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 in schools
       Why creationism will never be taught in public schools

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion,

.  first, and foremost, ID is not a supportable scientific hypothesis.  


Yes it is; it is every bit as supportable as evolution in fact more so.

.  Science cannont prove, nor disprove, God - or any other supernatural entity.  


And science isn’t expected to. Neither can science prove that life evolved from a common ancestor but they’re quite happy to go on teaching that to everyone as the only allowable hypothesis.
ID proponents want all the science to be taught. That which supports evolution as well as that which supports intelligent design. They don’t expect Bible lessons nor any religion’s book to be pushed. What they want is for evolution to stop hogging the limelight as the only possible explanation of origins and our history. They want to be able to present the evidence that says that evolution did not happen and there’s plenty of that.

.  If you can provide definite proof of a Biblical God, then I'll take my words back.


If you can provide definite proof that we evolved from a common ancestor (a DVD would be nice showing the primordial soup with life beginning there) then I will stop insisting that evolution is a religion that has to be accepted by faith and I will say “Thank you Orion, for bringing me into the 21st century, I appreciate it.”
If one of us could provide the definite proof of our view of origins and life thereafter, then one of us can eat our words.

Creationists have an agenda of only allowing one Creation myth into the classroom, and that Creation myth is from Genesis of the Holy Bible.  


Actually creationists would like creation to be presented generally alongside evolution from pond slime, but no creationist that I know expects to take over the schooling system in favour of special creation by the Christian God. We know, unlike your average evolutionist, that neither view of origins can be proven and both have to be accepted by faith. The story that creationists have an agenda to create a one-religion dictatorship type affair is only invented and pushed by evolutionists in an attempt to terrify other evolutionists into defending the faith more frantically. It’s actually funny to hear –that’s the evolutionist’s conspiracy theory and believe it they do! You only have to hear a creationist or an ID proponent say “We want the evidence for and against evolution to be taught” to know that inside the mind of the evolutionist this tired old tape is playing that says – “Aaargh, they want to take over the world and force us all to read the Bible and go to church.” It’s an insane proposition. Muslims are the ones that have a stated mission to impose Sharia law on the entire world, Christians know that God never forces anyone. You have to invite him in not force him on anyone who doesn’t want him. That is not and has never been the Christian agenda but belief in such a Christian agenda appears to be part of the evolutionist hysteria agenda.
What we want is not to have children forced to believe that the only ‘scientific’ option is to believe that life evolved by chance via a common ancestor from a big bang and a primordial slime; we want them to know that life by creation is every bit as much a scientific possibility as is evolution. It’s then up to them to decide what they believe.

There are hundreds of other creation myths from almost every culture in history - but Creationists aren't interested in them, are they?


Like I say, no particular creator can be proven by science, so no particular story should be pushed. The choice of who to believe in, is a theological argument which can be presented in another section of education.

That's the 'intellectual freedom' Lester is talking about.


You deceive yourself Orion.
   




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:18 AM on August 16, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum

BTW, I don't know where you got the idea that helium can't be in old rocks.  That's an especially silly notion since helium is emitted during radioactive decay by some elements.


Nobody says that helium can't be there at all since obviously radioactive decay is continuous.
The problem is with the amount of helium that is found in the rocks and the time it takes (which has been measured) for helium to escape from the rocks. There is far too much helium in the rocks and far too little in the atmosphere if the decay has been going on for billions of years and has been escaping at this known rate. We should be speaking in high squeaky voices if helium has been released into the atmosphere from radioactive decay over hundreds of millions or billions of years even taking atmospheric escape into account. Helium in the atmosphere has not even reached equilibrium which should take no more than 30 000 years, so why? Of course evolutionists are always capable of coming up with an excuse which we don't mind as long as they bear in mind that it is an excuse and that the other interpretation might be that the earth is less than 30 000 years old.

Hey Lester, any comments?  Were you basing your notions on the RATE stuff?


I've read some of the RATE stuff but I'm basing it on presuppositions that are known just as well by evolutionists as by creationists.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:38 AM on August 16, 2009 | IP
KJB

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

just a comment to lester. having read many of your arguments i've come to the conclusion, having searched for any relevent facts or arguments that may allow for the presumtion of creation to even be concidered and found that you are using only your emotions to put forward unfounded personal assumptions and irrelevent facts to the very matter at hand. further more, the ultimate way to prove something does exist or is correst, is to prove that it does not exist or is incorrect; it is impossible to prove that evolution does not exist because of the multitudes of evidence and ongoing natural selection that is in fact the evolution at the current moment in both humans and the enviroment, where as in your theories of creation its existance can easilly be disproven by asking for reasonable evidence (reasonable evidence being something that can be seen or at least presented with a factual background). there are to many people like yourself simply spouting ridiculus mumbo jumbo that just reflects poorly on christians everywhere.
to put one last thing forward for everyone, "Cogito, ergo sum" Wikipedia, 2009. Cogito ergo sum[i], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum. (a refrence to a place and or event is called a refrence by the way lester), meaning 'i think therefore i am' is a good mutual starting point for a debate. this philosophy basically means that the only thing that 'i' know for sure exists is me and me alone, nothing else, all other mediums can be fooled or misinterpreted i.e. "my eyes are playing tricks on me", "i thought i heard somthing". with this in mind, it is rational thinking, a intellectual deduction that what little information is recieved should be appropriatly concidered weighed and assessed, this is science at the very basic level in the human mind, some trial and error with set perameters being meet, control groups, reproduction of results and interpretation using evidence and facts. To make assumptions about inputs from mediums such as "A high being must have done that cause there is no other excuss" is narrow minded and fearfull of reality, it lacks reason and in almost every case, coherancy and ability to be reproduced.

Thank you for reading.


-------
Three times a fair test
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 09:42 AM on August 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:18 AM on August 16, 2009 :
The story that creationists have an agenda to create a one-religion dictatorship type affair is only invented and pushed by evolutionists in an attempt to terrify other evolutionists into defending the faith more frantically. It’s actually funny to hear –that’s the evolutionist’s conspiracy theory and believe it they do!


And well supported by the Discovery Institute's own words:


The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]

The wedge metaphor, attributed to Phillip E. Johnson, is that of a metal wedge splitting a log and represents using an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public’s understanding of science.[5]

Intelligent design is the religious[6][7] belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a redefining of science and how it is conducted. Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism,[8][9][10] naturalism,[9][11] and evolution,[12][13][14][15] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.[16][17]

The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.


Wedge strategy


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:38 PM on August 16, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:38 PM on August 16, 2009 : There is far too much helium in the rocks and far too little in the atmosphere if the decay has been going on for billions of years and has been escaping at this known rate. ...Helium in the atmosphere has not even reached equilibrium which should take no more than 30 000 years, so why?

Hiya Lester, here's nother question for you to flat out ignore ;)
Can you show us the research that supports this viewpoint please.
Thanks in advance.




-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 5:15 PM on August 16, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:13 AM on August 14, 2009 :
Fencer, you're always saying things like "isn't there something about that in the Bible?" Why don't you just read it and find out.


While I'll admit I don't read the Bible religiously, I do know what I'm talking about when I say things like that. When you have such a belief in the Bible you start to worship the Bible over God, and it is a form of idolatry. While it isn't pretty, it seems many creationists have this problem.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 06:58 AM on August 17, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JimIrvine at 4:15 PM on August 16, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 12:38 PM on August 16, 2009 : There is far too much helium in the rocks and far too little in the atmosphere if the decay has been going on for billions of years and has been escaping at this known rate. ...Helium in the atmosphere has not even reached equilibrium which should take no more than 30 000 years, so why?

Hiya Lester, here's nother question for you to flat out ignore ;)
Can you show us the research that supports this viewpoint please.
Thanks in advance.





Yes, that's my response as well.  If you are going to challenge the consensus of the scientific community (which is ok), then at least show some reasoning and evidence to back up your claims.  As it is, there's nothing to go on since you haven't given us any specific info concerning your view of the amount of helium in rocks or the atmosphere.  Obviously, geologists and climatologist don't share your concerns. So where's the beef?


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:37 AM on August 17, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:38 AM on August 16, 2009 :I'm basing it on presuppositions that are known just as well by evolutionists as by creationists.


So, once again, what are those presuppositions?  I can't read your mind.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:39 AM on August 17, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Lester

Helium in the atmosphere has not even reached equilibrium which should take no more than 30 000 years, so why? Of course evolutionists are always capable of coming up with an excuse which we don't mind as long as they bear in mind that it is an excuse and that the other interpretation might be that the earth is less than 30 000 years old.


Here is a good site for reading some evolutionist 'excuses'. Of course, they dont mention God...  who did everything..  so they couldnt possibly be true...  could they?

The Age of the Earth


(Edited by waterboy 8/17/2009 at 8:07 PM).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 8:00 PM on August 17, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi JimIrvine
Sorry to hear you think I flat out ignore questions, that really isn’t my intention –apologies if I’ve ignored you but I think I miss a lot when I come back to conversations that have moved on and only really get to whatever was said last. I spend far too much time on this in any case especially at the rate I type that I feel bad about other stuff I should be doing. My internet’s been down for three days this week as well as I live out in the country as well as in a 3rd world country which makes access to the internet far more random, much like genetic mutations.

To get to your question, if you really care for the answers to the question, why don’t you start by looking at what Rate has produced since they are the only ones concentrating on this question of the age of the earth and radiometric dating. They are not Hillbillies as I imagine you would think. In fact all are first rate scientists but they don’t happen to believe that the experimental data fits the old earth paradigm. They investigated things like the helium levels in the atmosphere and the rocks only as a result of other considerations that led them to believe that something major was wrong with the radiometric dating techniques. For example, there are a lot of examples where wood encased in basalt date at such disparate ages despite the fact that the wood had to be encased when the lava was flowing. One example I could give is of a wood sample carbon dated at 44000 years old while Uranium lead dated the surrounding basalt at 45 million years. These scientists agree that there is evidence that radioactive decay shows billions of years of decay (if you consider today’s rates) but that is out of step with so many other indicators of a young earth and that is why they searched for the missing Helium which is, according to radiometric decay 2000 times too little in the atmosphere.
They investigated escape from the atmosphere as a possible cause but that didn’t solve the problem.
They then investigated the rocks and found that 58% of the helium of the radiometric decay that has occurred is still in the zircon crystals even though they know that it escapes pretty fast and that escape rate has been repeatedly measured and verified. The unmistakable conclusion that they reached is that there has been accelerated radioactive decay in the past.
Do you have any better ideas?
Evolutionists tend to ignore anything that comes from scientists of a creationist persuasion but if you look at what they’re saying and can explain it any better than please let me know.
Like I say and I’ll repeat, there are so many many other reasons to believe that the earth is young that this example just helps to confirm that.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:45 AM on August 20, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:45 AM on August 20, 2009 : They investigated things like the helium levels in the atmosphere and the rocks ...For example, there are a lot of examples where wood encased in basalt date ...


As I mentioned before, helium is produced during alpha decay.  So finding it in radioactive rocks is not a big deal.  Small amounts of helium in the atmosphere are also not a big deal.  Among other things, the solar wind causes a loss of oxygen and other gasses, including helium, from Earth's atmosphere.

Finally, I looked up the "wood encased in basalt " on CreationWiki (ugh).  The wood according them was fossilized.  That is, it was not wood at all.  Even a novice at radioactive dating knows better than to look for C14 in rocks.  Sheesh.




(Edited by Mustrum 8/20/2009 at 11:37 AM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:36 AM on August 20, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:45 AM on August 20, 2009 :The unmistakable conclusion that they reached is that there has been accelerated radioactive decay in the past.


Wrong...if such were the case then the binding energy for atoms would change and consequently the physical nature of the universe would be very different.  In other words, atoms would either be flying apart all over the place and it is unlikely that planets, flowers or people would be able to exist in such a universe.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 11:43 AM on August 20, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 4:45 PM on August 20, 2009 :
To get to your question, if you really care for the answers to the question, why don’t you start by looking at what Rate has produced since they are the only ones concentrating on this question of the age of the earth and radiometric dating.

No, what I meant by
Can you show us the research that supports this viewpoint please.
was that you should show us your evidence. I have no problem with you citing specific sites and pages, but to say, "Go and read up on what group x has done to see my reasoning" doesn't come close to citing evidence. I want to know specifically what evidence you have for stating that
Helium in the atmosphere has not even reached equilibrium which should take no more than 30 000 years
. Quote the relevant passages and cite them please.
Thanks in advance.





-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 05:23 AM on August 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester - (regarding RATE project)
In fact all are first rate scientists but they don’t happen to believe that the experimental data fits the old earth paradigm.

By what criteria do you judge them as first rate researchers?  Because they happen to be YEC, and believe in what you do?  

Some commentary by geologist Kevin Henke on the conflict of interest these 'first rate scientists' of RATE placed themselves in:

Putting Biblical Dogmatism and the Expectations of Sponsors Above Science

Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, the young-Earth creationists (YECs) of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) committee are desperate to undermine the reliability of radiometric dating.  Unlike most scientists, the members of RATE have a serious, potentially stressful dilemma.   Namely, they must make sure that NONE of their 'research results' offend their sponsors or other members of their faith. While scientists look forward to new breakthroughs and shredding popular paradigms (which may lead to a Nobel Prize), YECs face the frightening possibility that any honest and carefully performed research may fail to support, and perhaps even undermine, their sacred biblical interpretations.  YEC Vardiman (2000, p. 24) openly admits:  

'Failure to achieve success on this problem [i.e., age of the Earth] might bring embarrassment to the creationist cause and delay the development of a new generation of young Christians.'

Clearly, YECs cannot allow any of their 'research results' to challenge their biblical interpretations or offend the religious views of their fundamentalist sponsors and other allies.  In contrast, no authentic scientist would ever promise not to produce results that might offend their sponsors or other members of the public.   Ethical scientists would decline funding in such situations.  Also, no legitimate scientist would ever allow the Bible, Koran, the Secular Humanist Manifesto, party platforms, or any other political or religious doctrines to dictate the results of their research.   However, this is exactly what the members of RATE are doing. Like the Lysenkoists of the old Soviet Union, YECs have signed a pact not to offend the party line (see Rats in RATE's 'Research'. The candid statements in Vardiman (2000) clearly demonstrate the profound differences between real science and YEC pseudoscience.



 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:38 AM on August 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester - (more RATE)
The unmistakable conclusion that they reached is that there has been accelerated radioactive decay in the past.


Lester, they have to say that there was 'accelerated decay' rates in order to support YEC and the Bible.  They offer no evidence supporting such extraordinary claims.  The only reason they come up with 'accelerated decay' rates is that their belief that the Bible claims that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old.  

However, you will notice that they are forced to admit that their idea of accelerated decay rates (unsupported by any scientific evidence) would release enough heat energy to melt the earth!  Their only recourse is to say that there must be an unknown mechanism by which all this heat was removed.  In other words, they are left with the old standard Creationist explanation to everything - 'God Did It'.

You call that science?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 08:15 AM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 07:15 AM on August 21, 2009 :
echanism by which all this heat was removed.  In other words, they are left with the old standard Creationist explanation to everything - 'God Did It'.

You call that science?


Obviously it's not science.  I just took a look at the ICR site (funding group for RATE).  In order to get "research" dollars from them you have to agree with their Tenets.  In short, you are not allowed to reach any conclusion that don't fit with the creationist view if you are funded by these guys.  


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 10:38 AM on August 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum -
Obviously it's not science.  I just took a look at the ICR site (funding group for RATE).  In order to get "research" dollars from them you have to agree with their Tenets.  In short, you are not allowed to reach any conclusion that don't fit with the creationist view if you are funded by these guys.  


Exactly!  They're all hostage to the Bible.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:05 AM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion

Because radiometric dating utterly refutes their biblical interpretations, the young-Earth creationists (YECs) of the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) committee are desperate to undermine the reliability of radiometric dating.  


You people just don’t seem to get it. They are not desperate to undermine radiometric dating for the sake of radiometric dating and evolution. There are so so many other reasons why I do not believe that evolution is true that it’s laughable..and I have no doubt that they feel the same way. The point is that we have so many other dating techniques that point to thousands of years, max. a few million for some of the methods that we know there must be something wrong with the radiometric dating because it’s way out. Evolutionists, on the other hand are devoted to radiometric dating and don’t care or will find excuses for all the other dating techniques that show the earth is young.

You could say we have the same problem only it’s the opposite problem.

Unlike most scientists, the members of RATE have a serious, potentially stressful dilemma.  


Much like the evolutionist out of their back patting circle – imagine having to defend so much BS!!

Namely, they must make sure that NONE of their 'research results' offend their sponsors or other members of their faith.


According to Kevin Henke. Actually I am quite sure that they don’t stress at all – they have the truth on their side remember and there are far too many reasons to believe that evolution is NOT true. Even if they had to confirm radiometric dating’s authenticity (which they won’t, it’s already been shown to be totally unreliable), that still won’t get rid of intelligent design so evolutionists will remain in a problematic battle against the odds nonetheless.

YECs face the frightening possibility that any honest and carefully performed research may fail to support, and perhaps even undermine, their sacred biblical interpretations


And I can assure you, they care only about the truth. They luckily don’t have to interpret the Bible much, they just have to read it; It’s the theistic evolutionists that have to twist and turn it and make it say whatever the majority of ‘scientists’ are saying.

'Failure to achieve success on this problem [i.e., age of the Earth] might bring embarrassment to the creationist cause


And if it does, too bad, there’s still ID and the truth is far better than making individuals happy and deceived.

Also, no legitimate scientist would ever allow the Bible, Koran, the Secular Humanist Manifesto, party platforms, or any other political or religious doctrines to dictate the results of their research.


Nonsense, they let the evolutionary paradigm dictate all the time. They know they’re not going to be publishing if they have anything anti-evolution to say. It’s the unwritten but well understood rule of modern ‘science’. Some people think ‘science’ is about truth though and those people get removed from their positions when they don’t obey the unwritten rule. That’s a well documented fact. Luckily observable, repeatable science has nothing to do with evolution  so research in most areas goes on pretty much unaffected by it.  

Lester, they have to say that there was 'accelerated decay' rates in order to support YEC and the Bible.


No actually they have to say it because there’s a large percentage of the helium from all the decay still sitting in the rocks when it should have long escaped. Doesn’t the data matter to you? Do you have any better ideas for what the helium is still doing there???

However, you will notice that they are forced to admit that their idea of accelerated decay rates (unsupported by any scientific evidence) would release enough heat energy to melt the earth!  


Well if they admit that then it means they still need to work out what to make of it; that’s inconvenient but it’s a problem to be solved -  but they do know that the helium is still in the rocks –would you prefer them to say it isn’t there? Your problems as evolutionists are far far more profound than that and you never have a problem making up something to get around it. We’ll have to borrow some of your story tellers.

.  In other words, they are left with the old standard Creationist explanation to everything - 'God Did It'.


I doubt it. They know that God works through the natural laws that He established. They’re most unlikely to throw in a few random miracles. But we’ll see ok. Let’s keep watching.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:26 AM on August 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -
The point is that we have so many other dating techniques that point to thousands of years, max. a few million for some of the methods that we know there must be something wrong with the radiometric dating because it’s way out.


OK - care to be more specific about what dating methods prove a young earth?  

The only people who think radiometric dating methods are invalid are Creationists.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:43 AM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:26 AM on August 21, 2009 :

No actually they have to say it because there’s a large percentage of the helium from all the decay still sitting in the rocks when it should have long escaped. Doesn’t the data matter to you? Do you have any better ideas for what the helium is still doing there???



Once again I'll remind you that alpha decay produces...helium.   If you have valid, precise and tested models that indicate this process is inadequate to explain trace amounts of helium, then please present them here.





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:48 PM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:26 AM on August 21, 2009 :

And I can assure you, they care only about the truth.


How so?  They are forbidden by previous written agreement from coming to any conclusion other than a young earth.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:53 PM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:26 AM on August 21, 2009 :

Actually I am quite sure that they don’t stress at all – they have the truth on their side remember and there are far too many reasons to believe that evolution is NOT true.


Actually...they do emphasize and require that you agree with creationism. Check out their "research"
proposal forms.

(Edited by Mustrum 8/21/2009 at 12:59 PM).

(Edited by Mustrum 8/21/2009 at 1:00 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 12:58 PM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:43 AM on August 21, 2009 :
Lester -
The point is that we have so many other dating techniques that point to thousands of years, max. a few million for some of the methods that we know there must be something wrong with the radiometric dating because it’s way out.


OK - care to be more specific about what dating methods prove a young earth?  



I'll second.  Let's hear more about these other techniques.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 1:01 PM on August 21, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not surprisingly, the RATE work, including Humphreys work with zircon-helium diffussion, was never published in a peer-reviewed science journal.  It appeared only in Creationist journals.

Yeah, I know, Creationism doesn't get any respect in the scientific community.  But that is because it deserves none.  It's not real science.  But Lester won't believe that.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:01 PM on August 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion

Not surprisingly, the RATE work, including Humphreys work with zircon-helium diffussion, was never published in a peer-reviewed science journal.  It appeared only in Creationist journals.


Well what else would you expect? Evolutionists always turn down any work that smells contradictory to their claims. Truth is not their forte. They prefer whatever fits their worldview and unfortunately the evolutionary worldview has hijacked science and they, like a cult, can no longer see straight. It's not science they care about as such, it is confirmation of what they would prefer to be true.

It's all about the worldviews, I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's understandable that evolutionists don't want work confirming a different worldview no matter how rigorous the science. Creationists would re-interpret an evolutionist's work as well if they published it in their journals. Evidence doesn't speak for itself, it has to be interpreted in the light of something. The difference between creationists and evolutionists is that we are aware of the worldview problem; evolutionists, on the other hand, refuse to admit that they have a worldview with all its biases and presuppositions. They prefer to think, unrealistically, that they come to the evidence unencumbered.
They deceive themselves.      



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:18 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 12:53 PM on August 21, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 11:26 AM on August 21, 2009 :

And I can assure you, they care only about the truth.


How so?  They are forbidden by previous written agreement from coming to any conclusion other than a young earth.







-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 02:21 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Mustrum

Let's hear more about these other techniques.


The size of the sun and the energy it loses per second. 100 000 years ago, the sun would have been twice its size.

Moon's recession - between its position now and Roche's limit -max possible age 1,3 billion years

Comets - the Oort cloud is a rescue device used to counteract the reality of the situation. We understand why you need it but you must also understand that it is a rationalization.

Lack of evidence of meteorites in geological strata (compared to known rate of fall)

Helium level in the atmosphere ("Where's the Earth's Radiogenic Heium?" -Nature 179 p213;
New Scientist 24 "What happened to the Earth's Helium?")

Earth's rate of rotation slowly but measurably declining.

Earth's Magnetic field decline -max. age possible for earth: 10 000 years

Earth's population growth figures -only thousands of years possible.

Historical records -if man has been around in his present form for longer than a few thousand years, why are the records of his existance so limited.

Oil and Natural gas pressure should have dissipated

Ocean's salt content compared to accumulation rate

Sea sediment compared to accumulation rate

And many many more - too many to mention right here.

i'm fully aware that evolutionists will have rescue devices or rationalizations for all of these. According to their belief systems they have to. I've heard lots of their excuses so lets not drag this thread down with all of it. Start another thread if you have any great opposition to anything in particular but bear in mind the rationalization problem according to worldviews. We have to find out what's wrong with radiometric dating. You need excuses for all of the above.







(Edited by Lester10 8/22/2009 at 03:16 AM).


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:14 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually...they do emphasize and require that you agree with creationism. Check out their "research"
proposal forms.


That took me nowhere Mustrum -help me out. I'd really like to read them.




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:32 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis

The wedge metaphor, attributed to Phillip E. Johnson, is that of a metal wedge splitting a log and represents using an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public’s understanding of science.
.

In Phil Johnson’s own words from “Defeating Darwinism”
“The ideology of scientific materialism is actually the solid log. The widening crack is the difference between the facts as revealed by scientific investigation and the materialist philosophy that dominates the scientific culture .What happens when facts cast doubt on philosophy? Will scientists and philosophers allow materialism to be questioned? Or will they rely on microphone man to suppress the facts and protect the philosophy.”

Intelligent design is the religious[6][7] belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause


While evolution is the religious belief that all features of the universe and of living things are only allowed to be explained by natural law and random changes combined with natural selection. It is a religious belief about the past that cannot be observed nor tested and as such is every bit as religious as the belief in a supernatural organizer.It requires a leap of faith. It is a belief system; a philosophy not consonant with the evidence.

. Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism,[8][9][10] naturalism,[9][11] and evolution,[12][13][14][15] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.[16][17]


This sounds like an opinion piece to me. As far as I have ever heard it, ID proponents want both evolution and Id to be taught, not just the preferred dogma of evolution. In fact they may only want the evidence for and against evolution to be taught, not even necessarily ID as such. This sounds like an out and out exaggeration as usual.  




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:12 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:32 AM on August 22, 2009 :
Actually...they do emphasize and require that you agree with creationism. Check out their "research"
proposal forms.


That took me nowhere Mustrum -help me out. I'd really like to read them.



Hum...try

this one.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:32 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:14 AM on August 22, 2009 :
Mustrum

Let's hear more about these other techniques.


The size of the sun and the energy it loses per second. 100 000 years ago, the sun would have been twice its size.
...
Helium level in the atmosphere ("Where's the Earth's Radiogenic Heium?" -Nature 179 p213;
New Scientist 24 "What happened to the Earth's Helium?")


(Edited by Lester10 8/22/2009 at 03:16 AM).


Egad, that's quite a list of out of date and debunked ideas.  We've already talked about helium in the atmosphere remember -- the solar wind forces gases around Earth into space.  You never relied to that, so I assumed you accepted it.  The sun is fueled via fusion.  Your idea that it needs to be twice it's size is based on an old idea that's been shown to be wrong many years ago. Here's a one pager on how the sun produces energy - link here.

The fact is radiometric techniques do work and are accurate within their stated error margins.  The Earth and universe are billions of years old.  It's morning, want some coffee?

(Edited by Mustrum 8/22/2009 at 07:45 AM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:41 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:12 AM on August 22, 2009 :

. Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism,[8][9][10] naturalism,[9][11] and evolution,[12][13][14][15] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.[16][17]


This sounds like an opinion piece to me. As far as I have ever heard it, ID proponents want both evolution and Id to be taught, not just the preferred dogma of evolution. In fact they may only want the evidence for and against evolution to be taught, not even necessarily ID as such. This sounds like an out and out exaggeration as usual.  




I've read the Wedge document, have you?  Perhaps you should learn a bit more about the devious tactics your allies use?  When a movement is based on fundamental deceit (pun intended), then one has every right to be wary and skeptical of that movement.

(Edited by Mustrum 8/22/2009 at 07:58 AM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:53 AM on August 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the follow-up Mustrum. I could read that one. The problem is -what is your problem? Can you direct me to or quote exactly what you find offensive?

As I see it, work is done at tax payers expense by people with evolutionary presuppositions all the time.
Evolutionists always claim that no genuine research is being done by creation scientists but now they moan that these guys have presuppositions that might twist their outcome intepretations this way or that, but that is what evolutionists do all the time. These guys have to have private funding because tax dollars only support the evolution religion. Bearing that in mind they donate their money specifically for creation research. The research projects they come up with have to be directed to that end.The funding is probably pretty limited but available to those who have the same objectives.

There's a lot of science done in the universities that can be reinterpreted according to our viewpoint but we also need specific research to be done.

Evolution is a belief system about the past; creation is a belief system about the past. In effect they are 2 opposing religious worldviews which are believed by faith.

The point is that the evidence is interpreted according to your worldview - evolutionists do it all the time. So do creationists. The question is which worldview fits the evidence better?

An example: When we creationists see that between unicellular organisms and invertebrates, there is nothing to suggest gradualism; and when we see that between invertebrates and fish, there is nothing to support gradualism -we take that as evidence in support of our worldview which says gradualism didn't happen and is not even possible genetically.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, using their worldview as a basic set of presuppositions assume that evolution has happened in anycase and assume that the many many transitional links required to make their story plausible will be found in time.

Their faith is so strong that no matter how many billions of invertebrate and fish fossils we find, they are still sure that the transitional forms showing what came from what, will arrive in time.

You've got to wake up to the worldview issues Mustrum, it's very relevant to this entire argument. The evolution-trained scientist is not the unbiased, blank slate, take the evidence as it comes person you appear to think he is. That only happens in fairytales.
Everybody has a bias -which is the better bias is the question -in other words, what actually happened, where does the truth lie?


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:39 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:39 AM on August 23, 2009 :
The point is that the evidence is interpreted according to your worldview - evolutionists do it all the time. So do creationists. The question is which worldview fits the evidence better?


OK, the rotation of the earth is slowing at a rate of 2 milliseconds per day per century.  What is the creationist worldview interpretation of that data?

You said that this was one of the techniques that shows a young earth.  Demonstrate to us how.

We both have the same information.


(Edited by Apoapsis 8/23/2009 at 03:11 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 02:48 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis

OK, the rotation of the earth is slowing at a rate of 2 milliseconds per day per century.  What is the creationist worldview interpretation of that data?


If the earth was approximately 4,6 billion years old, it should have stopped rotating by now.

If this slowing rate has remained constant and we extrapolate back 4,6 odd billion years, this earth would have been spinning so fast, it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake.

Thus:
The earth must be relatively young.

What is your interpretation?


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:43 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If the earth was approximately 4,6 billion years old, it should have stopped rotating by now.

If this slowing rate has remained constant and we extrapolate back 4,6 odd billion years, this earth would have been spinning so fast, it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake.


If you do the math (and assume that the present rate of slowing has always been here) then 4.5 billion years ago, the day would have been about 6.5 hours long.  Saturn's day is about 10.5 hours, and although it is more oblate than Earth, it is not a pancake, even though it is made mostly of gas, a much more compliant material than rock.

The assumption is clearly wrong about the constant rate, however; the moon is the primary source of rotational braking, and the moon is too large to have been condensed from leftovers in the Earth's accretion disk.   It was either captured gravitationally from a near miss, or more likely, is made up from debris caused when a large object collided with the Earth.

At any rate, it's not inconsistent with an Earth 4.5 billion years old.



Thus:
The earth must be relatively young.

What is your interpretation?


(Edited by Yehren 8/23/2009 at 05:21 AM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 05:21 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The assumption is clearly wrong about the constant rate


Possibly or else it's correct and the earth is young.

the moon is the primary source of rotational braking, and the moon is too large to have been condensed from leftovers in the Earth's accretion disk.   It was either captured gravitationally from a near miss, or more likely, is made up from debris caused when a large object collided with the Earth.


Or else it was created with a purpose -it does some beneficial things. If a large object collided with the earth, would the moon come out of the collision looking like it does do you think? I imagine it should have had a billiard ball effect rather than sucking the moon into it's gravitational field. How fast or slow would this large object have been going?
What if it is just a story invented to explain what the moon is doing there?
You have to assume naturalism to assume that the moon came to be where it is by chance.
There we go with worldviews and presuppositions again.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:47 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:39 AM on August 23, 2009 :
Thanks for the follow-up Mustrum. I could read that one. The problem is -what is your problem? Can you direct me to or quote exactly what you find offensive?



I don't find any of it offensive, but it does show what the purpose of ID is in the document.  I'm not going to go back and wade through it again.  If you are really interested in the nature of the ID movement, you'll read it for yourself.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:31 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:39 AM on August 23, 2009 :

Evolutionists always claim that no genuine research is being done by creation scientists but now they moan that these guys have presuppositions that might twist their outcome intepretations this way or that, but that is what evolutionists do all the time. These guys have to have private funding because tax dollars only support the evolution religion. Bearing that in mind they donate their money specifically for creation research. The research projects they come up with have to be directed to that end.The funding is probably pretty limited but available to those who have the same objectives.



It sounds to me like you're agreeing that creationists can't do science by the very nature of the limitations on their work.  It's very simple, you can't do science where the outcome of an experiment is predetermined.  You can moan all you want about how the rest of the world doesn't share your mythology, but trying to equate what real scientists do with what creationist do is demeaning to scientists, to say the least.

If creationists want respect, then they will have to earn it.  First, they can stop with all the lies and misrepresentations concerning science and scientists.  Next, they can actually start doing some real research and follow the data wherever it leads.  

A bunch of creationists actually did this back in the 18th and 19th century.  They abandoned their creationist ideas because the data didn't support those ideas.  One of them was Darwin, btw.  In other words, we've already gone through the process of debunking creationism.  You guys are just a little slow in coming around to accepting reality.


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 07:40 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It sounds to me like you're agreeing that creationists can't do science by the very nature of the limitations on their work.  


The only ones that have limitations on their work are it appears, the ICR scientists but the limitations appear to be on what they want to research. In other words, they have to investigate topics important to creation in order to qualify for private funding.

You can moan all you want about how the rest of the world doesn't share your mythology, but trying to equate what real scientists do with what creationist do is demeaning to scientists, to say the least.


Are you missing the point on purpose Mustrum? It sure seems that way. We have a worldview problem. you have your mythology, we have ours. You imagine yours to be true. We think ours is true. You don't have to be an evolutionist to qualify as a scientist. All good scientists are not evolutionists. What evolutionists are doing barring freedom of investigation and freedom of speech in academia is demeaning to science.

If creationists want respect, then they will have to earn it.  


You mean they will have to become believing evolutionists in other words.

First, they can stop with all the lies and misrepresentations concerning science and scientists.  


As far as I can see it, it appears to be the evolutionists that are doing all the lying and misrepresenting in order to keep creationism out. Why are they so fearful? I know what it is, they don't think evolution can stand up to scrutiny so they have to keep it out.

Next, they can actually start doing some real research and follow the data wherever it leads.  


Only they must get the results that evolutionists are looking for and interpret the data according to evolutionary presuppositions in order to be acceptable and in order to publish in evolution dominated 'science' publications. That's not following the data where it leads.

If you follow the fossil data, you'll find out that evolution never happened but that is not an acceptable conclusion to the current watch of academia.

A bunch of creationists actually did this back in the 18th and 19th century.


No they didn't. They wanted and actively searched out an alternative explanation to the creation account of the Bible.

They abandoned their creationist ideas because the data didn't support those ideas.


That's a joke right? Have you read about Darwin's misgivings? Do you know that he knew the fossil record didn't support him but figured that the missing links would be found in time. He wasn't following the data where it led, he was actively trying to fit it into his new theory.

In other words, we've already gone through the process of debunking creationism.


What before the discovery of DNA, before an adequate representation of the fossil record, before radiometric dating and every other kind of dating? It's still a theory, it's never been a fact and you might just as well get used to it. People are folowing the data where it leads and it doesn't lead to evolution. It's even more in favour of creation now than it ever was in Darwin's time.

You guys are just a little slow in coming around to accepting reality.


Wake up Mustrum!








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:25 AM on August 23, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester,

I applaud your patient reasoning. I've tried to read this entire thread objectively but I can't. It's like trying to reason with a 4 yr old. They just don't get it. Won't get it. Refuse to admit that it is a worldview issue and not a science issue that is at the heart of this debate. As is typical in academia, the mantra is "freedom of thought and expression" but the reality is "as long as we agree". There are constant examples of this wherever liberty is expressed. The collectivist monkeys must repress liberty or they will starve. Simple as that. And unfortunately the non-producing outnumber the producing. If creation is true than we were created as equal individuals with responsibility radiating from self outward beginning with individual self government. As such we wouldn't need the elite collectivist to take care of us. Who would feed them?

You hypocrite EVO's ask yourselves whether you actually contribute to society by producing or do you merely suckle at the teat of society in exchange for your self-perceived worth?

Darwinist TOE is a tool of repression that rationalizes racism, elitism and caste. And people like you just make it easier for the collectivist monkeys to steal from us few who actually work hard to produce a better quality of life for ourselves and those around us.

You claim to stand for "science". Lie. Science is the language of God, objectively true. Physics, chemistry, math, genetics. All observable and verifiable no matter what your worldview. TOE is not science, it is an excuse.

Religion is not innocent of repression, either. Blind obedience to a ruling class of priests, rabbis, mullahs or pastors leads to exchanging liberty for security just as surely as "electing" a dictator. But it always leads to a reduction in the quality of life as individuals are reduced to the lowest common denominator of humanity: the slave.

So go ahead, support the worldview that keeps professors, politicians, priests, attorneys and regulators in charge of what you learn. They will happily pat you on the back for being an obedient servant and assuring them of their next unearned meal. Those of us who refuse to buy the false security they offer will eventually be jailed or worse anyway. All to assure you of the dignity of being "right" about evolution.

(Edited by timbrx 8/23/2009 at 1:23 PM).
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 1:12 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only ones that have limitations on their work are it appears, the ICR scientists but the limitations appear to be on what they want to research. In other words, they have to investigate topics important to creation in order to qualify for private funding.


So perhaps if they want to investigate religious beliefs, they could get churches to donate.   In fact, that's what they do.

Are you missing the point on purpose Mustrum? It sure seems that way. We have a worldview problem.  You have your mythology, we have ours.


If you persist in conflating science with the modern religious doctrines of Seventh-Day Adventists, you'll be forever confused.

You imagine yours to be true. We think ours is true.


The key is evidence.   Science has it.  Creationism doesn't.

You don't have to be an evolutionist to qualify as a scientist. All good scientists are not evolutionists.


Name me a world-class biologist since 1900 who didn't accept evolution.  

What evolutionists are doing barring freedom of investigation and freedom of speech in academia is demeaning to science.


That's a laughably false witness.   Stephen Gould willingly accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate, and saw him through to his PhD.   Check with the Institute for Creation research, and ask them if you can even apply to their school, if you don't submit a loyalty statement to creationism.    They'll ignore you.   Nothing better illustrates the difference between science and creationism.

As far as I can see it, it appears to be the evolutionists that are doing all the lying and misrepresenting in order to keep creationism out.


Notice, for example, you just accused science of the sort of things creationists do to those who don't agree with them.   If you persist in that, along with many of your fellows people will reasonably conclude that you lie about scientists.

Only they must get the results that evolutionists are looking for and interpret the data according to evolutionary presuppositions in order to be acceptable and in order to publish in evolution dominated 'science' publications.


If that were true, we'd still be using Darwin's theory as he proposed it.  Instead, mavericks like Gould, Kimura, Mayr, Huxley, Morgan, and many others would not have been honored for showing where Darwin's theory needed correction.    On the other hand, YE creationism steadfastly refuses to change for anything.   In science the theory changes to fit the evidence.   In creationism, the evidence must be trimmed to fit the doctrine.

If you follow the fossil data, you'll find out that evolution never happened but that is not an acceptable conclusion to the current watch of academia.


Since a large number of predictions about what would be in the fossil record were eventually confirmed by finding the predicted fossils, that's a foolish misrepresentation.   And new fossils continue to confirm predictions based on Darwin's theory.  Would you like to learn about some of them?

That's a joke right? Have you read about Darwin's misgivings? Do you know that he knew the fossil record didn't support him but figured that the missing links would be found in time.


And that's what happened.   His prediction that primitive man first appeared in Africa, that there would be intermediates between reptiles and mammals, and a great many others have subsequently been confirmed by new fossil discoveries.

He wasn't following the data where it led


He certainly was.   He looked at the evidence available at the time, made an inference on that evidence, and made predictions about the fossil record and the way populations change.  His predictions have been repeatedly verified.

What before the discovery of DNA, before an adequate representation of the fossil record, before radiometric dating and every other kind of dating? It's still a theory, it's never been a fact and you might just as well get used to it.


People who say "it's just a theory", have no idea what the word means in science.    In popular usage, it has been changed to mean something like a guess.    Read about it, and learn.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 2:04 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Darwinist TOE is a tool of repression that rationalizes racism, elitism and caste.


Odd then, that Darwin was considered a dangerous liberal in his time, because he opposed slavery.   He also considered classical eugenics to be "an overwhelming evil", and later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that the eugenic program was not even feasible.

On the other hand, creationists have been among the most steadfast promoters of first slavery and then segregation in the United States.

 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 2:07 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:25 AM on August 23, 2009 :
It sounds to me like you're agreeing that creationists can't do science by the very nature of the limitations on their work.  


The only ones that have limitations on their work are it appears, the ICR scientists but the limitations appear to be on what they want to research. In other words, they have to investigate topics important to creation in order to qualify for private funding.



It's not a matter of research area, it's a matter of predetermining the outcome of experiments before you conduct them.  That's what folks like the RATE group do.  It's not science.  

It's like me asking you to guess with which hand am I holding a penny.  The scientific approach would be to guess, and then when I show you which hand indeed held the penny, adjust your thinking to match the results.  The creationist approach is to make a guess, and argue for that guess being correct regardless of which hand holds the penny.  




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:17 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:25 AM on August 23, 2009 :

You can moan all you want about how the rest of the world doesn't share your mythology, but trying to equate what real scientists do with what creationist do is demeaning to scientists, to say the least.


Are you missing the point on purpose Mustrum? It sure seems that way. We have a worldview problem. you have your mythology, we have ours. You imagine yours to be true. We think ours is true. You don't have to be an evolutionist to qualify as a scientist. All good scientists are not evolutionists. What evolutionists are doing barring freedom of investigation and freedom of speech in academia is demeaning to science.



What you are attempting to do is somehow equate a discredited mythology with modern science.  It's like saying that a 2 year old has the same intellectual insight into the nature of subatomic particles as a Nobel prize winning physicist.

The evidence points to an old Earth and to evolution as the manner in which organism have changed over time.

Fact: all the scientific evidence indicates a 4 plus billion year old Earth.

Fact: organisms have lived and changed over the last 3 billion or so years on Earth.

Fact: DNA allows for variation and inheritance of traits in organisms.

These facts and more indicate that the ideas associated with creationism are incorrect. It is that simple.  Yet, creationist deny, misrepresent and sometimes outright lie about the evidence.




-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:25 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:12 PM on August 23, 2009 :
Lester,

I applaud your patient reasoning. I've tried to read this entire thread objectively but I can't. It's like trying to reason with a 4 yr old. They just don't get it. Won't get it. Refuse to admit that it is a worldview issue and not a science issue that is at the heart of this debate.

(Edited by timbrx 8/23/2009 at 1:23 PM).


It is not a worldview issue.  The evidence is there for anyone with a bit of knowledge to understand.  The heart of the issue is that for whatever reasons, creationists refuse to acknowledge what we have found out about our universe in the last 200 years.  Here are a few broad areas of science that creationist refuse to accept the findings in:

1) Quantum physics: this is one of the most well tested areas in science, and the underlying model on which our ideas for radiometric dating rests.  Yet creationists refuse to accept what scientists have found out about the most basic aspects of our reality.

2) Genetics: creationists refuse to believe that the information represented in genes can and does change over time and that these changes are responsible for the creation of the variety of life on Earth.

3) Plate Tectonics: we now have a fairly good understanding of how the various plates move around on the Earth.  Yet, creationists have steadfastly refused to accept these ideas, and have even dreamed up fantastical ideas of plates scouting around on top of water at supersonic speeds during a mythological world flood.  

And it goes on and on.  In short, creationism is a denial of almost all the scientific knowledge gained since the 17th century.



(Edited by Mustrum 8/23/2009 at 4:36 PM).

(Edited by Mustrum 8/23/2009 at 4:38 PM).


-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:34 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 1:12 PM on August 23, 2009 :
You claim to stand for "science". Lie. Science is the language of God, objectively true. Physics, chemistry, math, genetics. All observable and verifiable no matter what your worldview. TOE is not science, it is an excuse.


OK, here's a simple one.  Was RATE bound by written agreement about the results of their "research" before they started?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:04 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:25 AM on August 23, 2009 :
It sounds to me like you're agreeing that creationists can't do science by the very nature of the limitations on their work.  


The only ones that have limitations on their work are it appears, the ICR scientists but the limitations appear to be on what they want to research. In other words, they have to investigate topics important to creation in order to qualify for private funding.


They also have to agree in writing with the following:


The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false. All things that now exist are sustained and ordered by God's providential care. However, a part of the spiritual creation, Satan and his angels, rebelled against God after the creation and are attempting to thwart His divine purposes in creation.

Thus, even though they admit that their research shows evidence for billions of years of radioactive decay and that the amount of heat released by it would melt the earth's crust if released in 6000 years, their conclusion (by prior agreement) is that the earth is young.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:55 PM on August 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yehren

Name me a world-class biologist since 1900 who didn't accept evolution.


There are loads of them, but if you heard their names you'd decide they weren't world class because they don't believe what you do. Evolution is popular because everybody gets to be brainwashed with it - but a lot of people don't take to it. Most divisions of science were started by creation believers and they had reason to trust in law like processes because they started with the assumption of a law giver.

So perhaps if they want to investigate religious beliefs, they could get churches to donate.


But not evolutionists –they get the tax payer to fund their excursions into the imaginary. Creationists want to investigate their presuppositions (God created; worldwide flood etc.) exactly like evolutionists want to investigate their presuppositions (big bang, matter from nothing, life from nothing). We should all get taxpayers funding –not just your religion. Or else we should save tax payer funding for real investigative science like how does this work, how does that work and so on. There’s lots of non-religious science to be investigated you know. It could keep us busy forever and it is that sort of science that accounts for technological advancements, not trips into the unobservable past.
It’d be nice to investigate our respective belief systems but it’s got to be fair when you’re using other people’s money.

If you persist in conflating science with the modern religious doctrines of Seventh-Day Adventists, you'll be forever confused.


Well then would you please stop conflating evolution with real science?

That's a laughably false witness.   Stephen Gould willingly accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate, and saw him through to his PhD.  


And well he should - he's using tax payers money so it is not ethical to allow certain religions while barring others.

Check with the Institute for Creation research, and ask them if you can even apply to their school, if you don't submit a loyalty statement to creationism.  


They use private funding, so they can. You should start a church of evolution and get private funding for your religion and I'll bet that only evolutionists would even want to join and then they'd be quite happy to sign a declaration of belief and intent. Then they could investigate non-existent missing links and make up as many plausible stories as they like. And the congregation could just keep piling on the funding in order to hear more.

If that were true, we'd still be using Darwin's theory as he proposed it.  Instead, mavericks like Gould, Kimura, Mayr, Huxley, Morgan, and many others would not have been honored for showing where Darwin's theory needed correction.    


No evolutionist minds different versions. It makes them look as if they are not bound by bias. But in fact there is an overriding bias, the bias of naturalism. That means they all agree that life has to have started by purely natural means and no creator is allowed to interfere with that no matter what the state of the evidence.

As Sir Arthur Keith put it:
‘Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

Do you see? It is unthinkable! Not untrue, just unthinkable so that means you are stuck with some form of naturalism by hook or by crook –there’s your bias.

In science the theory changes to fit the evidence.


As long as evolution and naturalism remains you may twist the lack of evidence any way you want. In place of ‘evidence’, substitute ‘stories’.

Since a large number of predictions about what would be in the fossil record were eventually confirmed by finding the predicted fossils


You’ve been deceived. Mostly predicted fossils are never found. Occasionally they can find one that could pass for an intermediate to help make the theory look reassuringly plausible. The big picture of the fossil record is an ode to creation, evolution is ruined by the evidential realities of the record.

Would you like to learn about some of them?


You guys copy one another constantly -or is it just you that keeps saying this?. No, I would not like to have the same drivvle rushed past me. “But if I say no, they’ll think I have a bias! I’ll have to say yes then!” No, lets just stick with the thread, not that we ever do but perhaps we should talk about what should not be taught in class apart from creation.

That's a joke right? Have you read about Darwin's misgivings? Do you know that he knew the fossil record didn't support him but figured that the missing links would be found in time.

And that's what happened.   His prediction that primitive man first appeared in Africa, that there would be intermediates between reptiles and mammals, and a great many others have subsequently been confirmed by new fossil discoveries.


You’re dreaming sorry. Calling extinct animals ‘transitional forms’ is rather too often wishful thinking based on a belief that evolution has happened. You should really try and look at the enormous gaps between unicellular life and invertebrates and then again at another huge jump between invertebrates  and fish and see if the whole big picture holds up, before bothering to decorate the other jumps with imaginary links. The fossil record is a record of systematic gaps not of gradualism.

Odd then, that Darwin was considered a dangerous liberal in his time, because he opposed slavery.   He also considered classical eugenics to be "an overwhelming evil", and later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that the eugenic program was not even feasible.


Evolutionists like to insist that their belief in evolution has no bearing on their morality but the problem is that if evolution is true, then they have no rational reason for morality. Should we punish a lion for eating an antelope. Should the murder of another human being be considered wrong? If it assists in our survival then why not? We are just animals after all. You have escaped the creator –go wild and enjoy. Or is that the moral law written in your heart by your creator that keeps you at least trying to pretend to be moral?



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:45 AM on August 25, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Barbarian suggests:
Name me a world-class biologist since 1900 who didn't accept evolution.


There are loads of them,


But you can't name even one.  No surprise there.

but if you heard their names you'd decide they weren't world class because they don't believe what you do.


Name a significant breakthrough in biology by one of them.

Barbarian chuckles:
If you persist in conflating science with the modern religious doctrines of Seventh-Day Adventists, you'll be forever confused.

Well then would you please stop conflating evolution with real science?


I think real scientists are more reliable indicators of real science.  

Barbarian on the notion that scientists discriminate against creationists:
That's a laughably false witness.   Stephen Gould willingly accepted a YE creationist as a doctoral candidate, and saw him through to his PhD.  

And well he should


Of course.  As Gould said, ability is all that really counts.  It's one of the major differences between science and creationism.  Science doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion.

he's using tax payers money so it is not ethical to allow certain religions while barring others.


Harvard is a private university, and Gould's chair was a privately funded endowment.  Nice try.

Barbarian observes:
Check with the Institute for Creation research, and ask them if you can even apply to their school, if you don't submit a loyalty statement to creationism.  

They use private funding, so they can.


Of course they can.   They don't have to allow intellectual freedom, as real universities do.  It's one of the important differences between science and creationism.

You should start a church of evolution and get private funding for your religion and I'll bet that only evolutionists would even want to join and then they'd be quite happy to sign a declaration of belief and intent.


As you learned, real science isn't like that.

Barbarian regarding the foolish claim that science suppresses dissent:
If that were true, we'd still be using Darwin's theory as he proposed it.  Instead, mavericks like Gould, Kimura, Mayr, Huxley, Morgan, and many others would not have been honored for showing where Darwin's theory needed correction.    

(sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)

No evolutionist minds different versions.


When Darwin wrote his book, most scientists were creationists.  And yet, when they saw his evidence, they went over to his theory.   Nice try.

That means they all agree that life has to have started by purely natural means and no creator is allowed to interfere with that no matter what the state of the evidence.


Nope.  Darwin, for example, wrote that the first living things were created.   Today isn't your day, is it?

(quote mining attempt)

Sorry, doctored "quotes" won't do you any good at this point.

Barbarian observes:
Since a large number of predictions about what would be in the fossil record were eventually confirmed by finding the predicted fossils

You’ve been deceived.


Let's test that claim.  Darwin, based on living organisms predicted that the earliest hominids would be found in Africa.   And so they have.

Based on the structure of ears and other features, Huxley predicted that dinosaurs with feathers would be found.  And so they were.

Based on the digestive system of whales, it was predicted that intermediates between whales and ungulates would be found.   And now we have them.

It was predicted that there must have been intermediates between reptiles and mammals.   And those have been found.

Just to name a few.

Mostly predicted fossils are never found.


Let's test that belief.  Pick one of the above and I'll show you.

(declines to see the evidence)

That's always the way it goes.  If you had more faith in your beliefs, you wouldn't be afraid of it.

That's a joke right? Have you read about Darwin's misgivings? Do you know that he knew the fossil record didn't support him but figured that the missing links would be found in time.


Barbarian observes:
And that's what happened.   His prediction that primitive man first appeared in Africa, that there would be intermediates between reptiles and mammals, and a great many others have subsequently been confirmed by new fossil discoveries.

You’re dreaming sorry.


Pick one, and I'll show you.

Calling extinct animals ‘transitional forms’ is rather too often wishful thinking based on a belief that evolution has happened. You should really try and look at the enormous gaps between unicellular life and invertebrates


Slime molds.  Precisely intermediate.  Want to learn about them?

and then again at another huge jump between invertebrates  and fish


Ascidians and primitive chordates.  I can show you those, if you like.

Barbarian, regarding charges of racism:
Odd then, that Darwin was considered a dangerous liberal in his time, because he opposed slavery.   He also considered classical eugenics to be "an overwhelming evil", and later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that the eugenic program was not even feasible.

Evolutionists like to insist that their belief in evolution has no bearing on their morality but the problem is that if evolution is true, then they have no rational reason for morality.


Obviously, that's wrong, since both Darwin and Huxley were models of altruism.   You see Darwin making moral arguments, as did Huxley.  So you see your argument fails from the start.

Should we punish a lion for eating an antelope. Should the murder of another human being be considered wrong?


Because we are moral agents.  We are no longer innocent as lions are.  So we are culpable for our behavior.

If it assists in our survival then why not? We are just animals after all. You have escaped the creator –go wild and enjoy.


Reading this, I think I'm glad some creationists are creationists.   Must be sad to be restrained from viciousness only by the fear of God.

Or is that the moral law written in your heart by your creator that keeps you at least trying to pretend to be moral?


The Church notes that all men know natural law, and are accountable for it.

Not scientific, but true, nevertheless.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 11:28 PM on August 25, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
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.