Where's the thread he was meant to post in, I can't find it.
Ah.It's in rejected issues.He does that so you can't have the last word.But I still can.Templar.Vos indulgeo sanctus Zarkov?A contradictio nam?Also, I have thought of another historical parallel.I will post it later.
Because creationism isn't a theory, no aspect of it is testable. it relates directly to the bible, a document supposedly inerrant. changing the creationist perspective actually requires yet another reinterpretation of the bible, which is already so maligned because of the many changes made to its interpretation (due to being unable to change the bible itself, because of its inerrancy).
Also at this stage I would like to point out that NEW microscopic forms of life are being discovered daily at an astounding rate, the idea that no new genetic code is developing can only be supported by a new earth beleiver. No one knows the timeline that this sort of process takes to occur it could well be 100,000's of years, we have only been able to identify genetic material like this for a decade or two.
explain to me how marine animals are affected by flood. Does this mean that as well as the obvious land based animals on Noahs ark, there were fish, and birds? (i have doubts that even a super enhanced fully genetically enabled bird would remain in flight for 100 or so days of the flooding.)
When did ice ages occur, ie how many years ago? (the geologic evidence of this is no less beleiveable than flooding.) And more improtantly why does the bible NOT mention them
Darwin doesn't count as a civilization. Actually most 'Great thinkers / scientists' had an eccentricity or two. Actually they wanted to try gallileo for saying the earth went around the sun, when the bible clearly stated the sun went around the earth (earth being the centre of everything). Flat earth Myth google it. Was invented int he 1700's from memory.
Shall we move on to the guy who got swallowed by a whale, lived in it and eventually came out to tell the story?
I don't have to disprove creation as a theory though, I can disprove its foundations. Where is your examples of humans who are 850 years old?I can go and get examples of how old the earth is. And its alot older than 4000 years.
Young-Earth creationist (YEC) John Woodmorappe (pseudonym) is infamous for scouring the scientific literature for information that he can exaggerate or misquote to defame radiometric dating. However, even a superficial review of the literature that Woodmorappe (1979, 1999) misuses demonstrates that radiometric dating routinely produces powerfully reliable results (e.g., Tauxe et al., 1992; Baadsgaard et al.,1988; Baadsgaard et al., 1993; Queen et al., 1996; Montanari et al., 1985; Foster et al., 1989; Harland et al., 1990; Jacobs and Thomas, 1996; LoBello et al., 1987; Shirey, 1991; Fleck et al., 1996, etc.). Rather than admit the reality of these positive results, Woodmorappe (1979, 1999) consistently ignores or misrepresents them as he sieves through the literature looking for 'dirt' on geochronology.Woodmorappe's critics (including: Dalrymple, 1984; Steve H. Schimmrich, and me) have repeatedly accused him of having unrealistic biases against radiometric dating, generating unrepresentative laundry lists of 'bad dates' from the literature, and having NOTHING good to say about radiometric methods. But, why is this surprising? If Woodmorappe even admits that one radiometric date in excess of 10,000 years is real, his archaic Bible interpretations are demolished.Rather than admit his improper biases, Woodmorappe (1999, p. 1) complains that his critics tend to 'stereotype' his efforts by only referring to his laundry lists of bad dates (see Table 1 in Woodmorappe, 1979, for a prime example of a misleading laundry list). Woodmorappe (1999, p. 1) boasts that he has spent a 'fair amount of time' discussing good dates, concordance and reliability criteria in his writings. However, slandering good dates and isochrons is NOT the same thing as objectively discussing the strengths and weaknesses of radiometric dating. That is, maligning both good and bad radiometric dates is not an example of being 'fair, objective and balanced.'I and others have thoroughly documented countless examples of Woodmorappe (1979, 1999) misquoting the literature, misunderstanding basic information on mineralogy and metamorphic and igneous petrology, and grossly misrepresenting other aspects of geology and geochronology (e.g., Dalrymple, 1984 and the above web links). In comparison, the scientific literature (such as Dickin, 1995) is much more realistic and objective than Woodmorappe and other YECs. Dickin (1995), for example, discusses the limitations, failures and problems associated with radiometric dating, as well as the useful and reliable results.
Im not going to bother anymore.Anything that doesn't fit your view of events is simply a 'assumption' on behalf of science. Oh here is your J. Woodmorappe guy. Sounds onto it.I bet I could disprove it. But even if I did you would simply say 'oh know you see god planned it like that' So its pointless.
It's interesting that the only guy you pick on is Woodmorappe, the only creationist I refered to. Regardless, I wasn't refering to his radiometric work, I was talking about his work on the feasibility of the Noahic flood. In fact I have never read his work on radiometric dating. In addition, to make an assumption of my own, I would put money on the fact that his critics' complaints about his work were more with the fact that he wasn't using their assumptions when it came to radiometric dating. Infact it was just that: they accused him of making "unrealistic biases"!! And their biases are more realistic?! Yeah right. It comes to the blessed circular reasoning again: .
Where is his work published? Time? Scientific America? New Scientist?.
What bias? Scientific method isnt bias, it is based on observed, recoreded and the observed again methods.?.
It is agreed by most that Earth is 4.55 billion years old. Even if you account for a margin of error of 4billion years THEN EARTH IS STILL OLDER THAN what is described in genesis
And a significant number of these guys have turned to Christianity because of the evidence, rather than already being Christians.
I agree with the Scientific method.
Do you want me to give you a list of PhD scientists, professors in well reknowned universtities, and publishers of articles in respected scientific journals,
LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) -- Thirty-eight Nobel Prize laureates asked state educators to reject proposed science standards that treat evolution as a seriously questionable theory, calling it instead the "indispensable'' foundation of biology.The group, led by the writer Elie Wiesel, said it wanted to defend science and combat "efforts by the proponents of so-called intelligent design to politicize scientific inquiry.''Besides Wiesel, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, the letter writers include chemists, physicists and medical experts from Wiesel's New York-based Foundation for Humanity.
Read my response, as I haven't read his work on radiometric dating, I'm not prepared to defend him at this point. And don't think he's the only guy picking fault with the biases behind the methods. Incidently, I don't expect to find any creationist material in the above puplications, as the editors already have a decidely evolutionary bias, at the exclusion of any other theory. As Kenneth Hsu and other evolutionists have pointed out, this is a very dangerously closeminded approach.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.Disposition: 765 F.2d 1251, affirmed.Syllabus: Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science." The Act does not require the teaching of either theory unless the other is taught. It defines the theories as "the scientific evidences for [creation or evolution] and inferences from those scientific evidences." Appellees, who include Louisiana parents, teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the Act's constitutionality in Federal District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The District Court granted summary judgment to appellees, holding that the Act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.Held:1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594.(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with evolution does not give schoolteachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Furthermore, the contention that the Act furthers a "basic concept of fairness" by requiring the teaching of all of the evidence on the subject is without merit. Indeed, the Act evinces a discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of evolution by requiring that curriculum guides be developed and resource services supplied for teaching creationism but not for teaching evolution, by limiting membership on the resource services panel to "creation scientists," and by forbidding school boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation-scientist" or to teach creation science, while failing to protect those who choose to teach other theories or who refuse to teach creation science. A law intended to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction would encourage the teaching of all scientific theories about human origins. Instead, this Act has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism. (b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment. Pp. 589-594. 2. The District Court did not err in granting summary judgment upon a finding that appellants had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Appellants relied on the "uncontroverted" affidavits of scientists, theologians, and an education administrator defining creation science as "origin through abrupt appearance in complex form" and alleging that such a viewpoint constitutes a true scientific theory. The District Court, in its discretion, properly concluded that the postenactment testimony of these experts concerning the possible technical meanings of the Act's terms would not illuminate the contemporaneous purpose of the state legislature when it passed the Act. None of the persons making the affidavits produced by appellants participated in or contributed to the enactment of the law.
OK, lets work through it again. There are very accurate methods available for determining the present ratios or uranium-lead, thorium-lead, potassium-argon, and other isotope ratios. These can be tested, because they are in the present, therefore we all agree with the measurements because it passes the "scientific method" test. However, here is where the dating methods fall outside this catergory: there is, of course, no direct method for estimating the initial ratios of these isotopes in the rocks when they were first formed.We also have to assume that the rates of decay have been at a constant, which again is a huge assumption!
Ok, no matter how you say it - Creationism is not a scientific theory. By an american law, a scientific theory must meet this criteria: 1. It is guided by natural law;2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;3. It is testable against the empirical world;4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and5. It is falsifiable.
Creationism, or rather literal Creationism (the christian belief that Genesis/etc is a literally true guide to the creation of the universe) does not qualify as a scientific theory on any of the above items. This is because it is essentially based on the belief system described in an ancient document, the bible. It contains references to supernatural beings, and events. It makes claims which cannot be proven or disproven.
It is static, there is no chance to modify the core concepts as it was written by the information recieved from the creator itself and therefore revising it would falsify it's entire existance.The claims of the creationist "theory" is not a explanation of the natural world - but rather a bending of the observable natural world to confirm with the so called "theory".
How can it be a scientific theory if it is written by the creator? Is it falsifiable? Because if it was then wouldn't that mean that god was incorrect? I'm sure the entire fabric of the christian universe would collapse upon itself if god was proven to be anything but infallable.
"Creation Science" was banned from schools in america. Basically because it's foundation is from a christian religion and is therefore NOT scientific.
Also, note that for creationism to be correct, and the universe was created around 8000 years ago it would mean that our current view of physics is completely wrong. And that the light travelling from distant galaxies must indeed be capable of travelling greater than light here on earth.
And also, the sun which is thought to be third generation due to the percentages of heavy/light elements may in fact be a 1st generation. But hang on - all stars would be first generation. Hang on - that doesn't really fit in with the rest of science or cosmology. Maybe we should just say "fk you" to reasoning, logic, observation, and scientific investigation and start reading the bible. Because the bible will tell us how to put people on mars. Wont it? It's already proven that the last 200 years of scientific investigation is all bullshit.
I mean for christ sake. How does the moon fit in with creationism? Why does the moon have thousands of impact creators? Did these all appear in the last 8000 years? or did "god" make it like that to try and fool us into thinking it took place over millions of years? Good ole god - he's such a practical joker
JK, you should make your own account,
You have an amazing way of ignoring my lines of logic Simon, and moving on to completely new issues. Read through you explanation of your new form of dating, and see whether or not it really passes the test of being able to be used without some form of bias.
Actually there have been accounts of fishermen being swallowed whole by whaling sharks and surviving time inside before being rescued, but I can't find any references for that right now, so I won't state it as fact. Again, it cannot be ruled out as a possibility, especially if one takes into account that God may have chosen to intervene with an act of supernatural power (convenient I know, but there we are. Assuming the evidence points to God creating the world, it isn't then incomprehensible that he might use supernatural power every so often if he so desires).
Have I ever stated otherwise? But actually, it is more falsifiable than the evolutionary idea. If I found an event in the Bible that contradicted scientific fact and the Bible attributed it to natural forces, then I would throw the book out as lies. But unbelievably, every event that happens which we know to be unexplainable scientifically, directly refers to God's hand involved.
Faith in the bible is the mother of all assumptions.
