by Steve Risner
Last week we took a brief look at the long held notion of “Flood geology” and when the idea of a literal Genesis creation account and global Flood began. If you missed that, you can read it here and I encourage you to do so before continuing on with this post. Today we’re going to take a look at who it was that began turning the thinking of biologists and geologists on the age of the earth. We’ll also expose the people most commonly thought to have caused these myths to spill into the Church. For a very long time, many in the Western world believed the geologic column and the fossils found in it were a result of the Flood of Noah’s day. This is demonstrable since at least the early 200’s AD. However, belief in a global catastrophe that changed the planet forever was believed in since the time it occurred. A literal reading of Genesis 1-11 in the Old Testament would give us too many references to list in a blog post. Catastrophism, the belief that the current geologic features of the earth are primarily the result of catastrophes, was a long held view—for centuries, in fact. It was the belief held by many geologists up through the 17th and 18th centuries, including the arguable founder of modern geology, Nicolas Steno. This began to change over a period of time and in 1830, a man by the name of Charles Lyell wrote Principles of Geology which outlined the idea of uniformitarianism. This is the belief that “the present is the key to the past,” which just means geologic features we see today came about through current rates of geologic change. It did not allow for catastrophes at all. I realize this seems like a foolish idea since we know catastrophes can help explain a lot of things in our world, but when searching for a way to discredit the Bible, man will allow himself to look foolish (claiming to be wise). Charles Lyell lived from 1797 to 1875. He was not a geologist by education but a lawyer. Strange, isn’t it, that a man without formal education in a field could radically change it so much and for so long. We see that with Charles Darwin, a friend of Lyell’s, as well. He was a theologian by education but is thought, mistakenly by many, to be the father of modern biology. Carl Linnaeus, a creationist, is the father of modern biology. Lyell was very anti-Biblical. In fact, he insisted that no global catastrophic floods have ever occurred and pushed for uniformitarian philosophy to interpret the earth. How on earth could he know for sure no global floods had ever occurred? That sounds like faith, to me. His ideas were rejected by most professional geologists of the day but he found a small following of amateur geologists to support him. Uniformitarian thinking and Lyell’s work have been rejected since the 1970’s. But that hasn’t stopped it from being taught. It’s clear from the study of geology of catastrophes have happened that have shaped our landscape to its current form. The eruption of Mt. Saint Helens further supported this by rapidly changing the southern landscape of the state of Washington in a very short time—during a catastrophe. Much of geology shows evidence of rapid catastrophic erosion or sedimentation, drastically reducing the time involved in the formation of many geological deposits. It’s erroneously taught by some that the idea of a global Flood is new—advocated only by anti-science fundamentalist Christians since the mid-1800’s. Not only is that nonsense, it’s easily demonstrated to be false with a very short review of the pillars of Church history. We saw last week that Tertullian, a 3rd century Christian writer, believed that fossilized marine animals in mountain sides were the result of the Flood. Other church fathers believed that the Flood submerged the entire earth. Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist born around 100 AD, and Theophilus of Antioch, another Christian apologist of that time, argued against the common pagan ideas of a local flood. They claimed that the water rose above every high hill by at least 15 cubits. St. Augustine said that the Flood rose 15 cubits above the highest mountains. Thomas Aquinas of the 13th century said that “the waters of the deluge” rose “15 cubits higher than the mountain summits.” During the Reformation, Calvin said, “The flood was forty days, etc. Moses copiously insists upon this fact, in order to show that the whole world was immersed in the water.” Nearly all of early Christian history is filled with such notions. Certainly this is not a new idea. In its first 16 centuries, the church held to a belief in a young earth, that it was created quickly in six 24-hour days, and was later submerged under a worldwide Flood. It was not until the Enlightenment that professing Christians began to reinterpret Genesis to fit with alleged “scientific” proofs of an old earth. It was in 1804 that Thomas Chalmers, a Presbyterian pastor, began to preach that Christians should accept the millions of years creation idea that was slowly creeping into the world of science. But are these beliefs founded in science? Of course not. We cannot determine such things from science. Biblical creationists are said to be anti-science and incapable of doing real science—that they allow their prior beliefs to influence how they interpret the evidence (duh). This is exactly what all believers in an old earth—creationist or atheist—do. Let’s see what some of them have said. James Hutton, an icon in modern geology, said in Theory of the Earth from the late 1700’s, “The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now… No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.” That sounds like he’s saying he will only accept certain types of evidence before it’s presented to him. Derek Ager, a geologist and atheist, admitted in The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, “We have allowed ourselves to be brain-washed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes.” The thought that “science” proves the age of geologic formations and fossils demonstrates immediately that there is a complete failure to understand what the limitations of science are. We see that some scientists insist on excluding evidence prior to its presentation based on an arbitrary criterion they have forced on us all. This isn’t science. It’s a dogmatic insistence on a preconceived idea. We can't tell how old the earth or the universe is by examining it, because we don't understand how it got here in the first place. This is what removes the origins debate from the commonly used argument comparing it to forensics. We know a lot of things in terms of physical and chemical laws—the way things move or react—as well as having a database of knowledge (not inferences but actual facts) to apply present findings to a recent past event. That’s how crimes are solved. But we have no facts about the beginning of the universe revealed in science. There are none. This point cannot be stressed enough. Anytime you hear about something we “know” about the Big Bang or Darwinism and single common ancestry, a red flag should go up. You should know from that point on the speaker is not telling you about science but about philosophy. They may be trying to pass it off as science, but this is just not the way it is. And God has given us His testimony on the creation of the universe, earth, and life on earth. All evidence should be weighed in light of this. Read Genesis 1-11 and see if you can fit the Big Bang, evolution from a single common ancestor (some sort of simple bacteria or something like that), and billions of years into it. If that’s too much at one time, read 2 chapters at a time. I’m sure you’ll find rational and consistent arguments that the insertion of these beliefs is not possible. Man’s knowledge on origins is ever changing. God’s Word is ever constant and has said the same thing about creation and the Flood since it was written. As the Word says in Romans 3:4, “Let God be found true though every human being is a liar, as it is written, That You may shown to be upright in what You say, and prevail when You are judged [by sinful men].”
110 comments:
Using known scientific principles to discern what may have happened in the past is not a wrong thing. No Creationist denies scientific principles. But I really do wonder if anyone who denies Noah's Flood has ever seen large amounts of water move. We can reference videos of the 2004 Indonesian Tsunami, but that was just a single wave.
I grew up just outside the mountains near Boulder, Colorado where numerous creeks flowed out of the "Back Range". In my entire life, nothing in the canyons changes due to the normal flow of the creeks, with the exception of when a major flood took place. Look up videos of the September 2013 flooding in Colorado. The canyons that did not change over time but did when the biggest flood in recorded history, show catastrophism will do far greater work than uniformitarianism ever could.
I currently live in the desert and in 2006, the flooding we had made national news. 15 inches of rain in less than 24 hrs. It changed the landscape that had not changed in anyone's memory. We had canyons formed that looked exactly like the Grand Canyon does, vertical walls, meandering floor. Of course much smaller but the key is a classic scientific principle: E = 1/2 mv^2. Continued.
No one denies that energy is proportional to the mass and the square of the velocity. No Creationist denies this. But comparing uniforitarianism to catastrophism is a basic examination of this equation. Uniformitarianism suggests that without the aid of a castastrophe, the erosion rates we see regularly are the same rates that have taken place for millions of years. What is not considered is how much of that erosion takes place during times of flooding and how much takes place when not in flood.
I have been accused of suggesting that Noah's Flood could carve through solid rock at the Grand Canyon. That is quite a charge. Let's break it down. Was the rock layers in the Grand Canyon hard when the canyon was formed? If so, how could someone with a much weaker force do the work that a massive force could not do? Again, basic principles of forces. If you push a box across the floor, you must overcome the force of friction before that box will move. It does not matter if you push that box for 2 seconds or 50 million years, until your force overcomes that of friction, the box is never going to move.
The Colorado River is not capable of carving the Grand Canyon by itself. Not enough force. But run off from Noah's Flood could. And because such run-off would have taken place when the layers were still soft (they were laid down wet and were under water for about a year), it is completely feasible for the Canyon to be formed that way. And all one has to do is look at the numerous heavy floods to show this is not unreasonable to think this way.
Creationists to not deny science. We do not deny energy equations or friction or heat. What we deny is the models that suggest scientific principles can do what they have never been observed to do even on a small scale. The Creationist models of the Flood reflect those of the smaller scale observations we have made. The uniformitarian models do NOT reflect what small scale observations do. I'm still waiting for these scientists to demonstrate observation that the uniforitarian rates are capable of doing what they claim to do. They will say we have not been able to observe it long enough. If that is the case, keep the model on the back-burner until you have the evidence to back it up.
Uniformitarianism is for the most part rejected by the scientific community but it is absolutely required for EVERY Evolutionary dating method. That is why it is still around. You cannot demonstrate the earth is any age without such models. This is why catastrophism is so hated by the Evolutionary community. Because without the dating methods, without the time frame, the biological models can't work.
Ashley, do you understand the difference between a scientific principle and the rate at which the scientific principle is applied? The basic energy equation is E = 1/2 mv^2. We do not deny this equation. Do you understand that m could equal 1 kg or 4 kg and the equation does not change? Do you understand that m could equal 10 kg and v = 20 m/s or m = 50 kg and v = 100 m/s and the equation does not change? You are accusing of suggesting E does NOT equal 1/2 mv^2. I want to see concrete evidence you have seen this in any YEC paper. I want to see you prove that we reject the scientific equations. I want to see that you can prove you understand basic science. Don't throw a link at me. Show me YOU get it.
Ashley, scientific equations are the representation of the scientific principles behind them. You have repeatedly claimed that we reject science (which includes the equations with them). What have we rejected? Do you know? Can you show it? Saying "yes" does not demonstrate you understand it. That only demonstrates you THINK you understand it. Can you demonstrate we reject the scientific principles (which what any claim that we reject science says) themselves? Because all I have seen us doing is questioning what values the secularists put into the equations. Do you really understand the difference? If so, demonstrate it.
Wikipedia is notoriously dishonest and biased against creation science, and any attempts to correct their articles are rejected right away (I have the testimony of people who have had this experience).
Note the either/or fallacy, either you believe in free speech or you don't. What is "free speech"? Such a concept does not exist in an absolute form, as I discussed in this article.
Steve's science background is a red herring, and the content needs to be addressed, not Steve.
Gentlemen, You are doing "okay" so far. Please keep focused on the post at hand. And let's keep not making this personal.
I see what Ashleyhr did there Bob Sorenson but you then need to not "take the bait." Do not even address it if it bothers you that much. Stay focused on the topic at hand. Does that make sense?
I'm not picking on anyone here. I just want you all to know that in order to have a good discussion stay focused on the content of the post. If someone slanders or name calls, Ignore it and don't even address it. It's really not that difficult to do. :) Again, I am sure this will be a great thread. Don't take comments personally.
Thanks!
JD, I have a small disagreement with you. There was a purpose in my pointing out logical fallacies,and could have done more. One of those was to Steve's benefit, and to eliminate that particular distraction. Also, links to Wikipedia, (ir)Rational Wiki, Talk.Origins and such are often used in lieu of discussion. Charlie's not having any of that, which is great on his part.
Bob, I do see where JD is coming from, because on this thread, I did not see any link to wiki, or talk origins, so I was not sure where that was coming from. But that being said, I fully agree that very often a link is thrown to "be the spokesperson" and "that's that". Yes, we need to cite our resources (to be honest a skill I am getting better at), but a source does not make our arguments. I will not engage in a source war because that can go forever and never actually addresses the real issue at hand.
I was appalled by a number of research papers I read for grad school. The author did their research all right. 20+ sources but the author had nothing to say. All they were was a bunch of regurgitation of the sources. And these were "professional papers". I am NOT saying every paper is like that. There are many that are legit where the author actually had something to say. But on the on-line debates, that is what it often boils down to. Who can cite the most sources? I won't cite a source without engaging the source, without demonstrating that I know what the source is talking about and can reference where in the source the defense for my claim is being made. I'm not perfect at this, but that is what citation is all about.
If the anti-Creationists are allowed to censor YEC sources from being a "quality" source, we also retain a right to "censor" certain Evolution-based sites as well.
And when logical fallacies are brought forth, we should call them out. I know I've often been accused of "calling the fallacy 'fallacy'" and my response is simple: "Quit using fallacies and I'll quit calling you out on them."
:I know I've often been accused of 'calling the fallacy "fallacy"' and my response is simple: "Quit using fallacies and I'll quit calling you out on them.'"
Right, I've had that happen as well. I think it's a new, manufactured "fallacy" (along the lines of alleged "laws" of the Internet). While someone can reach a proper conclusion by luck through poor reasoning, the principle remains that it is extremely difficult to build on a faulty foundation.
Ashley, I have to ask you this. What is science? Can you define it? If so, can you stick with that definition when addressing our claims?
I'm not asking Oxford. I'm not asking Dawkins or Ham or Tyson or Hawking or Einstein. I know what they say. I'm asking YOU. Do YOU know what science is? I did not ask if you know what Oxford says. Posting a link and saying "I agree with this" does not tell me you understand what you are agreeing to. It does not tell me you actually read it. It does not tell me you know what Oxford says.
I'm not playing games, Ashley. Yes, that is what Oxford says. Yes, you said you agree with it. Do you understand it? What does that mean in your own words? If you are going to accuse us of being anti-science and go about trying to "correct us", you BETTER have a very good understanding of what it is. And you are evading the question. SHOW ME you know what you are talking about. So far you haven't. I am going somewhere with this.
In the other thread you indicated something about how science is defined as "knowledge". While I agree that "scientia" literally means 'knowledge', knowledge has a much broader scope than what you quoted from Oxford. Do you know what in included in that definition you gave and do you know what is NOT included in that definition? How do you tell the difference? According to Bloom's Taxonomy, you have cited the "knowledge" level, that's the lowest level of understanding. For you to be able to make the claims you are making you need to be at the "evaluation" level, the highest one. And so you know, Bloom's Taxonomy is world-wide known in education and most certainly NOT Creationist.
Here is the chart for you to review if you need it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bloom%27s+taxonomy+levels&newwindow=1&safe=active&rlz=1C1ARAA_enUS525US525&espv=2&tbm=isch&imgil=_cZD0dhQNMpTjM%253A%253Bhl_4i7XCAeDL9M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.psia-nw.org%25252Fblooms-taxonomy-levels-of-understanding%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=_cZD0dhQNMpTjM%253A%252Chl_4i7XCAeDL9M%252C_&usg=__b7lxdeSbKZ-IFmg4q2ifvNbC-X8%3D&biw=1366&bih=643&ved=0CCgQyjc&ei=DcfvVPn7O8HMgwS08oKYAw#imgdii=_&imgrc=_cZD0dhQNMpTjM%253A%3Bhl_4i7XCAeDL9M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.psia-nw.org%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252FBlooms_Taxonomy.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.psia-nw.org%252Fblooms-taxonomy-levels-of-understanding%252F%3B938%3B808
So your posts from then and your posts now are not quite agreeing with each other. Because you made it pretty clear in the last 24-hrs that you think we call our whole model "science"? Which is it? If you think you are consistent, your communication skills displaying such a position need improvement. What does you bringing this up prove? Not what you think. I would never have guessed you understood we don't call Creation 'science' from you posts this week. That's on you for not being able to articulate it. And when someone uses the strong language that you tend to use, I expect FULL, IN DEPTH knowledge of the material. I'm still waiting on that to be shown.
So again, how do YOU understand what science is? You want to make the claim we reject science and are anti-science, back it up. If you can't define it in your own words, take that Oxford definition and DEMONSTRATE how we reject science. Because the examples you gave don't fit that definition.
"Do as I say, not as I do," eh Ashley. You want us to provide very specific details proving you wrong but you can't give any details at all about your claims. You said we are anti-science. PROVE IT. Of course if you don't hold to a strict definition of science (your words) you can't hold ANYONE to any standard on the topic. The double-standards you show are on display for all to see. I'm not playing this deflection game with you. You want to be here. You be ready to answer for your claims. In this thread, I can gather that you do not know what science is. You can cite a dictionary but that's it. You demonstrate that you CANNOT answer for your claims, and posting a link to your forum over there does not demonstrate anything other than you have an opinion. I don't believe you are capable of proving we are anti-science because 1), We aren't, and 2). You don't know it enough to discern what science is and what isn't. Your refusal to answer my questions shows where you really stand on the issues. Ball is in your court. If you don't think we can answer your claims the way you want us to, show us how by defending them. Show us how we are against "observation and experimentation". Show us you understand what they are so you can demonstrate to be a quality judge of who is using it and who isn't. Then show us your integrity by applying the same standards to your own theories. If you can.
But overall, thank you for being a bit more respectful. Keep working on that and you might be surprised how far your conversations might go. You might not see the ban hammer so quickly. We'd love to try to have an honest discussion with you. But discussions are two way. I'm working on this issue too. I'm not asking for perfection. I'm only asking for direction. This was a good step. Please work on it, and so will I.
Providing a quote does not demonstrate ANYTHING. It just means providing a quote. You have yet to provide any actual refutation. You are quoting but terrible at actually demonstrate how said quote does what you claim it does. You do NOT show us HOW and WHY we are what you claim. You do NOT provide any evidence. You know nothing about backing up a claim or refuting one because when you claim you do it, you don't do it. You keep saying we are anti-science. SHOW US what experiments we deny. Show us what observation we deny. GET SPECIFIC. THAT is how you back it up. Just providing a quote does not do that. Just like providing a dictionary definition. It does not mean you know what you are talking about. All I see from you are claim and claim that your claims do something they actually don't.
You want my definition of science. I've said it numerous times and I have been completely consistent when I used it. Science is a methodical PROCESS we use to understand the world around us via the scientific method and demonstrates to have three key characteristics: observable, testable and repeatble. I word it differently that Oxford but everything I said there is completely compatible with Oxford. Now demonstrate to me you have reading comprehension and tell me what I said in your words.
You have forced me to go this route because everything you say betrays your claim that you are well read in this regard. You can quote someone all day long. Quoting does not equal comprehension. A parrot quotes all day long too. No comprehension there either. You can't make a claim about a scientific model without first knowing what science is. THEN you have understand the differences between scientific law, theory, and models. I'm not convinced you know the difference between any of them.
Why are irrelevant attacks on Tony tolerate?
Ashlethr, Then please have your comment removed at the website you posted this slander and libel.
You are forgiven but your actions unfortunately have consequences.
You commented, "NO - WORLDVIEW WARRIORS DO NOT BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3632&p=50214#p50214"
Please contact this website in the UK and have this comment retracted because it is untrue. Thank you.
If anything, I think we are very fair handed here.
Please see that earlier I addressed Bob in love and even though we disagreed we didn't call each other names. I appreciate Charlie's comment to that as well. I appreciate that Bob at least was loving in his comment to me.
Ashleyhr, I also want you to know that we are going through this thread and looking at the previous post as well. We are getting to these a quickly as we can. This weekend in the USA is a very busy week and so is next week as many of us have to attend our children's tournament games in a few sports. We will get to them but We have families to attend to as well. I hope you will understand. I do appreciate your willingness to apologize. Thank you.
I would like to encourage all parties here to also keep focused on what is happening here on the thread. I know this is tough to do sometimes because you have history. I get that because I, unfortunately at times address past things discussed in a different thread. Unfortunately that confused people who are new to the thread and wonder what is going on. I really encourage everyone to keep focused here. For the most part I think you are doing a good job.
Let's do our best not to attack anyone let alone someone who is not here to defend themselves. Thanks.
Ashleyhr,
I thought I posted something on this but I don't see it yet so, could you please attempt to have your post on the science forum in the UK removed. I would appreciate it because it is pretty mean and intense. Please know that our heart is truly for people to seek and search for the truth here.
Thanks.
Also, I don't think Charlie is out of line asking you to explain certain things. I understand that it might seem that you are explaining your thoughts on something by posting links written by others of what you agree with and it kinda works.
But where there is a struggle for the one asking the question and the listener to you is this >>> They really do not know what you think because these aren't your words, they are someone else's <<< I know this might seem trivial to you and I apologize for Charlie and myself with this because it is something all of us with WVW have been trying to work with in all of our bloggers. I can promise you he is not trying to be difficult. I know at times he might seem that way but he really is trying to understand or at least is trying to work on understanding more just like we all are.
"Providing a quote does not demonstrate ANYTHING. It just means providing a quote. You have yet to provide any actual refutation. You are quoting but terrible at actually demonstrate how said quote does what you claim it does. You do NOT show us HOW and WHY we are what you claim."
You are terrible at claiming that I have not shown anything - without either directly addressing what I actually wrote or specifically explaining why and how I 'failed'.
Care to try again?
I can see through your charades. They will never fool me. Perhaps they have fooled others in the past?
For the umpteenth time read my words in my first post to Steve, expanded upon in a later post, and TELL US ALL HOW I AM 'FAILING' to show how YECs are against science and the scientific method (most of the time). Or alternatively you could shut up.
Every time I am specific you claim that I am not 'specific enough'. Funny - I'm accusing you of the VERY SAME THING. I am specific and you fail to address the contents of my posts but instead make sweeping statements that I 'provide no evidence' or that I need to 'get specific'. You are becoming very tedious (but that's probably a strategy to try and wear me down because I know you are stupid though you appear to naively hope that I am).
"Now demonstrate to me you have reading comprehension and tell me what I said in your words." Why should I? You are not my tutor or my boss.
"You have forced me to go this route because everything you say betrays your claim that you are well read in this regard." SUCH AS ALL MY POSTS HERE (and please do not lecture me about merely posting a link or not being specific - the link takes you to posts I have written - on an open forum where people are free to challenge or disagree - where I would argue that I demonstrate a decent and growing understanding over several years of science, YEC dogma and logical conclusions):
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/
And I did NOT merely 'quote' Tony Breeden did I Charlie. Even any fool, should they happen upon this thread, will readily see that. Why do you make such preposterous claims against me? And why do you fail say anything about Breeden's words and whether they agree your 'take' on creation/creation science/call it what you will? By the way, although we have had vigorous email differences this week, I was not as someone is alleging 'attacking' that recent Breeden blog post I linked to last night.
I was concerned that I might need to spend ages dealing with some
difficult or time-consuming challenges from various people on here tonight, after spending a day in the fresh air away from computers. But my concerns were unfounded.
"I thought I posted something on this but I don't see it yet so, could you please attempt to have your post on the science forum in the UK removed." (JD.) I assume you mean the one about Worldview Warriors - made after you removed about 20 of my posts at the preceding Risner thread? No way. But you are free to come on there and criticise it if you like.
SORRY!
That SHOULD have read: "but that's probably a strategy to try and wear me down because I know you are not stupid though you appear to naively hope that I am...".
LYING HYPOCRITES. JUST NOW I REFUSED TO REMOVE MY POST AT A TOTALLY SEPARATE FORUM (BUT SAID THAT JD COULD JOIN THE THREAD( AND I ALSO TOTALLY REFUTED WOLCOTT'S LATEST MALICIOUS AND RATHER CHILDISH ALLEGATIONS.
SO YOU EVIL FRAUDS THEN REMOVE ALL MY POSTS. THE LEADER OF NORTH KOREA WOULD DOUBTLESS APPROVE OF YOUR STRATEGY.
I WILL EXPOSE YOU BY EMAIL AND AT THE BCSE COMMUNITY FORUM. YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR. I REFUTED CHARLIE'S LIES. THAT IS WHY YOU CENSOR ME - AGAIN. ALL YOU PEOPLE ABSOLUTELY SICKEN ME.
YOU ARE EVIL. I WILL NEVER EVER TRUST YOU AGAIN.
I substantiated my claims which is WHY my posts have all been removed. You are evil hate-filled frauds in Christian clothing.
WHY HAVE YOU ALSO CENSORED THE WELL-ARGUED POST OR POSTS BY DAVID IN THIS THREAD? Are you mad? Or was that a error? I suspect NOT.
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3632&p=50220#p50220
I am not a robot unfortunately for you lot.
And yes if you were Nazis, Islamists, Putin supporters or agents of North Korea (and I lived in your country) I probably WOULD be more careful in how express my profound disagreement with your empty claims. But your holy book says "thou shalt not kill". Though it also warns against bearing 'false witness' - and many of you ignore that commandment by your words or your electronic behaviour.
Ashley, I have not posted in this thread, mostly because I thought my posts would be lost in all your accusations. You are not helping in overturning the stereotype that atheists are just angry, bitter, and hate God. I haven't always been given the benefit of the doubt here... on one of my first comments on this blog, Bill Seng accused me of being a liar. Bob once insinuated that he knew who I was. But for the most part, I just hear abuse from you.
I was refuting accusations against myself, David. Have you read them? (Btw the way the way any God let me down when I was a believer in the past is a real reason for anger - but I do not propose to repeat now things I have mentioned previously; I am not against all Christians most definitely, just the dishonest bigoted ones among those I find on the internet, and I would encourage anti-YEC Christian bloggers.)
You made a new post in the past 24 hours or so. I mistakenly thought it was within this thread. Apologies for the error.
I do not use empty 'abuse'. If I make accusations I back them up. That is why I am viewed as a threat (you and the bible.and.science.forum may not be).
Are you suggesting that I have been treated fairly by Worldview Warriors? Surely you aren't.
Are you?
WWs have NEVER told me exactly WHAT (retroactive) censorship they are applying here. Last time I looked, the troll Gordons had not been censored. These people pretend to be allowing open debate (as long as it is not mere abuse) but they their actions betray their claims. I think you are being a little naive.
But best of luck with your exchanges - by their bullying WWs will probably succeed in their fervent wish to make me take a 'back seat' so that will lead the field more clear for other informed critics of the baseless dogma about science we are continually getting from three of the bloggers here.
PS
If David prefers not to respond to my last post that is absolutely fine by me. His choice either way.
Ashleyhr,
I apologize. Like I wrote earlier I was at tournaments and will be all day today as well. I am not the only one who watches this blog. We had a miscommunication which I take responsibility for. Your comments should not have been removed on this post. If more are deleted, please understand I have attempted to rectify this and hope your comments can be put back up. Time will tell.
I hope you have a good day.
You're rewarding his bad behaviour by apologising? Those comments deserved to be deleted because they didn't add a thing and they attacked people. Check his forum, he's comparing you to Hitler and atheist communists! You're 'evil' because someone didn't let him get away with slandery. http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3632#p50220
Ashley, so you cannot accuse me of being presumptuous, please give me YOUR understanding of what a refutation is. Because we certainly are not seeing eye to eye on what constitutes a refutation. I don't want a dictionary definition. I can look that up just as easily as you can. I want to know how you understand it. That means in your own words.
"Ashleyhr,
I apologize. Like I wrote earlier I was at tournaments and will be all day today as well. I am not the only one who watches this blog. We had a miscommunication which I take responsibility for. Your comments should not have been removed on this post. If more are deleted, please understand I have attempted to rectify this and hope your comments can be put back up. Time will tell." OK. I will accept that explanation, at least for the time being (I do appreciate that blogs may have several moderators though why one of them zapped my posts late last night remains a bit of a mystery).
Contrary to Anonymous' cowardly allegation, I have not been 'rewarded'. Rather an injustice has been rectified. My comments elsewhere last night (on a site where Jason wanted me to DELETE MY MORE MODERATE EARLIER COMMENT) were based on years of personal experience of attempting to debate in an on-topic manner on various YEC sites, not just this one, and 'being silenced for telling the truth' in a robust way as has sadly recently happened in Paris and Moscow in a more fatal way).
Charlie seems to think I do not have a clue what a refutation is. I think it is presenting a detailed argument explaining convincingly why somebody else's argument does not make sense or does not successfully explain observed reality. I promise Charlie that I did NOT look at ANY dictionary. If he has a better definition I am all ears.
Perhaps Charlie would like to address my original comment to Steve - or perhaps Steve himself would if he is not busy elsewhere.
Except that I now see that my original reply to Steve remains DELETED, Jason, Charlie, and Steve. Why is that?
Please sort this out. (Or admit that I am being lied to if that is the case.)
(However the reply in question CAN be read here should anybody wish to comment on it: http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3632&p=50221&sid=19e1dda3b80fac38edf51a8e93b9dc9a#p50221)
ALL my replies to Charlie made in the early hour of 27 Feb UK time are STILL missing. My response at 7.51 pm on 27 Feb (US time) and subsequent briefer comments are back - but I dealt with ALL Charlie's earlier challenges - and my replies are still MISSING. Why? What are you afraid of? Is Charlie asking for their deletion - surely not?
//Charlie seems to think I do not have a clue what a refutation is. I think it is presenting a detailed argument explaining convincingly why somebody else's argument does not make sense or does not successfully explain observed reality. I promise Charlie that I did NOT look at ANY dictionary. If he has a better definition I am all ears. //
That is a pretty good definition. But are you aware that none of your posts ever DO this? I am certain you think they do, but they don't. Quoting someone is a good step, but quoting someone does not refute them. Saying something against what someone said is not a refutation by itself. For example, in the other thread, I said that uniformitarianism has been disproven and I gave examples of where it has been. Your "refutation" was a quote followed by a definition. If you want to refute my claim, you need to provide a counter-example to the claim. You need to prove that the RATES are proven to be consistent without exception. I provide the counter-example to the uniformitarian claim, so the only one that had the refutation was me. Not you. You said my claim did not do what I claimed. That's because you have no clue what I was talking about nor did you click on the link I provided.
Suggesting Noah's Flood took place in a Van De Graff Generator? It would really help for you to know what you are talking about before making such claims. The Van De Graff Generator produce electrical pulses which have proven to greatly alter the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. See the link I provided.
I'm sorry Ashley but the one refuted by the definition you gave is you. I'm still waiting for you to actually carry out that definition, because you haven't.
"I said that uniformitarianism has been disproven and I gave examples of where it has been". Please identify the post in the other thread (by number) where you did that. I cannot find such a post.
The reply of mine that you refer to (also in the other thread) is still CENSORED. Thus - because of that stupidity - I cannot easily defend myself against your current claim re my reply. However, I do recall writing: "Uniformitarianism is NOT 'disproven'. As David clearly set out." That was after you had stated - without providing any examples - that uniformitarianism and naturalism were 'disproven in every regard' (post 46). All I can see now is denials by you NOT examples (your posts 46 and 48).
In addition there was no link with your posts 46 or 48 at the other thread (other than a dictionary definition which you quoted). So WHAT link are you accusing me of not looking at?
It's funny how many of your accusations against me are TOTALLY BASELESS.
Do you agree with this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism)
If not, how is uniformitarianism 'still' wrong?
On your claim that radiometric dating has been 'busted'.
You merely referred to solar flares, Van de Graaff generators
and possible earthquakes perhaps during Noah's Flood. In reply I flagged a blog by a Christian geologist/geologist Christian which referred to this recent science news story (it's about undersea volcanoes rather than earthquakes as I acknowledged):
http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2015/02/record-grooves-ocean-floor-document-earth-s-ice-ages
It is for you to demonstrate that you (or someone else) has 'disproven' or 'busted' uniformitarianism or radiometric dating. You may think that you have done those things here. However, I do not - sorry.
If by your earlier comment "... nor did you click on the link I provided" you actually meant the google link about the Van de Graaff generator that you provided later in the thread then you so wrong. Only a fool would suggest that a link essentially proves nothing without bothering to have a look at it first. But I saw nothing there that I wished to remark upon - beyond what I actually wrote at the time which enquired further about what you were trying to suggest.
On that same topic, you wrote: "The Van De Graff Generator produce electrical pulses which have proven to greatly alter the decay rates of radioactive isotopes." But YECs typically claim that radioactive decay rates were somehow vastly speeded up during Noah's Flood (you suggested that if there were also earthquakes then perhaps that could have done it). Thus I mentioned the claimed Flood in my reply to you at the previous Risner blog (post 51). Only for you to try and mock me above with: "It would really help for you to know what you are talking about before making such claims." But it was YOU who brought up Van de Graaff generators. Not me.
Your strategy is to try and claim that I am 'wrong' because my posts are somehow allegedly 'unclear' or because I 'don't' understand your posts or your beliefs properly or because I think I have 'refuted' something written by you but in fact 'haven't'.
cont'd
...
Sorry. I'm not here to play those sorts of games (just deal with what has really been said and claimed) - but I will return the ball into your court if you 'force' me to.
I note that you also have not addressed David's related points in his recent comments. Such as: "The flood model that I've seen says that the rate of radioactive decay was sped up to be hundreds of millions of times faster than normal. Scientists have not been able to find anything that can change the rate of radioactive decay by even 1% (this only applies to the isotopes scientists commonly use for dating, I think some other isotopes may have varied by a couple percent). I propose an alternate theory: God created the earth almost exactly as it looks now, but during the flood, he supernaturally teleported all the dead animals into the rock.
Please tell me why the fast radioactive decay model is better than the teleportation model. Both require divine tweaking of the laws of physics."
THIS is the truth of what has been happening here in these two threads. YOU claimed to have refuted radiometric dating (though you said 'busted' rather than 'refuted'). You didn't. I did 'not' refute you as such because there was nothing that needed refuting. Thus I NOT claim - on that occasion - to have 'refuted' you. Rather I wrote: "Your arrogant sounding statement that radiometric dating has been 'busted' is plain untrue. (I read your latest post; it is interesting but it does not identify a refutation of the method.)
I expect that the fact that I am telling the truth here (and do not think I have made any unintended errors within this post) will be signalled by the fact that you will not be able to contradict me - so you will either not reply or will make some new accusation, having failed in your latest one.
Jason/other moderator - please do check whether I am breaking any rule here or where I am simply successfully dealing with each of Charlie's successive charges (or not - IF he can show otherwise).
I believe I am fully telling the truth. Check out the posts in question. You by contrast are deliberately or accidentally distorting my earlier words and making things up, and thus making false associated claims that don't stack up.
Ashley understanding uniformitarianism requires more than being able to quote a definition. I never said radioactivity does not take place (uniformity of nature). I said you cannot rely on them decaying in the same rates and the Van De Graff Generator has proven to provide conditions that disproves the RATES at which radioactive decay takes place. When conditions such as these are in the equation, it prevents you from being able to take the lab measured decay rates and extrapolate for billions of years.
Now you again bring up the idea that such a model would accelerate the decay rates by billions of times. Really? This shows both you and David do not understand what is required for radiometric dating to work. One of the assumptions required is that all the daughter product present is explicitly due to radioactive decay. You simply cannot know that unless you measured the initial conditions. So David's charge is unfounded because it is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one.
My post on the Van De Graff Generator proves that electrical pulses will alter the decay rates. Van De Graff Generators are not the only things that produces electrical pulses. My claim is that decay rates being consistent for billions of years is unfounded. I have provided research that proves that it is unfounded and I have provided a place of research that has simply not been done yet, which makes the original claim of unchanging rates ill-researched, and therefore, not very reliable to stand on.
You did not refute me on this claim you. You just hand-waved it off. That's not a refutation. That's your opinion. You did not provide facts that prove me wrong. I did. You continue to talk like you think you know what you are talking about but you demonstrate you don't. I do believe you believe you are speaking the truth, but what you speak is your opinion, not backed by facts. You are great at quoting people, but not so great at understanding what you are quoting. And again, instead of jumping at us at "playing games" or being 'dishonest' ask questions if you are not sure. You are great at offense in discussions, but terrible at defending your position. I seriously recommend taking a debate class because what you bring forth is rather pitiful. When I have been refuted, (between you, David, and BSF it only happened once). I recanted that claim and you three STILL got on my case. You aren't the only one with a good memory. Take an honest look (if you can) at your own posts and see if they actually do what constitutes a refutation. Because they don't.
Clarification:
Ashley, between you, David, and BSF, there was only one time where I actually had a comment/claim that was honestly disproven, demonstrated to be false. It was when I said one volcanic eruption was greater than all man-made pollution. I was wrong there and David proved me wrong. I said I would not be using that argument again and you never let that one go. That was the ONLY time I was ever disproven in your time on these blogs. You brought a lot of opinions but nothing else. You did not actually refute me. You did not demonstrate I was wrong. You took the first couple steps in doing so, but you did not make the connection between the premise and the conclusion. When I spoke on uniformitarianism, you said I was wrong and gave me an Oxford dictionary definition, nothing else. You did NOT demonstrate the definition to be true, NOR did you demonstrate my counter-example to be false. You demonstrated not to understand it. You demonstrated to be able to reference it. You demonstrated you recognized I said something about it. But you clearly demonstrated you don't get it. So don't pretend you do, because your words betray your claims. I'm not calling you a liar. I believe you think you are right. But you aren't. That doesn't make you a liar. It makes you ill-informed. To be a liar here, you have to KNOW that what you say is false and say it anyway. I have found NOTHING that supports uniforitarianism. I have found PLENTY to support uniformity of nature (again, taking considering that miracles are exceptions. Specific interpreting the general). Every claim of uniforimitarianism is either very weakly supported or is actually a claim of uniformity of nature, not uniformitarianism.
Again, you did not refute me, Ashley. You did not demonstrate my claim to be false, nor your claim to be true. I did. I went the distance on making a refutation. You did not.
"I never said radioactivity does not take place (uniformity of nature)." I never said you did.
Your problem io that even if radiometric dating is imperfect, it is inconceivable that it could be 'so' wrong that meteorites dated at 4.5 billion years old are actually only 6,000 years old or less.
Is Charlie able to address the claim in a comment by Professor Paul Braterman here (he's not a Christian but he is agreeing with a Christian blogger)?
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/soft-tissue-found-in-dinosaur-bones/
"To the other reasons you give for trusting radiometric dating, I would add this: we have known since the work of Gamow in 1928 that radioactive decay is an example of quantum mechanical tunnelling. For its rate to have been different, one or more fundamental quantities such as Planck’s constant or the unit of charge would have had to be different, and if that had happened, then the whole of chemistry would have been different and we wouldn’t have these rocks anyway."
Or any of what the same (Christian) blogger wrote here (in the subsection on 'Invariance of radioactive Decay Rates'):
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue/
Or will he change the subject again?
"You did not refute me on this claim you." There was nothing requiring a refutation. Nobody has agreed with you that there was or told me what needs refuting.
"You continue to talk like you think you know what you are talking about but you demonstrate you don't." Utter nonsense. Unless you can PROVE your claim? The ball, is in your court.
The way your later post in written shows how desperate you are. You provided NOTHING to 'disprove' uniformitarianism. NOTHING. Your rant bears no relation to what has really been happening here. The thing you claimed that I failed to refute does not even exist (in the other thread at least which is where you said it was) as far as I can see.. (And I have never "never let that one go" re what you once may have erroneously stated about volcanic eruptions - so that's a red herring.)
If you persist I will flag this thread to the blogger Scott Buchanan of Letters to Creationists and also Paul Braterman (who also writes a blog and is preparing a book about science and young earth creationism). To see if they wish to chip in at all or even disagree with mew. (Not because I think I need help but because they might find your tactics against me to be interesting.)
Your posts have a 'rushed' look to them.
Can I address those comments? Yes I can. But I'm not going to with you. You have repeatedly handwaved off evidence that destroys your claims as though I never said a thing. And you can't handle it because you don't understand it. Every time you open your mouth you show you lack of understanding of any of this. I have no problem with those who don't know or don't get it. But said people call those who DO understand it liars and bigots, and show the skills matching that of a bird, I'm not too impressed.
I'm not going to get into a source war with you Ashley. Every source you cite, I can come up with something else. But I have a source that trumps every source you can come up with. I know you hate it but that is what you are going to get.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
1 Timothy 6:20-21
20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Romans 3:4
Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.
Ephesians 5:6
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;
Psalm 118:8
It is better to trust in the Lord Than to put confidence in man.
Ashley, you could cite every scientist on this planet and "scientifically" demonstrate everything you suggest is true. And I still won't buy it. Because I have been convinced beyond want any claim or "evidence" that the Bible is true as written. I have been convinced (which is the real meaning of faith) beyond any shadow of doubt could offer that God is faithful and true and that his Word will remain standing through any trial or attack on it. And if the entire world is against, so be it. Because greater is he who is in me, than the entire world's system. This world and everything in it is going to burn, Ashley. If you want to burn with it, that's your call. All your radiometric dating methods, all your science, all your education, EVERYTHING, will be gone. And all that is going to remain is you, one-on-one with your Maker. If you are going to shake your fist at him to the grave, that's your call. But you will glorify him no matter what you do. As will I.
"You have repeatedly handwaved off evidence that destroys your claims as though I never said a thing."
No. I have not.
You are not arguing science. You are arguing extremist Christianity.
Somebody reading this may well accept my arguments even if you are impervious to ANY argument that contradicts your beliefs.
The Christian god is a sadist if he exists. Maybe that's a reason to become a Christian. But I did that. It's too late for that god if he exists to reveal himself to me now as far as I can work out.
You have no science.
"You have no science." No, YOU have no science. All you have are denials and links but are unable to refute things except with more assertions. Doesn't work that way in reality.
You are right, Ashley. I am not arguing science. You left that boat a long time ago. This whole discussion has NEVER been about science. It has always been about philosophy. That is what this post is all about. Not science, but the presuppositions behind what is thought to be science.
I'm also arguing extreme Christianity. I'm arguing Christianity. And Christianity has a big thing involved with it which I think you figured out and was a big reason why you left: dying to self. I think you figured out God requires us to lay down our lives, our will, our ego, our emotions, our dreams, our desires, our reputations, EVERYTHING. And I believe you found out it is a standard we can't keep. That is WHY we need a Savior. Myself included. I know I can't make the standard I proclaim. If I could, I would not need Jesus. If you think God is a sadist for demanding everything of yourself, that's your opinion, but nothing else. God did not leave you. You did that one all by yourself. And the fact that you keep following us is evidence in itself that you KNOW God is real and is who he says he is. Because if you truly believed he did not exist and was not who he claimed, you would not care about what we say or what we do because in the end of all things, NOTHING would matter. That fact that you keep hounding us is evidence that we are doing the right thing. All you are doing is encouraging us to keep going. Others may see these posts, and not that many will see them as you do.
""You have no science." No, YOU have no science. All you have are denials and links but are unable to refute things except with more assertions. Doesn't work that way in reality."
All you have is false accusations (though of course it is easier for you to make false accusations when half my posts here have been censored for no valid reason).
If God exists he clearly demands that we behave like you people and ignore observable reality and attack science. And he make his own people become extremely controversial and unpopular. Not exactly a Nice Guy, even to his own.
I never did those things even when I was a Christian.
But thanks for the confirmation that Steve's post can't have been about any science because when I discussed science you told me that this discussion has "NEVER been about science". (I suppose the clue to what you think we have been discussing is in the title of this website.)
A patent is not peer reviewed scientific literature. You can patent inventions that don't work.
Even if the decay acceleration works as described, it would take so much energy that it would destroy the earth. The heat and radiation from accelerated decay would completely destroy the earth, too.
//Every claim of uniforimitarianism is either very weakly supported or is actually a claim of uniformity of nature, not uniformitarianism. //
The wikipedia article on uniformitarianism breaks it up into "Methodological assumptions" and "Substantive hypotheses".
Are these equivalent to your ideas of "uniformity of nature" and "uniformitarianism" respectively?
//When I have been refuted, (between you, David, and BSF it only happened once). I recanted that claim and you three STILL got on my case.//
When you recanted your claim, you hedged it with a slightly less extreme version of the same claim that was also grossly inaccurate.
Ashley, why did you believe Christianity when you did? What was your impression of what you were getting into? If I am a poor representation of Christ, don't follow my example. Follow Christ's example.
David, how much heat are we talking about? Do you have a scientifically determined amount of decay that has actually taken place? If so, please state the scientifically determined original amounts. What were they? Or are they just assumed? How do you know how much decay has actually taken place to know how much would be accelerated? That is an aspect we YEC are well aware of and that is something that to my knowledge has not yet been worked out. Are you expecting perfection out of our models when your models don't even have the most critical components (such as how life got started) figured out? How can you expect that out of us when you can't do it yourself?
Yes, a patent is not peer-reviewed scientific research. Neither is Origin of Species or Principles of Geology, the foundation for Evolutionary Theory. Neither we written by scientists by any regard of the word. Uniformitarianism was accepted due to the work of a Bible-hating lawyer doing exactly what science should NEVER do: lawyering. Peer-review? More like "popular opinion" than actual science. We've know for decades that peer-review does not do what it was intended to do. I really don't care what the scientific community consensus says. I care about what the Word of God says, because God is always right whether you want him to be or not.
//Are you expecting perfection out of our models when your models don't even have the most critical components (such as how life got started) figured out? //
I don't want a perfect geological model, I just want a model that is better than the model currently accepted by a majority of the scientific community. I want a model that better fits the evidence. You consider the Bible to be your best piece of evidence, but if you have to include the Bible as part of your evidence, then what is the point of YEC apologetics?
Your comparison to the models of how life got started is irrelevant, as you don't have a model at all, except "God did it".
Your "Bible-hating lawyer" is only Bible-hating in the same sense that all non-YECs are Bible-hating.
Have you never studied YEC apologetics, David? That should be one of the most obvious aspects of it. We YEC understand that believing in a 6000 years old earth by itself is totally meaningless. Combine the Creation account with the Cross, is EVERYTHING. The purpose of YEC apologetics to lay a foundation for the Cross of Jesus Christ.
I have noticed that many non-YEC are Bible-haters. That includes the ones that consider themselves "Christians". It shows where they really stand. Did you notice that in Ken Ham's debate with Bill Nye, he presented the Gospel three times? Did you ever notice how Ken Ham and Ray Comfort are very quick to point out the Gospel in their presentations? They are quicker to get to that point than I am, something I am working on. But the whole point of all this is to get to the Gospel. Without Genesis being true, there can be no salvation. Darwin, Huxley, Lyell, understood this. Far better than you do. That is the whole point of Evolution. To undermine the foundation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It exist for no other purpose. There's nothing scientific about it. That is just the guise it has used to dupe you. It is truly the greatest hoax played on mankind. Something the Bible predicted over 2000 years ago: the Great Deception.
If I needed just one proof to validate the entire Biblical account, I will point to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. That destroys any challenge against the Bible included Evolution. Jesus breaks it all. And the purpose of us doing what we do here is to help break the chains of delusion that have imprisoned you. But I say that knowing that man tends to love their sin and not want to be saved. They want to remain rulers of their own lives, when in reality they are slaves. If you want to think I'm a fool for believing this, that's your call. Your opinion does not change facts. Neither does mine. That is why I side with the facts that as broken and messed up as I am and that as often as I tend to mess things up, Jesus Christ is more than sufficient. I will never take the Bible off the table. Why should I set aside the most accurate and proven book that exists? Why should I trust an ever changing theory that never gets the facts right and when then do, they find the Creationists who have been claiming that all along. Evolution is detrimental to science. Evolution kept us from discovering the real functions of DNA. Creationists knew what they were 30-40 years BEFORE the mainstream scientists ever figured it out. And their models were wrong. Our were right. But you won't ever find that out if you reject any source that might points towards the Bible being true.
Follow the evidence? Don't make me laugh. There is no such thing as an evolutionist who follows the evidence. I've never seen one actually do it. Bill Nye said he only needed one piece of evidence to change his mind. He lied. I have yet to find an evolutionist that actually understand the nature of evidence and how it works, let alone be able to distinguish the evidence from the interpretation from the evidence. Radiometric dating is not evidence. The evidence is the amount of isotopes present. That's it. Everything is speculation, not science.
//Your comparison to the models of how life got started is irrelevant, as you don't have a model at all, except "God did it".//
And you do? Name one scientist on this planet that has a model for how life got here? Backed by experimental research? We have "God did it" in the way he said he did it. You have "it did it all by itself". Which one is more plausible? A deity who can do it or a "process" that can't? Your problem is that you will look at any solution EXCEPT that which involves God.
Reality is all the evidence you claim is evidence for Evolution works just fine under a Biblical model. Biology is claimed to make no sense outside the scope of Evolution. However, all biology matches the Biblical account, not the Evolutionary one. There is no such thing as a phylogenetic tree outside a piece of paper. It doesn't exist. Every node where Evolution MUST work its magic (and thus separate itself from the Biblical reproducing after its kinds) is missing. There are no fossils, no evidence ANYWHERE, to support Evolution's most critical claims. You have a great model at explaining stuff, but what it explains is no different than trying to explain the Force or the X-Men. If you don't like our "explanations", that not our problem. I don't care if they don't satisfy your naturalistic requirements. Hebrews 11:3 makes it very clear that God did not use any natural means to create the universe. So any attempt to look for a natural solution is simply....foolish. And that goes to every OEC out there. But reality is, you have more faith without evidence in Evolution that you accuse us of having in our God. Go ahead and keep searching for your evidences. Ever searching but never coming to the truth. God spoke and it was. That is the what happened. And the more we dig deeper into science, the more we see God's mind. You can come up with the best explanation you can try to muster, unless God is in the center of the spotlight, it will never work. No Evolutionary model has ever lined up with the evidence. But it sure is interesting how so many of the complete fossils we have found intact have a bent-backwards neck, like it was striving to get oxygen. What could cause such a situation? Only one model can explain this: Noah's Flood. No Evolutionary model explains why this is seen across the globe.
I am still unclear whether Charlie was born with extreme anti-scientific views or whether it is learned behaviour, learned from the likes of Ken Ham.
Incredible what these people come out with. At least Charlie admitted he has no science. Unlike these hypocrites:
https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-science/national-geographic-accuses-aig-of-doubting-science/
And I'm embarrassed at what people will proclaim as "science" to keep God out of their life. Many of the scientists KNOW what they promote is completely impossible but choose to believe it because God is anathema to them. We are not anti-science. We are anti-false-philosophy that pretends to be science. I'm still waiting on the observations and experimentations that prove Evolution let alone attempt to disprove the Bible. None are out there. Many have tried but none can back it up with science, you know with experimentation that we don't have to take the "expert's" word by faith on it. Call me anti-science all you want. Twist my words all you want. It's all you got.
Ultimately, if the Resurrection of Christ did not take place, we are to be pitied among all men. EVERYTHING we believe hinges on the Resurrection. If the Resurrection did not occur, you have a right to mock and ridicule us. But since it did happen as recorded, we can take your mocking and ridicule and still stand firm knowing you do so in vain. Jesus lives in my heart and I know for certain that his real far more than Ashley, BSF, or David can prove their own existence. (I'm not doubting you do, but for perspective, I can deny your own existence and be logical about it better than you can God's existence).
It's really simple, the Bible is the Truth and the standard for which all things is to be compared. The Bible is not a science book, but it gives a foundation from which science can be done. It also gives us a standard for which we can tell who is telling the truth and who is smoking hot air. Something Ashley never grasped is that the Bible does allow for "Empirical" knowledge to be valid. He simply rejects anything that would be "Revelation" knowledge. Science that rejects a true historical account is no science at all. Forensics that denies what happens on camera is often proven false. Forensics that lines up with the eye-witness account is strong stuff. Our science lines up with the eye-witness account. And our eye-witness is 100% reliable, no matter what you think about him. Your "science" does not line up with the evidence you depend upon. There is not one cited piece of evidence that actually does what it is claimed to do. If Ashley understood science instead of merely being able to quote a dictionary definition, he might know this. If he actually understood what he was claiming, he would be able to provide the experimentation (which is part of the definition he agreed with) to back up his point. NO such experimentation exists. I'm not denying science. I'm pointing out that what is claimed to be science does not fit the definition it stands on.
Here is another way of looking at things.
Two men were on a roof. One stood on the edge, ready to jump. The other man stood just beyond arm's reach talking to the man trying to keep him from jumping. But before he could do anything to stop him, the first man fell forward. The man fell, striking a small flag pole on a balcony on the way down, causing a laceration in his leg and hit the ground, killing him. The CSI team doing the investigation gathered the body and the evidence, including the flag pole. The second man, a common man, but not exactly with a known reputation in the community was interviewed.
However, the coroner, perhaps one of the topmost, upstanding men in the entire community, highly respected, of the team knew the witness and had utter disdain for him. He took the flag pole and hid it from the reports, expunged it from the records, and ordered his team to not speak of it, and in the autopsy report, he said the witness got into an argument with the man, shot him in the leg and threw him off the roof. And instead of the flag pole, he submitted into the evidence claims a pistol that would have done the same cut the flag pole did. And because of the coroner's reputation, his account was believed by the community over the eye-witness, and very few people ever checked out the coroner's account for validity. Any who did were accused of slander and attempting to smear the coroner's reputation.
Yet the truth remained that the eye witness account was the correct one. Is this a possible scenario in the forensic field? Absolutely. But in reality, this is what has been done in the Creation/Evolution debate. The official "reports" ie the scientific peer-review papers, are just like the coroner's report. Fraudulent, all because of a personal agenda. The innocent man, is like God. His account is the true account of what happened. The flag is like Noah's Flood, very clear evidence of what happened. The gun is like Evolution, falsified evidence that COULD BE TRUE, if and only if the coroner's account is true. But because the of the heavy bias against the eye-witness, he creates a false account to discredit the witness.
Ashley, here is my question in this whole thing to you. By what standard can you tell if what the scientists tell you in the papers you read are true or not? Because they are more knowledgeable than you are? How can you verify that you are not the one being duped and you think we are? Do you have one? Do you know enough to read past the high level vocabulary to determine what is quality stuff and what is "I am trying to sound smart in front of others."? Are scientists perfect? If not, how can you tell when they are right or wrong? Or do you have to wait for them to admit it? This is what I am trying to get you to understand. Do you KNOW this stuff? I truly don't think you do. If you can't be an accurate judge on what is good science and what isn't from the scientific community, how can you make any comments towards us and think anyone with a reasonable mind will buy it? By what standard to you judge the scientists to be right and us to be wrong?
Your main way of preaching Christianity appears to be "I'm against mainstream naturalistic science but I am not anti-science because mainstream science is not real science; however I don't have an alternative science theory but all you need to do to explain how we got here is start with the Bible and not believe the words of men".
I may not respond promptly to any further posts that appear as I have a bit of stomach ache and will log off shortly.
Ashley, your main method of "evangelizing" seems to be: "Anything anyone says as long as it disagrees with the Bible."
Again, if I am put with a choice between God's Word and man's opinions, I will take God's Word hands-down every time. I have a standard for which I can make that decision. Do you? And how do you know if you are right? Or if your sources are right?
Ashley, I've asked you this before and did not get an answer so I will ask you again. What science are we denying? The definition you put forth and agreed to requires experimentation. What experiments have we denied? What experiments that a YEC could observe, test, repeat, following the instructions of the experiment, could we replicate that we deny? Because all I've gotten from you in this claim is a blanket statement that requires either a recant of the claim or a recant of what you consider the definition of science. There is not one experiment that has demonstrated Evolution to be true while also ruling out Creation. If so, I'd love to hear of it. What experiments have we denied? Please show you have some kind of understanding of what you are talking about that exceeds reciting a definition.
I did answer Charlie's question, twice, but both posts got deleted (and I did not keep a copy of the second post).
Essentially, YECs deny the rational evidence-based conclusions derived from any experiments, observations and measurements that point to Earth being much older than around 6,000 years. In the blog Steve also claimed "'uniformitarian thinking' has been rejected since the 1970s" - but the existence of past (or present) catastrophes such as the one that formed in three instalments the Icelandic canyon and waterfall does not nullify the validity of uniformitarianism. However, YECs are trying to throw out uniformitarianism wholesale because they require some sort of catastrophism to undermine results obtained from eg radiometric dating.
So you can't point to any experiment at all, can you? Just interpretations, just opinions, about them? Do you even understand what we are arguing? The logic is really simple: IF the earth is billions of years old, we expect to see x, y, and z. We see x, y, and z, therefore the earth is billions of years old. That's the logic. It's also invalid. Known as affirming the consequent. We are challenging the assumptions in the initial premises, that the earth is billions of years old. Not the science being used to attempt to prove it. That will take care of itself. Again, what science are we denying? What experiments are we denying? I'm going to keep asking this until you demonstrate you know what you are talking about (hasn't happened yet) or you recant your claim.
//Every node where Evolution MUST work its magic (and thus separate itself from the Biblical reproducing after its kinds) is missing.//
This is as dumb as the "if humans came from apes, why are there still apes?" objection. I was going to explain to you why, but I think it would be more interesting if you told us how you think an evilutionist would explain why the nodes aren't labeled.
No hypothetical extra-biblical evidence could convince you that the earth isn't 6000 years old, so it is silly to ask for real evidence that the earth isn't 6000 years old.
It's like when creationists say there are no transitional fossils, when they know that there is no possible fossil shape that they would accept as transitional.
"We are challenging the assumptions in the initial premises, that the earth is billions of years old."
When was that ever an assumption? In the late 19th century, most of the predictions were in the 10's of millions range.
Scientists didn't say "we believe the earth is billions of years old, so let's find evidence to support that view"
WOW! We have lots of ad hominems, assertions, appeal to motive fallacies and prejudicial conjecture happening (as well as Ham spam, where that is just an excuse for a cheap shot at someone who is not a part of this discussion, and way off topic; curb the hate).
" I think it would be more interesting if you told us how you think an evilutionist would explain why the nodes aren't labeled."
Who said "evilutionist"? Nice try at poisoning the well. Who labels the nodes? Does someone go to the local superstore and get tags and label them? Hey, if you're going to offer some poisoning the well and red herring, so can I.
"No hypothetical extra-biblical evidence could convince you that the earth isn't 6000 years old, so it is silly to ask for real evidence that the earth isn't 6000 years old."
This is prejudicial conjecture and appeal to motive. How do you know that's in his heart and mind? Also, if you had done your homework, you'd see that there are many evidences for a young earth that are non-biblical. You are also implying that biblical sources are untrustworthy.
"It's like when creationists say there are no transitional fossils, when they know that there is no possible fossil shape that they would accept as transitional."
Appeal to motive fallacy again. But soft! What transitional fossil through yon window breaks? Why, it is only a fossil, not a transitional form. Many evolutionists use the "kinda sorta looks like something that is maybe in-between forms, so it must be a transitional form, therefore, we have thousands" kind of logic. Yet, they know that there are no undisputed, significant transitional forms. Why else would they cling to the few dubious fossils of fame like a pit bull terrier to a bone?
"Scientists didn't say "we believe the earth is billions of years old, so let's find evidence to support that view""
Shows a lack of understanding of how people keep their phoney baloney jobs.
//This is as dumb as the "if humans came from apes, why are there still apes?" objection. I was going to explain to you why, but I think it would be more interesting if you told us how you think an evilutionist would explain why the nodes aren't labeled.//
It's only dumb to the one who does not understand his own theory. David, when was the last time you looked into human evolution? How is the order determined? And why are there no "common ancestor to ape" fossils? I'm truly amazed at how clueless Evolution's most ardent defenders, the ones who insist it is fact and anyone who dares challenge is are "liars", "bigots", "dumb", etc, are about their own theory. David, every human evolution chart goes from ape to human. Every fossil used goes from ape to human. Yet the claim is, "We don't go from ape to human. We both come from a common ancestor." Why does the line never branch off towards the apes. Why did the apes never change? Look deeper than just what is being claimed. Such a statement from you demonstrates you don't have any facts so you have to settle for insults and mockery. Learn your own theory first before you start talking about ours .
It's very obvious why the nodes are not labeled. Because there's nothing in it. I don't have access to the YouTube video (YouTube is a blocked site where I am right now.) of a debate between PhD biologist Brent Barnes of SFAU in Tyler, Texas and Charles Jackson of the Creation Truth Foundation. Dr. Jackson asked what was in these nodes. What specific fossils. Dr. Barnes had nothing but water-muddying fancy terminology. And Dr. Jackson pointed out the obvious: "So it's imaginary?" We YEC have been asking the experts what is in these nodes and time and time again, without exception, we get no lucid response. If there was evidence, don't you think these experts would be able to point us to a few. What do you think you know that the world's leading experts won't tell us?
//No hypothetical extra-biblical evidence could convince you that the earth isn't 6000 years old, so it is silly to ask for real evidence that the earth isn't 6000 years old.
It's like when creationists say there are no transitional fossils, when they know that there is no possible fossil shape that they would accept as transitional.//
Unlike you, David, I've actually examined the claims. They all fall short. I've dug deeper into the evidences for that which claims the earth is older than the Biblical record. They don't do what they claim to do. I've seen what the human evolution chains claim and I've done a bit deeper digging. There is not one fossil in the suggested lineage that has not proven to have problems. They are all disproven by being out of order, by being too "ape like", by DNA, by being contemporaries, the list goes on. The human evolution chart is a total mess. Some of the fossils in the lineage don't go anywhere or come from anywhere. Some of them have problems where your sister is your great-great grandmother. Some of them, were outright fraud, such as Lucy. Evidence for that? Dr. Owen Lovejoy use a powersaw to make Lucy's "hip" appear more human-like. The World Exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo takes some very disturbing liberties where there are no bones, when the bones we do have show 100% monkey. What is being passed as evidence for Evolution is embarrassing to anyone who knows anything about science.
//When was that ever an assumption? In the late 19th century, most of the predictions were in the 10's of millions range.
Scientists didn't say "we believe the earth is billions of years old, so let's find evidence to support that view"//
They don't say it. They just do it. I look beyond the mouth, David. I look at what they do. You think they don't do this? Listen to Donald Johanson, founder of Lucy, who at least is honest about it.
"I was trying to jam evidence of data into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which on closer inspection the fossils themselves would not sustain. It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was, but the thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence."
“Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind” (1981), p357
Tim White at Berkley (one of the top Evolutionary defending universities) says this:
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."
Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.
When the scientists have to resort to such tactics, (Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man...) and we are told Evolution is a proven fact, what I see is religious defense, not scientific defense. Quit calling Evolution science. Because it's not. You want to see an example of true anti-science, Evolution is it. Nothing has held back science like it has. If Evolution has all the facts in it's favor, why does it still depend on decades old disproven evidences that do nothing to support the key claims of the theory? Why is the poster child still Lucy, that has long been discredited by the very man who discovered her? Why are the classic examples peppored-moths and fruit flies, and finch beaks, which do nothing to support the overall theory? Those examples fit exactly with what the Bible said 3500 years ago, which makes it very poor evidence for Evolution. David, I've done my homework. I've studied this stuff. I can do more than just repeat what someone said. I can sift out the good stuff from the junk. I'll ask you the same thing I asked Ashley (and still have no response). By what standard do you discern what is good stuff and what is bad? Anything that does not point to the Bible? Your knowledge and understanding of any of this is rather....low level. I wish you could change my mind on this. So far, I'm unimpressed.
I have answered Charlie's gotcha questions but he pretends otherwise. Dating the Earth's oldest rocks that have been found, or indeed meteorites, involves scientific tests, measurements and experiments. It is SCIENCE not PHILOSOPHY. As Christians admit - see 'Radiometric Dating: a Christian Perspective' - which I HAVE read but not recently.
But bigots will not accept answers that challenge their worldview. they will pretend that they did not even receive an answer.
"Curb the hate" says Bob. I agree.
And how does Charlie know that David has not examined scientific claims? I rather suspect that he has.
Talking of fossils, the place where there is FRAUD with the Lucy species is the CREATION MUSEUM. They falsely depict the species as a knuckle-walking extinct gorilla. And while Charlie brandishes refernce from three decades ago, has he heard TODAY'S news - the earliest Homo genus jawbone found in Ethiopia. It's rather old. Looking forward to the YEC rebuttal - "it must be simply a human jawbone, what's all the fuss about".
"Quit calling Evolution science. Because it's not." It is a robust scientific theory. Try reading "The Greatest Show on Earth: the Evidence for Evolution". Or the book by Francis Collins. If you do, or did, you will know that the evidence for evolution is merely fossils. By the way, I reviewed - in great detail - the claimed rebuttal of the Dawkins book - Sarfati's 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' at Amazon.com in 2010. Yes - another suggested link. But one written by ME (I cannot paste it in now because I have just logged on and only have one screen available right now).
Drat. I keep on missing the word not!!!
"... you will know that the evidence for evolution is not merely fossils".
I'm not the one pretending you didn't answer them. You are the one pretending you did. These "gotcha questions" have exposed YOU Ashley. The only one who thinks you answered me...is you. What is your standard? You never answered that. How can you tell whether what Dawkins says is true or what Safarti says is false?
// But bigots will not accept answers that challenge their worldview. they will pretend that they did not even receive an answer.//
Hi, kettle. I'm pot.
//And how does Charlie know that David has not examined scientific claims? I rather suspect that he has.//
Because like you, he opens his mouth and spouts stuff that shows he hasn't done a thorough job at it if at all.
Evolution is anything but robust. A robust theory can take a challenge. Evolution won't allow it. I have formal training on what constitutes a robust theory/model/program. One of the requirements for anything to be called robust is that any area where they may be a weakness MUST be thoroughly tested. Radiometric dating for example REFUSES such tests. And when they are 'tricked' into it and it proves them false, they cry foul. It's easy to look up the theory of how radiometric dating methods are SUPPOSED to work. Too bad they don't work that way. It's easy to point out the concurrent results. It's also really easy to get them when you cheat the system by influencing the labs with what age the rocks came from and what expected date range they should get (something that 100% impossible to do without Evolution presumptions). This is known as influencing the witness which in any court of law would be rejected on the spot. And you call it science. I call it fraud. David has asked me a couple times what should the dating methods give if not billions of years old? This is what you call a Clown Question which our blogger, Logan Ames, just wrote about today. It's the type of question that invokes a facepalm. You and David are loaded with them. When I hear questions like that, I know homework has not been done. I know research has not been done. I know understanding is not there.
What's your standard, Ashley? Popular opinion of the self-proclaimed "experts"? Whatever they say as long as it goes against the Bible? How do you know who is talking smack and who isn't?
Re-read my last post Charlie and tell me how I 'did not' answer your question about YECs denying conclusions arrived at by scientific experiments.
You are full of hot air and false accusations.
"What is your standard?" Meaningless question. Off-topic trick question - because you are not an honest debater but a bigot.
You never acknowledge the content of my posts. You keep changing the subject. It's getting boring. But somebody with an open mind might be checking whether your responses hold water or not.
An experiment gives a date of a rock? I've extensively studied radiometric dating more than any other evolutionist I have come across so far (based on how they respond) and I have yet to see or hear of any experiment that actually resulted in an age of a rock. The only thing that science can do is measure an amount of isotope. Not tell the age of a rock. You are equating the "experiment" stage of the scientific process with the "interpretation" and "report" stages. We never deny the results of what they count. We deny what they think those counts mean. Don't tell me you understand science when you make claims like this.
// "What is your standard?" Meaningless question. Off-topic trick question - because you are not an honest debater but a bigot.//
Thank you for your answer. You pretty much just said you agree with anything that puts us in a bad light. We asked you a while back to cut back on the insults. Expect your post to be deleted for that explicit reason. Now you can't you had no warning or explanation for it. It's really simple Ashley. You have revealed you are your own standard. Whatever you want to believe is the truth is what you will claim to be true. Whatever you want to believe is false is what you will claim to be false. It's all about you. You have no interest in facts, only interest in you. If this was not true, you would have never shown up here on these posts. Thick skin doesn't care what other people say, even if it is false. And would I not be correct that this is why you left Christianity too? Because God did not meet what YOU wanted?
Looks like Charlie isn't convinced he is winning the debate. He is demanding that one of my posts be deleted - again. He's also putting words into my mouth re the post concerned ie telling everybody 'what' my answer was when I did NOT actually give an answer to his off-topic question. This is what bigots do.
As for radiometric dating calculations - and some experiments to further test the hypothesis that old rocks can be approximately dated:
http://phys.org/news203788993.html
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13303
So - as long as procedures are followed rigorously - measuring the amount of mother and daughter isotope does shows the age of a rock. The various techniques have not been falsified and decay rate variations have not be shown to invalidate dates (in the specific manner that YECs will require from any 'catastrophic interference' with decay rates).
"You have no interest in facts ...". Total lie.
This page will have no real credibility if half the posts from a critic are missing. (Though we are already in that situation.)
This post will take you to five detailed analyses of radiometric dating. It's not science.
//When was that ever an assumption? In the late 19th century, most of the predictions were in the 10's of millions range.
Scientists didn't say "we believe the earth is billions of years old, so let's find evidence to support that view"//
...Charlie avoids my question and rambles on about primate fossils...
//...Charlie avoids my question and rambles on about primate fossils..//
I answered your question better than Ashley answered mine. I never said they "said" anything. I said what they did. You are the one that asked who ever said it. I've learned long ago that what scientists say in regards to Evolution and what they do are rarely the same thing.
DON JOHANSON: … The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn’t. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee’s, which meant that Lucy couldn’t possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.
OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.
DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.
OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they’re in an anatomically impossible position.
DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy’s hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn’t want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. Anatomically at least, Lucy could stand like a human. The case for our earliest ancestor walking upright was growing stronger, and Lucy wasn’t the only evidence…
All with the power of a power saw. Good luck convincing anyone with a half a brain that wasn't contrived evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef8aAfWbpjc&index=39&list=PL0AD28844A82EDD10
Gotta love the idea that a deer stepped on it to "break it" and make it look more ape like than cross-bred. That's what you call "great explanation, great story telling, and not one iota of science". The Bible calls such things "fables", "idle babbling", for a reason.
Tell me, David, and tell me truly. If a Creationist were witnessed to use a power saw to "reconfigure" an "original skeleton" how quickly would you be up and arms and calling us frauds? Why is it that Evolutionists can literally get away with murder and call it "scientific evidence for Evolution" where a Creationist must have an absolute perfect record and even then rejected just because of being a Creationist? All those skulls in the Smithsonian as "evidence for Evolution"? They are Aborigines.
http://creation.com/darwins-bodysnatchers-new-horrors
Does such a proven theory require such tactics? It's easy to go to the museums and read the textbooks and listen to the "experts" but when you do a little digging, everything Evolution claims is absolutely empty. Every time. The reason I provided those quotes above is to show that Evolution has a wonderful thing called "bias". And it is so strong it makes them blind to all else that moves. Some are honest enough to admit it. Do Creationist have bias? Yes we do, but the difference is that we are not the ones pretending we don't have them. We know what they are. Any scientist worth his money will be upfront about his biases. Hard to find an Evolutionist willing to do that. Any experiment with extrapolation (ie radiometric dating) show clearly cite the assumptions FOR said extrapolation to be plausible. Never seen that happen with Evolution. Everything about Evolution claims to be science but does NOTHING in regards to being quality science. You can claim it is all you want, but everything carried out is not scientific and it is not defended as science as this thread as well demonstrated. It is religiously defended. I could care less about claims because claims are often empty. I look at what is actually being done and how it is being done. And no piece of evidence cited for Evolution actually does what it is claimed to do. Not one. And if you think it does? Present me your #1 evidence for Evolution. Give me the best thing you have.
Australopithecus afarensis aka 'Lucy':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
The exhibit at the Creation Museum labelled 'Lucy':
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/creation/exciting-new-exhibit-opens-at-creation-museum/
Links don't tell me you understand what is being said, Ashley. They don't tell me you know what is being claimed by the two sides. Exactly what original bones discount what AiG is showing? Not Lovejoy's fraudulent recreation. I can point exactly to what discounts the Evolutionary depictions at the St. Louis World Exhibit. Can you? Or do you need an expert to point them out to you?
Even if what you suggest is true, all that means is that the skeleton should be discarded as evidence for anything. This is still the poster child for Evolution, one of the evidences cited about all the others. If Lucy is not the only one out there, and since Lucy doesn't exactly have much credibility even among the scientific community (though the textbooks and museum displays are long behind the times), why aren't any other fossils in the link highly publicized? Why are so many of the suggested fossils being pulled as evidences? The only ones citing Neanderthals as part of the human Evolution chain are laymen like you. They are contemporaries with modern man, which eliminates them as being our ancestors. Evolution has NOTHING to stand on. A house of cards built on sand. There only two reasons anyone would believe it. 1). That is all they have heard and don't know any better. 2). They know what the alternative is and will not consider it, even if it means believing what you know to be completely impossible. Many of the 99% of scientists who believe in Evolution fall into the former. We've heard them say they believe it because they are led to believe the majority of scientists believe it. Not because they've investigated it. The only part of science that depends on Evolution being true is Evolution. It has no bearing on any field except itself. And every attempt to throw Evolution into any scientific field either has no effect on it at all, or hinders it.
I have said PLENTY about the Creation Museum 'Lucy' fraud HERE (probably mostly in the 'Rabble Rouser Ken Ham' thread):
forums.bcseweb.org.uk
[more specific link follows due to unexplained computer issues preventing me pasting in a lengthy link on this current screen]
I also mentioned HERE that the YECs falsely depict 'Lucy' as a knuckle-walking extinct gorilla - did you read that Charlie?
In addition, there is not just ONE Australopithecus afarensis fossil.
I do not need to prove anything to Wolcott, however often he insinuates that I am incapable of basic scientific understanding or basic
reading skills.
But we all know how DESPERATE Charlie is. Now he is falsely suggesting that I have said something here about Neanderthals. Where, Charlie?
As mentioned just now, I've also located one specific example:
http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=42620&hilit=fraud#p42620
I'm pretty sure you have said a lot about AiG's depiction about Lucy, Ashley. I never said you hadn't. But seeing your history here of only citing links and not showing you really engaging in what they are saying, I'm not inclined to believe you do anything different in the BCSE forum. You have a wonderful tendency of putting out a very poor representation of that which you attack so I'm not inclined to think you have much intelligent (such as without heavy loads of mockery and insults) to say in them.
I did not say you said anything about Neaderthals. I just gave a specific example of part of the human evolution chain that has been discredited and no longer being used by the experts. But I see people like you and David and other constantly referencing them as our ancestors and then have the gall to tell us to "keep up with the times".
Ashley, if you are going to come onto our pages and attack us as you have, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate you have something to say. If you want us to take you seriously, you better prove yourself to be a quality source worth doing so. So far, we are not impressed.
Neanderthals were fully human, as anyone who kept up on the findings would know.
"... I'm not inclined to believe you do anything different in the BCSE forum". I do not do as you allege at the BCSE community forum. But you will not even bother to check in case you are proven wrong.
Your religion COMPELS you not to TAKE any critic 'seriously'. But I do not post solely for your (or Steve's) benefit.
I've seen a couple of your posts there. You are so quick to pass judgment when some of your posts were deleted here that you did not even bother to find out what was going on. You just made a blanket statement with absolutely no knowledge, no nothing. And you were proven false.
This is not your territory, Ashley. This is our. You play by our rules. If you continue to fight them, you will not be seen on these topics. Am I clear?
"They are contemporaries with modern man" (apart from using the present instead of the past tense Charlie told the truth). Whereas Bob is disseminating the claptrap of creationists and a minority of proper scientists regarding Neanderthals.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26435-thoroughly-modern-humans-interbred-with-neanderthals.html#.VPjlWi7cD_s
"About 2 per cent of many people's genomes today is made up of Neanderthal DNA, a result of interbreeding between the two species that can be seen in everyone except people from sub-Saharan Africa...";
"... Homo sapiens is believed to have taken on Neanderthal DNA from at least two bouts of interbreeding. While sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA, Asian populations have more than Europeans.
"We know that there are likely to have been at least two admixture events into the ancestors of present-day people – the shared event early during modern human migration out of Africa, and a second event into the ancestors of present-day Asians," says Kelso."
"I've seen a couple of your posts there." WHICH ONES? KINDLY BE SPECIFIC.
"You are so quick to pass judgment when some of your posts were deleted here that you did not even bother to find out what was going on." I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON - AN ACT OF BLATANT AND COWARDLY MASS CENSORSHIP.
"You just made a blanket statement with absolutely no knowledge, no nothing." WHERE?
"And you were proven false." WHERE? HOW?
"This is not your territory, Ashley. This is our. You play by our rules. If you continue to fight them, you will not be seen on these topics. Am 'I clear?" PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOUR RULES ARE AND WHETHER AND HOW I MIGHT HAVE BROKEN ANY OF THEM.
Now DESPERATE Charlie is THREATENING me. Jason - what do you think about this? Are you for or against Charlie? Is his behaviour appropriate?
I also find it highly amusing that Charlie is apparently trying to provoke me to anger - because he has long since run pout of arguments.
Rules should be comomonsense, that you don't attack people and stick to the subject. Also, stop crying about censorship, your forum has censorship.
The BCSE community forum - NOT 'my' forum - does NOT indulge in mass censorship. Get your facts right.
And I have 'stuck to the subject'. I have even discussed Steve's blog.
Unlike you - whoever you are (and I can see why you hide your identity).
I have just looked to try and see the rules for posting under these blogs, but could not find any.
Logging off for the night as I've had enough of this for one night and have other things to do (including sleep).
It is very clear here that Ashley has lost the ability to speak with respect of those he disagrees with. It does not matter who is right or wrong. That ability was lost a long time ago. But I am going to be the better man and walk away. You can boast this is cowardice and blast it on all the forums you want. You can call me "admitting defeat" all you want. Go ahead and tell everyone at the BCSE. Free advertising for us and more hits to boost us up on the Google ranks. But we are done. I have better things to be doing.
He selectively cited one small aspect from one person regarding Neandertals. This is not science, and it's certainly not logical. I feel compelled to present further information (at the risk of being like Bill Nye and using elephant hurling, but in this case, it's because the topic has already been brought up). Yes, I have read these, and have featured them on my own site.
The Neandertal inner ear.
Cave paintings thwart evolutionary timelines.
The differences are in epigenetics.
Traveling and doing the wild thing
Details on differences.
I have more, but there is evidence that some people want to just brush aside and act like it doesn't exist.
I have no interest in sending any further emails about Wolcott and co and their censorship of failure to respond to all points raised (though last night I did paste my latest post from here onto the BCSE community forum in case it got deleted overnight). (On the day this blog appeared Steve suggested on Wolcott's facebook page that 'hate' comments might be posted under his blog - perhaps that is why he has failed to respond to my - now deleted - comments because he is simply dismissing anything I write as 'hate'?)
I note the following in italics under the new Wolcott blog "This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. Any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will be deleted. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature, will be reported to the authorities." I have no problem with that clarification - which I assume to all the blogs on this site?
[As I MEANT to type]
I have no interest in sending any further emails about Wolcott and co and their censorship or failure to respond to all points raised (though last night I did paste my latest post from here onto the BCSE community forum in case it got deleted overnight). (On the day this blog appeared Steve suggested on Wolcott's facebook page that 'hate' comments might be posted under his blog - perhaps that is why he has failed to respond to my - now deleted - comments because he is simply dismissing anything I write as 'hate'?)
I note the following in italics under the new Wolcott blog "This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. Any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will be deleted. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature, will be reported to the authorities." I have no problem with that clarification - which I assume applies to all the blogs on this site?
[PS IF no further censorship of my posts occurs, the above clearly states my position re this thread.]
Since the well-poisoning straw man specter of "censorship" keeps popping up, I want to go off topic (we're already there anyway) and address it.
People cry "Censorship!" because it's a word that provokes emotions, and they'll use it when they're "denied" what they consider a "right" to say whatever they want to say, whenever they want to say it. Such beliefs are irrational, and a society cannot function without some degree of censorship and order; the old canard of, "You can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater" is still a good example.
People have to follow rules in order to function. Also, there is no "right" to say what you want when you want on the Internet. Many people believe that although information on sites, Weblogs and so on is public, when someone visits there, they are guests and should show some amount of intelligence and a great deal of respect (unless directly attacked, then the rules have been redefined, in my opinion).
Tell me, why should anyone with any amount of civility or with an ounce of intelligence tolerate personal attacks, off-topic remarks of other people, disrespect of the owners of the sites, and so on? Here's something to consider (and NO atheist has expressed disdain for such wickedness as I am about to show you. This guy has been banned dozens of times, and literally hundreds of his nasty comments have been deleted.Click on this link, check out the fake Pages that have been used to "Like" the post and also the comments. He thinks I should just let him run rampant and post what he wants. Letting people like this run wild only brings about chaos.
Speaking of "reading" Sarfati's Greatest Hoax on Earth, David Levin, a teacher at a mostly-unknown community college, reviewed the book before he read it, and gave it a one-star review. This is intellectual honesty? No, people who have already decided to hate other people and what those people believe in are seldom capable of being objective.
Bob's last post is off-topic and is I would suggest motivated by hate not by Christian love. If I made such a comment he would condemn me for being off-topic.
There is a difference between censoring obscenity/hate speech/blasphemy/extreme offensive comments and or false personal attacks using foul language etc - and censoring posts questioning or rebutting somebody's 'science' claims or defending oneself against repeated clumsy and inaccurate accusations from a particular blogger or site moderator. I think Jason knows the difference and I think Bob needs to stop pretending that he does not.
I did spot a recent comment by someone on Bob's facebook page where the word 'cock' appeared and I agree that offensive comments such as the one I saw contribute nothing to any debate and should be removed.
As should the recent drive-by attack against myself and by extension anyone who agrees with me (made at the previous Risner thread) by 'Mr Gordons'. It should be noted that the comment was offensive and untrue. It should also be noted that Jason's initial reaction was to 'appreciate' it. Does he still 'appreciate' a trolling comment claiming that somebody he has never met would like to 'kill' creationists? And Jason later said that some other posts (ie not by me) would disappear from these two threads - to my knowledge that NEVER happened. I was not going to mention this - save for Bob's attempt to lump me in with whoever has been attacking his pages with vile comments or by using false identities to evade a ban.
So yes - selective censorship here is NOT about 'me failing to show any respect and behaving like SOME other anti-creationists SOMETIMES do' as Bob is trying to make us believe).
PS I am saving this comment.
There he goes again, using straw man arguments and appeal to motive fallacy. Also, he ignored the substance my comment, which was indeed pertinent to the discussion at hand, since he kept complaining about what he considers "censorship" and why he should be able to say what he wants to say anyhow. And the atheopath "Pages" in my link show far, far worse than the one word that he mentioned, and they use their obscenities repeatedly.
Bob is incapable of honesty or rational discussion with people he disagrees with. His latest comment demonstrates that.
People at another thread (under a recent post about forams and diatoms at the honest Christian blog entitled Naturalis Historia) have discussed the behaviour and motivation of the people here. So they may also be reading the guff put out by Mr Sorensen whenever he is shown to be wrong - again.
(The ONLY relevance of Bob whinging about David Levin on Amazon.com five years ago is that Bob would dearly have liked his review CENSORED - even though Levin did later read the book and expand his review after reading it.)
Bob is damaging the reputation of Christians by his behaviour.
I have saved this post.
Should Sorensen post here further misleading evasive off-topic remarks that deliberately miss the point and actually describe his own behaviour on this thread whilst pretending it is how I behave, my plan now is to simply IGNORE.
Likewise should Gordons or Anonymous pop up again and do likewise.
News flash: AHR doesn't make the rules, doesn't have to like what I have to say, cannot back up his ad hominem attacks, has been proven to be unable to grasp simple logical concepts. This is why Charlie and others have been unable to communicate with him. QED.
When I've committed fraud, I make sure to recreate that fraud on camera for a PBS science special.
/s
It's not like this was secretly filmed... like a video of animal abuse I saw recently. To claim the Lucy pelvis reconstruction is fraudulent based on the video with the power tool doesn't seem reasonable to me. Did someone look at the original fossils and determine that the technique that was used was invalid?
If it doesn't convince you, that's fine. If something looks fishy to you, use that as a reason to do further research.
You can't even claim it was fraud based on you YEC interpretation of the Bible. I'm not aware of any place in the Bible that says there were no non-human primates that mostly walked upright.
This just looks like a dishonest attempt to connect century-old frauds to much more recent scientific discoveries.
I backed up my 'attacks'. My comments were then censored. QED.
//I backed up my 'attacks'. My comments were then censored. QED. //
So you say but you got nothing.
Post a Comment