this debate whatsoever!  i give what i say plenty of thought, and i'm open to intelligent discussion on the topic.  i am NOT, however, open to mindless spouting and hateful vulgarity.
if you have an issue to bring up with anything of the seemigly valid points that i have made.  do just that.  but the next time you feel like touting complete negativity and vulgarity while trying to look "macho" in front of your peers...DON'T.



 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 8:42 PM on September 14, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 9:46 PM on September 12, 2008 :
1.  It has been scientifically proven that coal can be produced far more quickly than millions of years.


I haven't found the source of the scientific evidence for the rapid formation of coal.  Can you point it out to me?





i have followed the studies of a former scientist of the oak ridge facility in tn named robert gentry.  

i've read a couple of books, and i have a dvd of some of his experiments.  i'll look to see if there is anything posted online, and post it here.


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 8:46 PM on September 14, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You mean Robert Gentry the nuclear physicist?
Why should we care what a physicist says about geology?    

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:01 PM on September 14, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Reason4All at 10:46 AM on September 14, 2008 :
Well, credit to dijonaise for at leaste trying to come up with some answers to the questions.
Thank you, appreciate it!

well, thanks.  i'm just interested in both sides - even if i do find the creationists' side more compelling to me.  i still find the theory of evolution interesting, and i'm curious about it and wish to learn more.  that's why i'm here.  some people seem to be here simply to spread hate and tension, but that is not the reason for any type of debate.  the reason is to present facts and conclude from them.





Now, here´s the thing. In science and scientific theory, facts are the first step,

...

Now, Creationism on the other hand work like this: They already have a In-Stone-Written theory deriving from a book, not a scientific field. They don´t do their own research or science whatsoever, all they do is look at the available scientific data, and make incorrect assumptions, ridiculous claims, biased conclusions, look for gaps or what they believe to be gaps in the scientific theory and then they raise their voices, claiming to have disproven Evolution and therefore Creationism must be correct. If you look at dijonaise "answers", none of them has anything that would confirm Creationism, even if they would disprove Evolution (they don´t).  

So, the question still remains: What proof do you have for creationism? "Disproving" or thinking that you have disproved Evolution is not proof for creationism. Period.

All the best



i have to disagree wholeheartedly.  we are both looking at the SAME FACTS.  take the grand canyon, for instance...we both see the fact that it's there.  but we each come up with a different theory on how it got there.  you say...it was millions of years of a river corroding the rocks.  i say it was a cataclysmic event in which a lot of water rushed through and caused it more quickly.  
we both start with the same facts.  SCIENCE is looking at a fact, and developing a hypothesis, then finding the evidence to make the hypothesis more credible.  this simple scientific stradegy is what is done on BOTH sides.
our hypothesis is that there was a large flood.  yours is that there was a river.

it could be said that we both go into it with a preconceived notion.




 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 9:08 PM on September 14, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

here's what i found on mr. gentry:

(this is taken from www.halos.com)
The Young Age of the Earth

The Young Age of the Earth is a 76 minute VHS/DVD video which explains how a created, young Earth, is compatible with a myriad of field evidences and the Genesis record of creation in six literal days. Dr. Robert V. Gentry and his son, David present young earth evidences supporting rapid coal formation such as polonium halos in coalified wood and the astonishingly pure giant coal beds of the Powder River Basin. These coal beds, sometimes hundreds of feet thick, are better explained by a rapid deposition and burial of billions of tons of vegetation by a massive flood mechanism. Present day oil formation in the Guaymas Basin is seen using deep sea footage from DSV Alvin. Aerial and ground based footage of the Grand Canyon illustrate features which question whether the Colorado River carved the canyon over millions of years. Dr. Walt Brown discusses his hydroplate theory which is consistent with the biblical flood model. Scenes from the visitor center at Dinosaur National Monument are explained in a startling new way. An explanation of cavitation includes footage from the Glen Canyon Dam where the power of catastrophically driven water is demonstrated in the spillway tunnels at the dam. Fossil Butte National Monument is also visited where inconsistencies between accepted theory and fossil evidence abound. The mass burial and deposition of millions of fish demands a theory of catastrophism similar to that required in the Grand Canyon. Dinosaur tracks in the coal mines of Eastern Utah near Price are documented and related to the age of the coal which they are found in. The published evidence from the deep drill holes in New Mexico show helium retention which is impossible to explain except by a young Earth paradigm. A synopsis of the polonium halos evidence for a rapid crystallization of granite is given explaining the difficulties they pose to the view of an anciently evolving planet from a hot melt

i have also come accross a link on talkorigins that possibly refutes what he has to say.   i will look it over thouroughly, and comment.

cheers
-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 9:25 PM on September 14, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's look at some of dijonaise claims:

1.  It has been scientifically proven that coal can be produced far more quickly than millions of years.

But not under natural conditions.  In nature it takes millions of years for coal to form.  First of all it takes hundreds of thousands of years just for the organic material to accumulate.  Many coal beds have fossils of multiple forrests in them.  How long do you think it takes for a forrest to grow, die and have another forest grow and die on top of it?  After that happens multiple times, Then it takes millions of years for rock and earth to cover these dead forests.  And then it takes millions of years for the pressure and heat of the earth and rock covering this to turn it into coal.  Now, present your evidence that says it doesn't take millions of years for nature to produce coal...

2.  there are verified records of fossilized human footprints and handprints in the same area and layer of sediment as with
dinosaurs.


No there's not.  No such thing as human footprints and handprints found in the same layers as dinosaurs.  This is simply a lie perpetrated by creationists.  Let's see if you
can back up your claim.  Every time a creationist has made this claim it has turned out to ba hoax or misindentification.

3. The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old

Completely untrue.  The earth's magnetic field is known to vary in intensity and actually completely flip.  We know this for a fact.
This is what NASA has to say about it, From here:
NASA

"Sometimes the field completely flips. The north and the south poles swap places. Such reversals, recorded in the magnetism of ancient rocks, are unpredictable. They come at irregular intervals averaging about 300,000 years; the last one was 780,000 years ago."

So we know that the magnetic field varies in intensity, it gets stronger, it gets weaker.  So your claim that it looks younger 10,000 years is known to be completely false.  

4.  the moon is receading from earth.  at the rate of recession, if it were reversed to where the moon was actually toucing the earth, that would make the age a few billion years less.

Untrue, again.  From here:
Earth MOon

"The moon is receding at about 3.8 cm per year. Since the moon is 3.85 × 1010 cm from the earth, this is already consistent, within an order of magnitude, with an earth-moon system billions of years old."

So the moon is receding from the earth at 3.8 cm per year, let's see your calculations...

5.  A specimen older than 50,000 years should have too little 14C to measure.  yet scientists are unsure why coal has 14C
in it.


And this means what?  Scientists know coal is older than 50,000 years so they don't use C-14 dating on it.  Did you do any research on this or just take it from some ill informed creationist site?  From here:
OldCoal

"So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!"

So you're wrong again, scientists have a pretty good idea why coal contains varying amounts of C-14 and it has absolutely nothing to do with a young earth.

6. there is helium in the atmosphere - 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old.  there are rocks that still contain so much that it's clear that not enought time has elapsed for it to
escape.


Ridiculous!  helium is still forming.  What is your point here?

Every one of your arguments has been disproved.  It was easy, they're all PRATTs.  We eagerly await your admission that you were wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:52 PM on September 14, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 8:42 PM on September 14, 2008 :
Quote from Obvious_child at 8:20 PM on September 12, 2008 :
Anyone got the time to refute dijonaise's bullshit?

A simple talkorigins.org search will disprove his crap.



i truly don't appreciate a thoughtless reply such as this.  you are not contributing to this debate whatsoever!  i give what i say plenty of thought, and i'm open to intelligent discussion on the topic.  i am NOT, however, open to mindless spouting and hateful vulgarity.
if you have an issue to bring up with anything of the seemigly valid points that i have made.  do just that.  but the next time you feel like touting complete negativity and vulgarity while trying to look "macho" in front of your peers...DON'T.




Your arguments are nothing more then PRATTs.

Point refuted a thousand times.

A simple search on the provided link proves your claims are known creationist lies.

(Edited by Obvious_child 9/15/2008 at 01:29 AM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 01:28 AM on September 15, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obvious_Child, I have politely asked you, as a friend to please keep the hostility out, it doesn´t matter if we can´t "change" any creationist, this is a debate and no one in a debate should feel disrespected. So I ask you again, please do reply since you are a great contributor, but please keep a respectable tone in your replies. Please. Thanks.

Now dijonaise, my friend. Here´s where I believe you are wrong in your Grand Canyon theory:
Where does the notion of this flood come from? It doesn´t come from a scientific discovery, it comes from The Bible, and then Creationists look for natural phenomena to attribute to the flood in the Bible. Science never works like this.
Science always refer back to science, creationists always refer back to The Bible. So when you say that we look at the SAME evidence, you are forgetting that creationists are looking at the evidence and trying to find a way for it to fit in with their predisposed belief, one that is definitely not scientific because it invokes a supernatural entity. Right there it has lost all scientific validity.

Now remember, science is not anti-God in any way, shape or form. The two greatest scientists of all time, Newton and Einstein, both believed in God, although in different ways. But science is, by definition, the way to come up with natural explanations/causes for natural phenomenon. Creationism therefore can never be a valid scientific field since it is, per definition, a way to come up with SUPERNATURAL explanations/causes for natural phenomenon.
And there´s just no way this can ever happen, because it would be impossible to prove such a supernatural being.

When Creationists look at a phenomena, they look for explanations that would fit in with the biblical accord of the creation. I can assure you that there has never, ever been a scientist that has looked at the Grand Canyon (or any other natural phenomena) and thought:
"Hmmm, how am I going to explain this so it fits in with the Evolution theory?" It doesn´t happen. Ever. Would it have happened that "scientist" would be fired before you can say "evolution is wrong".

Finally I just want to thank you Dijonaise for participating in this debate, and that you say that you come in to it with an open mind. It is very hard to find creationists to debate with, and even harder to find those who say that when confronted with evidence contrary to their previous beliefs they are willing to change or at least question their stance. Thank you! And may I apologize for any offensive remarks you´ve had to endure, I certainly hope it wont happen again.

May I also say one last thing. Evolution is in no way a threat to Christianity or God or Faith. It is just the explanation, tested millions of times in almost every scientific field, and proven to be correct. Most Christians have no problem whatsoever to believe in God and accept Evolution. One of the greatest scientists today, and a personal hero of mine, is Dr. Kenneth Miller, a devout Christian and biologist. He explains the whole concept perfectly in his book "Finding Darwin´s God", and I truly recommend it to you. You can also watch several clips with him on Google-video.

All the best!


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 07:16 AM on September 15, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Reason4All,

i don't want it to seem like i'm trying to go off on a tangent or avoid answering the questions presented.  but please allow me to digress on this a little:

(btw - don't worry...i don't feel threatened at all in my beliefs whatsoever.  and i am completely open to any valid information on this topic.)

last night i watched 2 seperate shows on the discovery channel concerning the evolution into and out of the dinosaur age.  the first was called:  dinosaurs:  return to life. (i think that's the exact title anyway).  to be succinct here.  there was found some small particles of soft tissue within certain fossilized bones.  yes - this is completely true.  it was stated that scientists have believed that soft tissue could only exist for something like 100,000 yrs.  but there it was.  instead of saying something to the effect of: "could it be possible that these bones aren't quite as old as we once thought?"  what was stated was:  "perhaps we need to go back and completely reevaluate how fossils are produced."

during the second show (called 'before the dinosaurs')  a descriptive and seemingly affirmative tale of how more complex life evolved leading up to mammals.  what i found interesting was when it got to the point that the large scorpion anthropods left the ocean and took to land by developing lungs.  the leap that they took was astounding.  but there is nothing but speculation concerning how this happened.   it just...happened.  they developed lungs to process the oxygen in the atmosphere, and suddenly decided to take to land.  and, yes - it was depicted as a sudden decision on the part of the antrhopods to simply walk out of the ocean.  doesn't it seem as though there should have been some trial and error.  i mean why would they develop lungs in the first place.
i am sorry, but in both instances - that's just not good enough for me.  and it plainly shows that there is a certain predisposition on the evolutionists side.  
don't get me wrong - i'll plainly admit that us creationsists have our own disposition, but it HAS to be admitted by evolutionists that there is a predisposition on their side as well.

that predisposition is that:"we believe that life started in the ocean and evolved to take to land over billions of years. and further developed on land leading to life as we know it today.   so, any findings presented that seem to suggest otherwise will be reconsidered."

don't get me wrong - this is not a slam.  i'm only saying it because it is what all evolutionists are telling us that we're doing, but in my opinion...both are.

i respectfully disagree that in either situation it isn't science.  it IS science to take a hypothesis and try to discover evidence to support it.  

so - to say that we can't use science to support what we believe to be true.  is to say that you can't either.  it's to say that an elemetary school student can't first develope a hypothesis to state why he believes this bubble gum's flavor will outlast the other, and then methodically find the evidence to support that.




thanks
-d

(Edited by dijonaise 9/15/2008 at 10:33 AM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:28 AM on September 15, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(i'm holding back the notion of hastily replying to obvious_child's and demon38's posts with quick response based on reflex.  rather, i'm going to give each a respectful amount of thought and look over the links given and get back with my thoughts.)

thanks
-d


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:29 AM on September 15, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it IS science to take a hypothesis and try to discover evidence to support it.  


Not so. Science is taking a hypothesis and attempting to disprove it. The following is a list of conclusions that follow if the theory of evolution is correct. They have been compiled by John A. Moore in his book, "Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology."

Deduction 1: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the species that lived in the remote past must be different from the species alive today.

Deduction 2: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the older the sedimentary strata, the less the chance of finding fossils of contemporary species.

Deduction 3: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, then we would expect to find only the simplest organisms in the very oldest strata and the more complex ones in more recent strata.

Deductlon 4: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, it must be possible to demonstrate the slow change of one species into another.

Deduction 5: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, which assumes that all of today's species are the descendants of a few original forms, there should have been connecting forms between the major groups (phyla, classes, orders).

Deduction 6: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, the age of the earth must be very great, possibly millions of years old.

Deduction 7: There must be variation among organisms if the hypothesis of evolution is true.

Deduction 8: Natural selection can be operative only if more offspring are born than survive.

Deduction 9: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, there must be differences between the offspring that survive and reproduce and those that do not.

Deduction 10: If the hypothesis of evolution is true, only those variations that are inherited will be important.

Deduction 11: If the members of a taxonomic unit, such as the phylum chordata, share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their structure.

Deduction 12: If the members of a taxonomic unit share a common ancestry, that fact should be reflected in their embryonic development.

Deduction 13: If evolutionary divergence is the basis of organic diversity, that fact should be reflected in the system of classification.

Deduction 14: If there is a unity of life based on descent from a common ancestor, this should be reflected in the structure of cells.

Deduction 15: If there is a unity of life based on evolution, that fact should be reflected in the molecular processes of organisms.
___

Every "deduction" as Moore calls them is an "If, then" statement. That means that if the "then" part, or necessary condition of the proposition, is falsified, the "if" part, or sufficient condition, must also be false.

For example, if it is found that there is not variation among species of life, then the hypothesis of evolution must be false. Of course, when it comes to the evidence, the necessary conditions for all 15 propositions are true. Add up the fact that all 15 of those statements work out, and you've got a very solid bedrock layer for the theory of evolution, which combines that whole assortment of knowledge into a unifying explanation for how evolution works.

instead of saying something to the effect of: "could it be possible that these bones aren't quite as old as we once thought?"  what was stated was:  "perhaps we need to go back and completely reevaluate how fossils are produced."


When every piece of evidence leads back to evolution and an old earth, it would seem more likely that the error came in understanding fossil development. If you saw an apple floating in front of you, you wouldn't immediately question gravity, would you? Sure, perhaps the apple demonstrates that it's possible for gravity to be false, but that possibility is so minute it's not even worth consideration against the alternative: There's something going on with the apple that you can't see -- perhaps a string is attached to it or some other device has been employed to produce an illusion.

In much the same way, it is ridiculous to assume that scientists who discover one minute inconsistency within the body of evidence supporting evolution are going to immediately suspect that this one piece of evidence discredits everything else. And naturally, as I'm sure you learned when you finished watching the Discovery show, it turned out the error was in our understanding of fossil development.

to be succinct here.  there was found some small particles of soft tissue within certain fossilized bones.  yes - this is completely true.


No, I'm afraid that's not true. From your good old friend, Talk Origins:

1.  The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).

2. The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).


3. DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:02 AM on September 15, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Not so. Science is taking a hypothesis and attempting to disprove it. The following is a list of conclusions that follow if the theory of evolution is correct. They have been compiled by John A. Moore in his book, "Science as a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology."



"Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses"


"Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study."

(taken from here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

so - as a matter of fact...science IS testing a hypothesis based on any form of a preconceived notion with the intent to EITHER prove it wrong OR to prove it correct.
any of your given "if, then" statements could be taken either way.



When every piece of evidence leads back to evolution and an old earth, it would seem more likely that the error came in understanding fossil development. If you saw an apple floating in front of you, you wouldn't immediately question gravity, would you? Sure, perhaps the apple demonstrates that it's possible for gravity to be false, but that possibility is so minute it's not even worth consideration against the alternative: There's something going on with the apple that you can't see -- perhaps a string is attached to it or some other device has been employed to produce an illusion.

In much the same way, it is ridiculous to assume that scientists who discover one minute inconsistency within the body of evidence supporting evolution are going to immediately suspect that this one piece of evidence discredits everything else. And naturally, as I'm sure you learned when you finished watching the Discovery show, it turned out the error was in our understanding of fossil development.




i'll give you that.  i understand that it is more productive to test the one piece of evidence going against a large body against the large body itself in order to determine if something went wrong with the testing of the minute piece of evidence.
but the evidence going against evolution is mounting.
some say it has all been refutted, but i disagree.  
i've looked into some of these rebuttles, and frankly, they don't hold up as being a solid rebutting of the evidence.  usually, it's just more speculation.  

to be succinct here.  there was found some small particles of soft tissue within certain fossilized bones.  yes - this is completely true.


No, I'm afraid that's not true. From your good old friend, Talk Origins:

1.  The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).

2. The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).


3. DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.


1.  ok, true  - so it has been sensationalized a bit.  but so what if it was rehydrated?   it was still soft tissue found INSIDE a bone.  to say that we're still not sure if it is original tissue seems like a real stretch.

2. right, it isn't,  but it is still a credible and thought provoking find to see that there is still soft tissue intact when it was thought that it couldn't last even up to a 1/4 million yrs.


3.  recovering dna from a creature that has decomposed for thousands of years would be easy??? um...no.
have you ever seen the brevity of decomposition?



we can all argue the specifics of these findings forever.  
it still doesn't change the fact of the point that i'm trying to make:  that we're looking at the same evidence - the same facts with differing hypotheses- which were preconceived.  it does not matter how we devoloped these hypotheses.  what matters is whether or not what we find supports the hypothesis.  this is fundamental scientific methodology.






(Edited by dijonaise 9/15/2008 at 12:31 PM).

(Edited by dijonaise 9/15/2008 at 12:34 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 12:29 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we're looking at the same evidence - the same facts with differing hypotheses- which were preconceived.  it does not matter how we devoloped these hypotheses.  what matters is whether or not what we find supports the hypothesis.


Therefore, it does matter how one develops hypotheses. If you're developing a hypothesis based on faith, the evidence isn't going to matter to you. This gives birth to much of creationism.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:08 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there's a lot of information and questions raised to go over...so i'll start with just a couple of things and try to be thourogh:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:01 PM on September 14, 2008 :
You mean Robert Gentry the nuclear physicist?
Why should we care what a physicist says about geology?    


because he is a specialist in radioactive dating.  this isn't just about geology.  it is about finding the evidence that says how old a thing is.
mr. gentry is studying the radioactivity of certain objects (including coal, oil, and rocks)

i find his study on coal intriguing.


Quote from Demon38 at 9:52 PM on September 14, 2008 :
Let's look at some of dijonaise claims:

1.  It has been scientifically proven that coal can be produced far more quickly than millions of years.

But not under natural conditions.  In nature it takes millions of years for coal to form.  ...  Now, present your evidence that says it doesn't take millions of years for nature to produce coal...


Natural circumstances?  
all dr. gentry had to do was put a piece of wood into a tube, add some water, seal it, and let it sit in an oven at about 160F degrees for a week or 2.  the coalification process had already begun in that very short amount of time.  
in 1985, nature magazine reviewed similar findings from argonne ntl. lab stating that it took "less than one yr" under similar circumstances as aforementioned to produce a coal that was "indistinguishable" in nature.


...How long do you think it takes for a forrest to grow, die and have another forest grow and die on top of it?  After that happens multiple times, Then it takes millions of years for rock and earth to cover these dead forests.  And then it takes millions of years for the pressure and heat of the earth and rock covering this to turn it into coal.


take the powder river basin in wyomming and montana:
it is incredibly massive.
"how on earth did things remain constant enough so that you can get 200 ft. of coal?  the genesis of any kind of coal demands a precise sequence of events, however.  if you don't get all of them, you don't get coal.  and to get seams more than 200 ft. thick, low in impurities and low in sulfur, is a remarkable acheivement.  it would be like blind-folding yourself, spinning around, and hitting the center of a dartboard a hundred times in a row."  james mcclurg - geologist - university of wyomming - earth magazine - 1993.

i'll keep on digging here, and make another post soon.


 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:39 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

because he is a specialist in radioactive dating.  this isn't just about geology.

Coal formation is most definitely about geology.  Why do coal ining organizations all say that coal takes millions of years to form?  Why do they all use this model when they are searching for and mining coal?  Why do they use geologists to find coal and not physicists?

Natural circumstances?  
all dr. gentry had to do was put a piece of wood into a tube, add some water, seal it, and let it sit in an oven at about 160F degrees for a week or 2.  the coalification process had already begun in that very short amount of time.


Yeah I'd like to see some sources for this claim....Coalification process started, what does that mean?  Was coal formed?  Was peat formed?  Let's see some coroborating studies on this...  And how would matter in a swamp reach a temperature of 160 degrees naturally?

take the powder river basin in wyomming and montana:
it is incredibly massive.
"how on earth did things remain constant enough so that you can get 200 ft. of coal?  the genesis of any kind of coal demands a precise sequence of events, however.  if you don't get all of them, you don't get coal.  and to get seams more than 200 ft. thick, low in impurities and low in sulfur, is a remarkable acheivement.  it would be like blind-folding yourself, spinning around, and hitting the center of a dartboard a hundred times in a row."  james mcclurg - geologist - university of wyomming - earth magazine - 1993.


What does this have to do with my statement?  It takes 100s of thousands of years for enough organic material to accumulate.  What are you saying here, that forests can't naturally live, die and grow on top of each other?  That's not what the fossil evidence shows us.  
So far I haven't seen any real evidence from you that natural coal formations don't need millions of years to form...
As to Robert Gentry and his work on polonium halos, that's all been debunked.  Start another thread and we can discuss that.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:13 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.  ok, true  - so it has been sensationalized a bit.  but so what if it was rehydrated?   it was still soft tissue found INSIDE a bone.  to say that we're still not sure if it is original tissue seems like a real
stretch.


Uhhh, it's starting to look like no dinosaur soft tissue has been found...
From here:
NoTissue

"Soft tissue recently found in 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurs rex bones is actually modern-era bacterial slime, scientists say, challenging what some call one of the most remarkable paleontology findings of the 21st century.

In 2005 soft, pliable tissues were found inside Tyrannosaurs rex bones—the first evidence that dinosaur tissue had survived throughout time.
A new team now says such "soft tissue" is actually slime that coated the inside of the bones and filled in spaces once occupied by blood vessels and cells.

"[It's] the same stuff you feel in a bucket of rainwater that you leave sitting in your backyard for a week," said study lead author Thomas Kaye, a paleontologist at the University of Washington in Seattle."

Nothing comclusive yet, but let's watch and wait to see where this goes....


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:46 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Reason4All at 07:16 AM on September 15, 2008 :
Obvious_Child, I have politely asked you, as a friend to please keep the hostility out, it doesn´t matter if we can´t "change" any creationist, this is a debate and no one in a debate should feel disrespected.


My apologizes. 99.9% of the creationists I met are lying pieces of crap who rely on the gish gallop and are completely dishonest.

dijonaise maybe be in that .1% of different ones despite getting his information from obvious creation sources.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:53 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dijonaise, I might´ve not been so clear in making my point. The difference between a creationists disposition and a scientists are that scientists only have their dispositions from other scientific fields, the creationists have them from the Bible. Can´t you see the error in that?

If there was ANY support for a creationist point of view, ANY WHATSOEVER, there would have been scientists who aren´t fundamental Christians who would have stepped up to the plate with that support, tried to publish it in scientific journals or take the Creationists side, eventhough they themselves aren´t Christian. This just doesn´t happen.

So the difference between creationism and scientific research is that in Creationism you have to have faith and look for confirmatory evidence supporting your THEOLOGICAL (not scientific) point of view, whereas in science, ones theological, moral, political or ethical position has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. Science is only natural explanations, deriving from observation of and in nature. Creationism is not. Every single attempt to put Creationism forward as a scientific field would fall apart on this single note. There just can´t be a theological point whatsoever in science, that would corrupt the whole theory instantly.

All the best!


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 6:45 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another way to say what Reason4all is saying is this:

If a scientist is trying to find an explanation for natural process, then throws up his hands and says 'I give up, God must be responsible for this', then science wouldn't get anywhere.  That is 'God of the gaps' mentality.  We would be back in the Dark Ages.

And that's the problem with some so-called scientists who put their faith in Creationism before scientific integrity.  These people would be:  Kurt Wise (Paleontologist), Michael Behe (Biochemist), Robert Gentry (physicist), Duane Gish (biochemistry), Jonathon Wells (biology), William Dembski (mathematics), etc.  Some of them got their degrees with the specific intent of trying to disprove evolution - such as Wells.  Others, such as Wise, ignored all the evidence that was presented to him during his studies at Harvard and went on getting a degree in a field he had no interest in believing.  Does that make any sense?

These are the 'scientists' that creationists like to quote.  But their Creationists ideas (such as Behe's IC, and Dembski's 'Design Inference' have been discredited by their peers, their ideas found to be faulty.

If they want to play science, they have to play by the rules of science.  These men don't bother doing that.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:07 PM on September 15, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

At least Kurt Wise isn't a dishonest POS like Behe or Gish.

Last time I checked, Wise hasn't used any of the lies that creationists tend to love.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 7:59 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 9:08 PM on September 14, 2008 :
 take the grand canyon, for instance...we both see the fact that it's there.  but we each come up with a different theory on how it got there.  you say...it was millions of years of a river corroding the rocks.  i say it was a cataclysmic event in which a lot of water rushed through and caused it more quickly.  
we both start with the same facts.


Except you're not looking at the facts. For the grand canyon to be formed that way that quickly, trillions of gallons of water must have been moving that near super sonic rates.

Nothing natural can cause water to move that quickly, much less trillions of cubic tons of it.

The sheer heat generated by such movement alone would have left some evidence.

Furthermore the lack of any other canyons of such magnitude suggests that your belief is wrong.

creationists believe what they wish about the natural world. They do not look at the facts.

(Edited by Obvious_child 9/16/2008 at 8:03 PM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 8:02 PM on September 16, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I’ve spent the past couple of days combing through various sources on all of the topics that we’ve discussed.  I have to say…there’s just A LOT of info to look through, and the “tentacles” of this discussion have made it a little difficult to focus.  So, what I’ll do is try to focus on one thing at a time here.

1.  First of all.  I am proving more and more that I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.  I’ve read the rebuttle to dr. gentry’s halo rings argument a few times through now.  I’ve also read gentry’s response to the rebuttle as well as watched his video, “the young age of the earth” (here:  http://www.halos.com/videos/index.htm).  
Frankly, I find each argument somewhat compelling.  But I have to admit.  I found the intricacies of each waaayyy over my head.  The fact that I am not a physicist nor a geologist makes me want to leave this one alone for now until I can further understand the details.

2.  I would, however, like to stick to the coal issue for a bit.  Then move on to the other issues brought up.

(From Obvious_Child):
“My apologizes. 99.9% of the creationists I met are lying pieces of crap who rely on the gish gallop and are completely dishonest.
dijonaise maybe be in that .1% of different ones despite getting his information from obvious creation sources”
___

isn’t it fair that I use obvious creation sources just as it is fair that you use obvious evolution sources?  
___
(from Demon38):


Yeah I'd like to see some sources for this claim [that all dr. gentry had to do was put a piece of wood into a tube, add some water, seal it, and let it sit in an oven at about 160F degrees for a week or 2.  the coalification process had already begun in that very short amount of time.]....Coalification process started, what does that mean?  Was coal formed?  Was peat formed?  Let's see some coroborating studies on this...  And how would matter in a swamp reach a temperature of 160 degrees naturally?
___

The source is the video “the young age of earth” presented by dr. gentry.  Also to be noted is that argonne ntl. lab performed a similar study stating that it took "less than one yr" under similar circumstances to produce a coal that was "indistinguishable" in nature.  Source:  nature magazine
how could the temperature reach 160 naturally?  as i stated before...i'm no scientist - so i won't pretend to know.  i will, however look to see if i can find an answer.  to merely speculate though...wouldn't the decaying material under immense pressure cause heat?
___
(From Demon38):
…”Many coal beds have fossils of multiple forrests in them…”

___


I have have read the claims presented to prove this, and found no DEFINITIVE proof that this is even the case – just more speculation.  If you have a source that seems to present definitive proof, I’d like to have it to look over, but from what I’ve read…it’s just speculation.


“The coal seams here are of special interest, both in their number and thickness. This was thesecond largest coal mine in Nova Scotia during its heyday. The conventional interpretation of peat bogs' being compressed into coal seams is clealy refuted as there a number of coal seams here less than 1 inch thick. We simply do not have 1 inch deep swamps and peat bogs today, so obviously the present cannot be the key to the past in this regard. Furthermore, the numerous Cordaitales tree trunks found throughout the formation usually exhibit both coalification (of the outside bark) and petrification of the wood core. Sometimes, as can be also be seen in the polystrate fossil trees in coal mines in Alaska, the tree rings alternate between coalified and petrified. It appears that coal requires soft wood and bark, not peat.
In addition, in the paper cited below on the Underclays of Joggins, the author provides the data for the underclays, understones, and shales of Coal Groups 1-12 of the Joggins strata. His conclusion is quoted below:
"Therefore, out of 44 possible soils, only 3 contain both roots and rootlets that are also situated beneath a coal. When we take into account Dawson's eagerness to prove that the coals were formed in place, it is fairly safe to say that if any of these "soils" contained roots with attached rootlets, he would have eagerly said so. However, since he didn't, then to say that such beds represent in situ growth of multiple "forests" is highly questionable."   “
(from:  http://creationwiki.org/Joggins,_Nova_Scotia)
thanks
-d

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 1:21 PM on September 17, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 1:21 PM on September 17, 2008 :

isn’t it fair that I use obvious creation sources just as it is fair that you use obvious evolution sources?


Except that creation sources contradict the most basic laws of physics. Furthermore, there is no peer review or repeat of any 'experiments' they've allegedly done. Creation sources write whatever they want and submit nothing to anyone else to check the facts. Furthermore, many of the use deliberately dishonest data, such as Snelling's use of non-cogenetic samples in his dishonest attempt to disprove dating. He KNEW that the samples he was using would give false reading due to their non-cogenetic status yet he did it anyways and omitted that he used non-cogenetic samples. That's the kind of deliberate dishonesty that pisses off honest people. Answers in Genesis talks about how the flood waters could have come from within the Earth. Except that they ignore the heat problems of releasing trillions of cubic meters of superheated water at once.

Creation sources ignore the fundamentals of reality.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 8:16 PM on September 17, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 8:16 PM on September 17, 2008 :

...Creation sources write whatever they want and submit nothing to anyone else to check the facts. . . Creation sources ignore the fundamentals of reality.


oh, now come on.

this is just an asinine statement.

i could turn this kind of junk back around, but i won't.  because i don't want to get off topic.




...Furthermore, there is no peer review or repeat of any 'experiments' they've allegedly done...


i suggest reading up a little on dr. gentry.  he has not only published and received praise for his work via peer review, but has also suggested and challenged that anyone in disfavor of his findings test and retest and submit anything found to dismiss his findings.  he has been incredibly open and honest about his work.  each time there has been a peer rebuking his claims, he has had a strong rebuttle himself.  (granted - i don't quite understand most of what is stated in either).  i will go back to this (again):  on his coal experiment, argonne nt'l lab reviewed and repeated his study in more detail resulting in the same findings.  (more significant findings, actually)


Furthermore, many of the use deliberately dishonest data, such as Snelling's use of non-cogenetic samples in his dishonest attempt to disprove dating. He KNEW that the samples he was using would give false reading due to their non-cogenetic status yet he did it anyways and omitted that he used non-cogenetic samples. That's the kind of deliberate dishonesty that pisses off honest people.


i haven't read up on this at all - so...no comment on it.  i will eventually get to it though.  i'm trying to stick with the coal issue for now (whether i'm right or wrong)until we've assumingly reached an end to the debate (if that's possible).

although,  i would like to just throw in my 2 cents about people deliberately being dishonest.   i know that this is the way it seems to you when reviewing creationists' claims, but i can assure you - a lot of creationists' feel the same way about a lot of the arguments presented from the other side; like they're deliberately leaving out facts or speculating on more preconceived ideas.  i honestly don't know who's being dishonest and who's not in every case, but what I can do as an individual is to take the information from each side and put one up against the other and figure out which is more persuasive to me.   most creationists i meet are not dishonest in nature at all.  sure - there r a few bad apples here and there, but i'm sure the same can be said from the creationists' side.





Answers in Genesis talks about how the flood waters could have come from within the Earth. Except that they ignore the heat problems of releasing trillions of cubic meters of superheated water at once.


i've given the flood account considerable thought over the years.  this is an issue i haven't heard brought up.  i'll look into it.
i'm still studying this issue.  so again - i'm not going to give my opinion until i feel secure in the facts.
let's stick with the coal thing.

i'm very interested in what you can find about it.


thanks
-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 9:11 PM on September 17, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

...Creation sources write whatever they want and submit nothing to anyone else to check the facts. . . Creation sources ignore the fundamentals of reality.


oh, now come on.

this is just an asinine statement.

i could turn this kind of junk back around, but i won't.  because i don't want to get off topic.


You may call it asinine, but it's a statement that is demonstrably true.

i suggest reading up a little on dr. gentry.  he has not only published and received praise for his work via peer review, but has also suggested and challenged that anyone in disfavor of his findings test and retest and submit anything found to dismiss his findings.


That doesn't make the information on creationism he publishes peer-reviewed. It's not submitted and scrutinized to the same standard as his actual peer-reviewed work that doesn't pertain to creationism.



(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/17/2008 at 9:58 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:57 PM on September 17, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 9:11 PM on September 17, 2008 :

oh, now come on.

this is just an asinine statement.

i could turn this kind of junk back around, but i won't.  because i don't want to get off topic.


Actually you can't turn it around. Real science has peer review and repeats the experiments numerous times. While there may be slip ups here and there it's a rare occurrence for something not to get tested and retested. Not a single thing in creation sources gets tested for accuracy. Not a single thing. Hell, creationists don't even conduct real experiments.




i suggest reading up a little on dr. gentry.  he has not only published and received praise for his work via peer review, but has also suggested and challenged that anyone in disfavor of his findings test and retest and submit anything found to dismiss his findings.  he has been incredibly open and honest about his work.  each time there has been a peer rebuking his claims, he has had a strong rebuttle himself.  (granted - i don't quite understand most of what is stated in either).  i will go back to this (again):  on his coal experiment, argonne nt'l lab reviewed and repeated his study in more detail resulting in the same findings.  (more significant findings, actually)


Not quite. Dr. Gentry's non-creationist work has been reviewed. His Redshift and Polonium have not. Anyways, he's wrong about both.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

although,  i would like to just throw in my 2 cents about people deliberately being dishonest.   i know that this is the way it seems to you when reviewing creationists' claims, but i can assure you - a lot of creationists' feel the same way about a lot of the arguments presented from the other side; like they're deliberately leaving out facts or speculating on more preconceived ideas.  i honestly don't know who's being dishonest and who's not in every case, but what I can do as an individual is to take the information from each side and put one up against the other and figure out which is more persuasive to me.


The problem with creationists is that the vast majority of them are too stupid or too uneducated to actually understand what is being preached to them. How many creationists do you know that can define the term "co-genetic?" Can you? They frankly don't understand the subjects and thus don't know when they are being lied to.  

And the key support of evolution and actual science is commercialization. Actual science can produce real, tangible products. You can't lie a fundamental principle that is necessary to make a product such as a hybridized fruit. You can't lie the seed for a green revolution like the one in India during the 70s. You can't lie radioactivity.  What commercial product other then books has creationism produced?

I can name at least a dozen products and industries that old earth and evolution have helped create.

Can you name a single one for creationism?


i'm very interested in what you can find about it.


In my studies, the biggest problem creationism has in explaining the flood is heat. Every single source of water results in enormous amounts of added heat. There is no explanation for this, how anything survived and where this heat went.

(Edited by Obvious_child 9/18/2008 at 02:29 AM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 02:28 AM on September 18, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 02:28 AM on September 18, 2008 :

Actually you can't turn it around. Real science has peer review and repeats the experiments numerous times. While there may be slip ups here and there it's a rare occurrence for something not to get tested and retested. Not a single thing in creation sources gets tested for accuracy. Not a single thing. Hell, creationists don't even conduct real experiments.



Not quite. Dr. Gentry's non-creationist work has been reviewed. His Redshift and Polonium have not. Anyways, he's wrong about both.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/


Quote from EntwickelnCollin at Wed September 17, 2008 - 9:57 PM:

That doesn't make the information on creationism he publishes peer-reviewed. It's not submitted and scrutinized to the same standard as his actual peer-reviewed work that doesn't pertain to creationism.




It is plain as day that most creation-based findings are blatantly DENIED peer review by the gross evolutionist base.  Peer review, in it’s fundamental form, is a good practice for the edification of science, but it is not the infallible, guaranteed solution to perfect execution in the way you perceive.

There is an obvious double standard in the realm of peer review.  Creationists can’t get a good foothold in the non-young-earth community, and are therefore forced to provide “peer review” by other young-earthers.  Then, they’re criticized for this, and called liars, and manipulators.  
I like how it is stated here:

“if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?), it reveals an astonishing ignorance and naivety of how science and the peer-review process is actually conducted… You can't have your work "authenticated" by others who share your worldview. But we who don't share your worldview won't even give your work serious consideration because we already assume that anything you say is impossible. Meanwhile, all of us who believe in evolution will be busy peer-reviewing each other's work. Nice how that works out for the evolutionist.” - Andrew S. Kulikovsky, B.App.Sc.(Hons), M.A.

(from http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/02/creationism-and-peer-review.html




I have felt this way concerning “peer review” for a long time.  You use it to try to make void even the notion of a young earth so you won’t have to carefully evaluate the consistencies OR the inconsistencies of the work supporting the notion.

If the creationists’ findings were “peer-reviewed” (whatever that now means), sure, there would be some inconsistencies and probably a few things thrown out, but I am ever more sure that a lot of the scientific findings that suggest a young(er) earth would hold up under careful scrutiny on both sides of the fence


Quote from Obvious_child at 02:28 AM on September 18, 2008 :

The problem with creationists is that the vast majority of them are too stupid or too uneducated to actually understand what is being preached to them.
 

um.  ouch.
again, i say, "oh, now come on!"
do you really want to stoop to name-calling?  just more evidence of the notion being thrown out before even any real consideration due to some naive preconceived opinion.




And the key support of evolution and actual science is commercialization. Actual science can produce real, tangible products. You can't lie a fundamental principle that is necessary to make a product such as a hybridized fruit. You can't lie the seed for a green revolution like the one in India during the 70s. You can't lie radioactivity.  What commercial product other then books has creationism produced?

I can name at least a dozen products and industries that old earth and evolution have helped create.

Can you name a single one for creationism?


soooo - commercialization is the key??? really?

what does this even have to do with our debate?  

yet, again, another example of dismissing the notion before any real, careful consideration.


In my studies, the biggest problem creationism has in explaining the flood is heat. Every single source of water results in enormous amounts of added heat. There is no explanation for this, how anything survived and where this heat went.

(Edited by Obvious_child 9/18/2008 at 02:29 AM).



like i said...i haven't really studied up on this specific issue of heat dealing with the possibility of a global flood.  
but i will evaluate all that i can find on it and get back.


-d

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:24 AM on September 18, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If the creationists’ findings were “peer-reviewed” (whatever that now means), sure, there would be some inconsistencies and probably a few things thrown out, but I am ever more sure that a lot of the scientific findings that suggest a young(er) earth would hold up under careful scrutiny on both sides of the fence


Why?

“if young-earth research should only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of non young-earth scientists, then shouldn’t old-earth research only be taken seriously if it passes the peer-review of young-earth scientists? Are the ‘peers’ of old-earth scientists not also proponents of an old earth? Would this not cast serious doubt on the validity of their research?), it reveals an astonishing ignorance and naivety of how science and the peer-review process is actually conducted… You can't have your work "authenticated" by others who share your worldview. But we who don't share your worldview won't even give your work serious consideration because we already assume that anything you say is impossible. Meanwhile, all of us who believe in evolution will be busy peer-reviewing each other's work. Nice how that works out for the evolutionist.” - Andrew S. Kulikovsky, B.App.Sc.(Hons), M.A.

(from http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/02/creationism-and-peer-review.html


Mr. Kulikovsky might have a point... if peer review really worked that way.

Peer review as a protective mechanism for atheism/darwinism is a caricature of science often dragged out by creationists in order to justify their lack of progress within the scientific community. It's a fallacy on two fronts though.

First of all, not getting published within the scientific community certainly does not make one's claims any more likely true. Considering that the function of peer review is to weed out untrustworthy or poorly-conducted science, it would seem, to me at least, that the reason their claims haven't been published has more to do with their untrustworthy or poorly-conducted nature.

But we don't even have to assume that much. We can know as much when peer review routinely accepts studies with disagreeable conclusions. After all, just thinking about this logically, science would cease to function if the only information published was information scientists already had.

For a good example, take Stephen J. Gould's paper on Punctuated Equilibrium, a behavior of sorts we can observe in life's evolutionary lineages. It challenged the "slow, gradual change" idea of Darwin's theory of natural selection; biologists everywhere became up and arms over the study.

Yet it was still published, and after several decades, the concept of punctuated equilibrium has become a hallmark in the study of evolution. For another example, consider Einstein's theory of relativity, which disproved the most idolized scientist at the time, Newton.

soooo - commercialization is the key??? really?

what does this even have to do with our debate?  

yet, again, another example of dismissing the notion before any real, careful consideration.


I don't think so. If a scientific theory can yield tangible results, it just might have factual weight. Obviously we would have a hard time developing vaccines based on a virus's evolution if viruses did not in fact evolve.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:58 AM on September 18, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 10:24 AM on September 18, 2008 :

It is plain as day that most creation-based findings are blatantly DENIED peer review by the gross evolutionist base.  Peer review, in it’s fundamental form, is a good practice for the edification of science, but it is not the infallible, guaranteed solution to perfect execution in the way you perceive.


And you have evidence of this or are you resorting to the Creationist tactic of claims of conspiracy?

Name me a real experiment a creationist has done. One where they make a hypothesis based on observations, test, retest and examine their findings without first assuming Creationism to be true.

Try me. Find one. There is a reason Creationist don't submit for peer review. Because they don't do science.

There is an obvious double standard in the realm of peer review.


Yeah. Peer Review reviews actual science. You'll fail in meeting my challenge because creationism isn't science and doesn't conduct science. Why should real science peer review the ramblings of idiots?

What does a person trained in Computer and Information Science have to do with this?

um.  ouch.
again, i say, "oh, now come on!"
do you really want to stoop to name-calling?  just more evidence of the notion being thrown out before even any real consideration due to some naive preconceived opinion.


And yet you couldn't answer my question.

How many creationists do you know that can define the term "Cogenetic?" Can you? You can claim I'm insulting you, but when you can't even define something that simple that is a basic of chemical dating, what does that say?

You know I'm correct. A simple thing like knowing that the origin of a rock sample is homogeneous is a sign of education and study. You won't find that word anywhere on creationist's website. You will on real geologists who make a note of it to ensure accuracy and honesty.  

soooo - commercialization is the key??? really?

what does this even have to do with our debate?  

yet, again, another example of dismissing the notion before any real, careful consideration.


You are no different then every other creationist. You PRETENDED to want to look at the evidence but when given real tangibles, you fall back into the alleged victim mode. That's pathetic.

I see you failed to provide a single commercial product other then publishing. Why is that?

Because there is no merit in Creationism. If there was, we should see commercial products from its tangible findings regarding the fundamentals of science.

Creationists have no argument against Commercialization. Tangible products are a sign of reality. There is nothing tangible other then publications on why Creationism is allegedly right coming out of creationism.  Genetic algorithms which come directly out of evolutionary biology have been applied by government and industry for decades.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:17 PM on September 18, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


There is a reason Creationist don't submit for peer review. Because they don't do science.


i think you're wrong. several do submit; and are rejected.

take mr. gentry, for instace.  read the 'statement of facts' portion of the lawsuit he filed for the rejection of his proposed publication here:  http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/arxiv-lawsuit.htm (about 1/2 way down).

he had published to the site several other times on issues not concerning creation.  but the moment the issue was brought up, they rejected and ignored him, and even went as far as to come up with some bogus guidline that had never even been stated prior to this.


How many creationists do you know that can define the term "Cogenetic?" Can you? You can claim I'm insulting you, but when you can't even define something that simple that is a basic of chemical dating, what does that say?


i have stated VERY clearly that, in no way, do i consider myself to be anything other than an average guy interested in the science behind both sides of the issue.  
but if u want me to waste my time googling science terms...
fine - cogenetic:  created at the same time and place as another. (yes, taken directly from a google search)
there...are u happy now?
who gives a hoot



You are no different then every other creationist. You PRETENDED to want to look at the evidence but when given real tangibles, you fall back into the alleged victim mode. That's pathetic.


so many issues have been brought up at once.  there is no way to definitively say that this is right or this is "debunked" just by a quick google search and a one liner.  a thourough investigation is needed for each issue.
i have tried and tried and tried again to stay on topic in this debate.  yet, you keep reverting to your habit of falsifying what i have to say even before hearing it by talking about peer review, cogenetic, commercial products, and the flood.

all i wanted to do was try to have a healthy debate about this coal issue, but it is obvious that it's not gonna happen due to the conversation being skewed over and over.

i'll end this one by saying what i said the moment i entered this debate:  i agree.  creationism is not science.  if you go back to my very first post...you'll see stated the same thing from me.  there is no science behind the supernatural; if there was - it wouldn't be supernatural.  i agree - i don't think creationism should be taught as a science in itself in schools.  however, i think the findings based in science suggesting that evolution has a few flaws should be presented alongside.

i've made it clear that i am genuinely interested in your opinion and what you've found on the issues, but i'm not sure you have a well thought out opinion on anything at all.  all you do is spout one liners that i can read on talkorigins on my own.

-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 10:44 AM on September 19, 2008 | IP
ArcanaKnight

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i think you're wrong. several do submit; and are rejected.

The peer review process is difficult.  Many scientists submit papers to be reviewed, but only a few are published.  There are many reasons why they may be rejected depending on the criteria of the publication: cherry picking in the research, faulty experiment design, mistakes in research or conclusions, etc.

Gentry's lawsuit is not because it was rejected from a peer review publication; he's suing because he was rejected from what was originally an open-source repository.  The archive has changed hands since his dispute with the archive started, and the new operators came up with new guidelines which they are completely entitled to do.
however, i think the findings based in science suggesting that evolution has a few flaws should be presented alongside.

Which findings are you talking about and why are you singling out evolution?  There are flaws with every scientific theory, that is why they change as new evidence comes that refutes part of them.  Usually these changes are just to minor aspects, but sometimes it is a rather large part that gets changed (like Einstein's update to gravity).
 


Posts: 41 | Posted: 12:43 PM on September 19, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 10:44 AM on September 19, 2008 :

i think you're wrong. several do submit; and are rejected.


Fair enough. They get rejected due to lack of actual experiments.

That lawsuit didn't even make it to court, and it was filed over 6 years ago. Do you know what that means? The court found it to be bullshit.  Even in TENNESSEE. That's sad. The problem with the lack of actually making it to court is that we don't have the actual facts. A lawsuit filed by one side's lawyer is going to state the 'facts' as they want them. It will not state the facts as the facts are. Until we have an actual case with objective examination of the actual facts, your argument is essentially an opinion. Where is the cross examination? Where is the actual evidence? Any lawyer can write whatever grievance they want in a lawsuit filing. It does not make it true.

he had published to the site several other times on issues not concerning creation.  but the moment the issue was brought up, they rejected and ignored him, and even went as far as to come up with some bogus guidline that had never even been stated prior to this.


Bogus? How is running actual experiments "Bogus?"

Btw, I'm waiting for your evidence of creationists practicing real experiments. I'm not expecting much. After all you failed to cite a commercial product.

i have stated VERY clearly that, in no way, do i consider myself to be anything other than an average guy interested in the science behind both sides of the issue.  
but if u want me to waste my time googling science terms...
fine - cogenetic:  created at the same time and place as another. (yes, taken directly from a google search)
there...are u happy now?
who gives a hoot


How can you expect to learn about the subject when you don't consider knowing what the terms mean to be important? That seems extremely basic to me. It's like learning math without an understanding of what numbers are. Without a fundamental understanding of the foundation, you cannot hope to properly understand the complexities. This is a problem with creationists. Most of them are too lazy or to ignorant to understand and change this about themselves. They want answers and they want them easy. Evolution is not the easiest thing to learn or understand. A real commitment is required to get the complexities of it. You cannot simply hope to take a pill and learn it all instantly as people do with Creationism. Your attitude towards the principle of the foundation is disturbing.

yet, you keep reverting to your habit of falsifying what i have to say even before hearing it by talking about peer review, cogenetic, commercial products, and the flood.


Where have I falsified what you have stated?

all i wanted to do was try to have a healthy debate about this coal issue, but it is obvious that it's not gonna happen due to the conversation being skewed over and over.


Dude.

1) You don't care about the basic terms
2) You don't care about peer review
3) You don't care about experiments

How can we help you?

all you do is spout one liners that i can read on talkorigins on my own.


I'd prefer creationists to educate themselves before posting. Maybe then I'll have no creationists to talk to. That would be glorious.



(Edited by Obvious_child 9/19/2008 at 4:53 PM).
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 4:52 PM on September 19, 2008 | IP
Reason4All

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Claiming that since Creationism doesn´t go through "Evolutionary" peer reviews and is discredited in that way, so should Evolution be discredited since it doesn´t pass Creationist reviews, is, with all due respect, the most idiotic statement I´ve ever heard. In no way is this a reflection on you Dijonaise, since you provided this comment from another website.

Let´s just remove Evolution/Creationism from the equation and replace them with Circular earth/Flat earth theory. How would that sound? "Since flat earth theory is discredited for not passing Circular Earth peer reviews, so should Circular Earth theory be discredited for not passing Flat Earth peer reviews!" Do you so the (lack of) logic in that???

The thing with scientific peer reviews is that they are not ANTI-CREATIONISM, but Creationist are ANTI-EVOLUTION. That´s a fact. And, as pointed out by several people here, the reason why Evolution is true is not just the facts supporting it, it is that it is APPLICABLE. Creationism is not. There´s no way to apply the theories of Creationism to other scientific fields because they wouldn´t work, since they are false! An example, very simplified:

If man developed through millions of years of evolution, from a common ancestors with other species such as monkeys, we would find a massive difference in the genetic pool of human beings. This is the case.

Creationism claim that on Noahs ark there were Noah and his two sons, Abel and Caine. This was approximately 4000 year ago. Since we know the nature of genes and chromosomes, there wouldn´t possibly such a massive difference within the genepool if there was in fact only one specimen of the X and Y chromosome on board Noahs ark. 4 000 years is not just enough time for the chromosomes to make such a massive diversion from their original "source", as it is claimed by Creationists, that would be absolutely impossible. If creationists were right, we would never have any problems with heart transplants or such, since there just wouldn´t have been any time for the genes to differ from each other, and we wouldn´t have such an incredible variety as we do today. Hence why creationism isn´t applicable, hence why it is not true.

All the best

(Edited by Reason4All 9/20/2008 at 08:28 AM).


-------
If your faith blinds you from the truth, it´s not the truth that needs to adapt!
 


Posts: 35 | Posted: 9:04 PM on September 19, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.