The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

.....so WHAT was the Evolutionary model 'prediction' for the Coelacanth fish.........did it 'predict' that it would remain a fish without any change over 300 million years????

Well as I said in a previous post there is no reason to include Mr. Coelacanth in said picture as he doesn't fit into Tiktaalik(the creature the link in question is actually about)'s direct evolutionary lineage.
I'm still trying to figure out why they included the coelacanth at all. it only seems to confuse matters. Might as well have thrown in T.rex while we were at it. Actually, wait, that would have made a bit more sense.

Galvasean

daithifleming wrote: »

JC is just someones wum account. This is the only thread he posts in, after all. Thats why I have decided to put him on ignore, he adds nothing to this debate.

A brand of humor which can only be described as 'unique'?

Ekancone

Galvasean wrote: »

A brand of humour which can only be described as 'unique'?

It is a joke, I will give you that.

:pac:

bonkey

J C wrote: »

I have comprehensively answered Wolfsbane's question on scientific models in my answer to Wicknight in posting 10338 above !!!:)

No, you haven't. You've merely said its wrong for some reasons which are so poorly clarified its impossible to determine what you believe science is.

You may 'want' to limit yourself to "discussing science on scientific grounds"....but you fail in your objective every time you discuss the unfounded belief in Spontaneous Evolution.....which is a philosophical construct!!!!!

I haven't discussed this 'unfounded belief' at alll recently, JC. I have stated time and time again that there is a distinction between the scientific model of evolution, and belief in that model. I have limited myself to commenting on and defending only the former.

There is nobody attacking science here......

This would imply either that evolutionary science isn't science, or that you do accept the distinction I've been making between belief in a model, and the model itself, or that you believe you are not attacking it.

I'd be grateful if you clear up which one of those it is you're suggesting....ideally with a minimum of smilies.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

The linkage of CFCs to the holes was a falsifiable prediction, in that if we cut out CFCs and it made no difference, we'd have shown the model to be false or incorrect. But if we didn't cut them out, and things continued as predicted....or we did, and things matched those predictions...thats an indication of the quality of the model.

Whether it actually proves that CFCs were the root cause is a matter of interpretation. Its one that I'd readily accept, mind you, but I would still maintain that in the strictest sense it was a case of observation matching prediction.

In the same sense, I would readily accept that AGW theories don't prove man is responsible, but would counter that the observation/prediction match is too good to discard as being non-useful.

That's well put. As you say, it would still possible that the model makes correct predictions, but only because the real processes produce the same results in different ways.

For example, it might be the case that CFC's don't actually break down into ozone-destroying compounds, but instead their breakdown somehow increases ozone breakdown by cosmic rays. If that process produced exactly the same results as the current model, it wouldn't be distinguishable from it through the observation that reducing CFC's reduces ozone destruction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

There is none so blind as he who will not see!!!!:pac::):D

Massive irony post. A scientist believes in only what he can observe. You, on the other hand, refuse to entertain the possibility that what you observe is as simple as it appears.

AtomicHorror

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Implications:

1. that life can arise from reactions between various forms of non-living, native matter

2. that life can be described in terms of reactions between various forms of non-living, native matter

These are testable, I think - the Life 2.0 projects certainly haven't turned out to require any mysterious "added ingredient" yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yep- two excellent examples of testable elements of the abiogenesis hypothesis. If we can demonstrate these over laboratory time spans, it becomes self-evident that they are possible over geological/cosmic time spans. Many of the synthesis reactions have already been demonstrated independently under various conditions.

Another implication I suppose would be that the entire process should be reproducible under the same conditions (planet composition, location, star type etc). In time we should be able to detect the presence of life on earth-like exoplanets. If we find a very large number of lifeless earth mass worlds at ~1 AU from a stable G-class star then that'll raise some pretty huge questions regarding abiogenesis.

Earth-mass exoplanet detection should be possible during the coming decade. Right now our lower limit seems to be about 5 earth masses.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

There is no argument over the scientific validity of Natural selection, Gene flow and Genetic drift.

Then you accept that evolution is at least hypothetically possible given enough time?

J C wrote: »

The argument is over whether these mechanisms can account for the inordinate amounts of tightly specified, complex, functional information found in living genomes!!!

That would require only time. You contend that the world is much younger than it appears as measured by dozens of independent measuring methods which agree with each other. If the world is less than 10,000 years old, the answer to your question above is "highly unlikely". If it is greater than 2 billion years old, the answer is "highly likely".

J C wrote: »

The Evolutionist contention that they account for ‘Muck to Man Evolution’ is something like claiming that a car is manufactured by driving it from Ireland to China!!!!

Firstly, I repeat once again that abiogenesis and evolution are independent. Evolutionary Theory does not innately require a theory of abiogenesis any more than it requires a theory of the synthesis of the elements. The disproving of abiogenesis would not impact on evolution. Secondly, your manufactured item analogy (one which you have repeated variants of countless times) is flawed as manufactured items possess no means to self-replicate or develop variation.

J C wrote: »

Similarly, you need an already living organism for Natural selection, Gene flow and Genetic drift to operate ……and these phenomena don’t create new functional information ……they merely select from and/or re-shuffle pre-existing information!!!!!!

Nobody is denying this. As above, abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues. Evolution is a theory, abiogenesis is considered the strongest contender of a number of hypotheses regarding the origin of life (as opposed to the origin of species). It will likely become a firm theory within the next 50 years, but it similarly may be disproven. This will not impact upon evolution though the validation of abiogenesis will mean that the theory of evolution will become part of a larger theory of earth-based life.

J C wrote: »

:eek::pac::):D:rolleyes:
......and the other 'prize horse' in the Evolutionist 'stable' (mutagenesis)...actually DEGRADES functonal information!!!!!:D

The vast majority of mutations are indeed detrimental within the environmental context within which they are expressed. Nobody denies this. It is logical that in a random process non-function is more common than function. Natural selection, a process you agree exists, removes any such mutation over time- simply because they are less likely to survive.

The minority of mutations which are actually beneficial within a given context tend to be conserved.

When we change contexts, we also change what mutations are beneficial or detrimental. In some cases, a detrimental mutation will have a small enough impact on organism survival rates that it will persist until a context shift causes it to have a net beneficial effect. An example of this would be the CCR5d32 mutation in humans which limits immune cell intercommunication slightly (causing a net survival reduction) but which confers resistance to the HIV virus (a net survival advantage in the new context).

AtomicHorror

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's well put. As you say, it would still possible that the model makes correct predictions, but only because the real processes produce the same results in different ways.

It's not uncommon for competing theories to explain observations equally well. This forms the first stage of a Kuhnian scientific crisis. Intelligent design has utterly failed to generate such a crisis as it is not a theory.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It's not uncommon for competing theories to explain observations equally well. This forms the first stage of a Kuhnian scientific crisis. Intelligent design has utterly failed to generate such a crisis as it is not a theory.

Would you go as far to say that I.D. is a hypothesis?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Here is the letter that The Times chose not to run (just as it did not do when we submitted a letter a few months ago after a Times’ guest writer outlandishly claimed that AiG believes a person had to believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian!).
Seeing AiG regularly disagree with reality is fun, but it's much more enjoyable to see them disagree with themselves:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gish
Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but such a position is both scientifically and biblically untenable. The Lord Jesus took a literal view of Genesis. The theory of evolution is dishonouring to God as Creator, and its teaching leads to a disastrous secularizing of society.
...from which appearance on AiG's website, I think it's fair to assume assume that it's a rather less "outlandish" view amongst his colleagues in Kentucky than Looy believes.

You'd have thought that at this stage of the game, that AiG would have worked out, and been able to remember, what on earth a "christian" is!

You really need to pay closer attention!
1st AiG statement: Times’ guest writer outlandishly claimed that AiG believes a person had to believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian
2nd AiG statement: Yes, one can be a Christian and an evolutionist, but such a position is both scientifically and biblically untenable.

No disagreement.

One can be a Christian and an evolutionist. But one's position then would be scientifically and biblically untenable.

Not impossible, just untenable - incapable of being defended, as an argument, thesis, etc.; indefensible.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

Would you go as far to say that I.D. is a hypothesis?

The notion that a pre-existing intelligence created Earth-based life would be a valid hypothesis. It would also force us to form hypotheses regarding the origins of such an intelligence.

I.D. goes much further than the above and proceeds from the assumption that the intelligence in question is supernatural and is capable of making our scientific observations appear to be other than they "truly" are. This conveniently applies only to observations which contradict the would-be hypothesis, rendering I.D. a set of non-testable assumptions. It is, in fact, paradoxical. If it were true, science proceeds in vain. Since I.D. claims to be science, it seeks to invalidate itself.

We might as well suggest the following as a hypothesis:

The universe that we observe is an illusion and therefore nothing may be tested by science.

I have little more problem with the claims of I.D. than I have with any other faith-based position. My main issue lies in its quest to gain equality with scientific theories. A secondary issue is that I.D. is very clearly a modification of creationism cooked-up to satisfy secularism whilst pretending to be science. This is deceptive.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

One can be a Christian and an evolutionist. But one's position then would be scientifically and biblically untenable.

Not impossible, just untenable - incapable of being defended, as an argument, thesis, etc.; indefensible.

Only if that Christian's faith demands a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. The vast majority of modern Christian sects do not require this. I personally know a number of Catholic geneticists who see no conflict between evolutionary theory and their faith.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

You really need to pay closer attention!

Sadly, paying closer attention to what Looy wrote than he did, is exactly what I did.

In the context of a logical argument, "untenable" means "cannot be held" and the people who hold such untenable views are wrong -- that means, quite simply that AiG believes that to have "scientifically and biblically tenable" views, a believer must be a genesis-verbatimist.

I mean, come on, AiG has built a multi-million dollar business out of nothing more than a bit of cheap cardboard with the claim that "evolutionist" is anti-christian, anti-family, anti-child, anti-love, anti-apple-pie and anti-whatever-yer-havin'yerself! Haven't you noticed? Certainly the bould Looy hasn't

It's really quite easy to see the linkage -- try read the post again if you don't see how it works.

Scofflaw

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yep- two excellent examples of testable elements of the abiogenesis hypothesis. If we can demonstrate these over laboratory time spans, it becomes self-evident that they are possible over geological/cosmic time spans. Many of the synthesis reactions have already been demonstrated independently under various conditions.

Another implication I suppose would be that the entire process should be reproducible under the same conditions (planet composition, location, star type etc). In time we should be able to detect the presence of life on earth-like exoplanets. If we find a very large number of lifeless earth mass worlds at ~1 AU from a stable G-class star then that'll raise some pretty huge questions regarding abiogenesis.

Earth-mass exoplanet detection should be possible during the coming decade. Right now our lower limit seems to be about 5 earth masses.

What amazes me is that up to 1995, there was still doubt over whether other stars did have planets. Not really a very solid doubt, but a kind of subtext that made the first planet detections more of a event than they ought to have been.

Abiogenesis would certainly also imply the possibility of life on the other planets of the Solar System - although that life could have come from Earth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Galvasean wrote: »

It's not uncommon for competing theories to explain observations equally well. This forms the first stage of a Kuhnian scientific crisis. Intelligent design has utterly failed to generate such a crisis as it is not a theory.

Would you go as far to say that I.D. is a hypothesis?

I don't think I'd even go that far. ID doesn't generate any testable predictions apart from the single one that we should be see 'design' in nature. Unfortunately, design is defined only by intent - that it is the work of an intentional agent rather than a non-intentional process or agent. How does one prove that? Proving that no known process gives rise to something does not prove it is design - only that the process is not known.

I would say, I suppose, that ID is a paradigm, but one that has, to date, produced no working hypotheses.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

I've been thinking some more on JC's refutation on why science isn't "model bound", as I wasn't satisfied with my own response to it.

Having thought some more, I'd like to add the following.

J C wrote: »

Wicknight
……on that basis, Medical Science would only ‘test models’……rather than telling the patient what is wrong with them……..

Medical science doesn't tell the patient what is wrong with them. Doctors tell patients what their diagnosis is, and that diagnosis is a falsifiable prediction....which we see embodied by the fact that they sometimes get it wrong.

This is an excellent example for you to have brought up, for it shows that even when we have imperfect models and we know that those models are imperfect, they can still be of extreme utility.

…….and Astronomical Science would only ‘test models’……rather than accurately measuring the distance between the Earth and the Moon…….

Astronomical science predicted the distance between earth and moon. Scientists measured that distance, to falsifiably test prediction. As an aside, its worth pointing out that said measurement was made using techniques which themselves rest of further scientific theory...such as the measurement using reflected laser light being fundamentally tied to our scientific theories regarding the qualities of light. Indeed, given that C is the measure of the speed of light in a vacuum, it is probable that our measurement of said distance isn't entirely accurate, given that for a small portion of the journey, a beam of light would be travelling through atmosphere of constantly-changing density.

……..and Biological Science would only ‘test models’……rather than explaining how photosynthesis actually works!!!!

Its not an explanation of how photosynthesis works. Its a model which matches the observations of photosynthesis.

It is worth noting that this is another example you've picked of something which is not fully explained. Our knowledge of photosynthesis is limited and imperfect. We have, therefore, a model with known limitations and failures.

…….and Physics would only ‘test models’ ……..rather than accurately measuring the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second

Again, JC, I would point out that physics does no such thing. Physicists have measured light, initially as a means to garner new observations, and subsequently as a means to falsifiably test prediction.

Models are important within science……but ‘testing models’ is not the ONLY activity that scientists engage in...!!!!:eek::D

Whatever about how Wicknight phrased the comment you were responding to, I've never suggested that a scientist only engages in scientific work, so naturally working with models is not the only activity a scientist engages in. Indeed, I have conceded that a scientist can argue in favour of Creationism but is not engaged in a scientific activity whilst doing so.

Your definition of science as being all about 'testing models' ……and not telling people what is or was happening is a ludicrously limiting and restrictive definition of science…and is actually WRONG!!!!:eek:

Again, whatever about what Wicknight said, my stance was that science is about modelling. This does not imply, however, that it is purely about testing models.

We have observation of phenomena, formulation of falsifiably testable models, the making of prediction from those models, the testing of those predictions through further observation, the refinement of the model if/when new information is obtained or previous models are shown to be incorrect.....

Not one of the examples you've given in response to Wicknight is at odds with what I have said. You have indicated that this constituted a detailed response to the question...but it remains unclear as to whether or not you agree or disagree with the question as put.

I gave quite a detailed summary of what I meant by ny position that science deals with models. Wolsfabane simplified this and I accepted that simplification on the proviso that the rewording wasn't used as the means to disagree with my base position. You claim to have comprehensively answered the question based on this....but as I hope I've made clear, you've done no such thing. Arguably, you've done exactly what I said should not be done - taking the one-sentence rewording of my position and finding fault with that simplified expression, rather than with the (far more detailed) responses that I've been writing.

Once we strip out your conflation of "science" and "scientist", and accept (as I have always argued that we must) that an activity performed by a scientist is not automatically science, but ultimately, you haven't given a single example that shows my clarification to be wrong...but apparently insist that not only am I, but that you have comprehensively shown this to be the case.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

……on that basis, Medical Science would only ‘test models’……rather than telling the patient what is wrong with them……..

"Medical science" doesn't tell patients what is wrong with them.

Doctors tell patients what they believe is wrong with this based on matching models of how we think disease works to observable symptoms of the patient.

Of course you already know this because you are a trained scientist (and I believe you said you worked in the medical industry, but I could be wrong about that)

J C wrote: »

…….and Astronomical Science would only ‘test models’……rather than accurately measuring the distance between the Earth and the Moon…….

That is how astronomical science tests their models, with observations such as the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

As bonkey points out, this measurement is itself based on other models which it is necessary to tested to determine they are in fact accurate before the distance can be considered accurate.

J C wrote: »

……..and Biological Science would only ‘test models’……rather than explaining how photosynthesis actually works!!!!

Science explains how photosynthesis works by creating a model of it and testing if this model is accurate or not. If it isn't accurate they alter the model to make it more accurate, until they reach a point where they can confidently say that the theory of how photosynthesis works is accurately modelling what happens in the real world, thus putting forward an accurate explanation of how we believe photosynthesis works.

Again testing models, that is what science is. Modelling and testing.

As a trained scientist you no doubt were already well aware of everything above, and are no doubt simply testing that we too are aware of it.

J C wrote: »

It is impossible to judge in any way how accurate the idea of intelligent design may or may not be, so yes it is ignored from a scientific point of view.

Anything can be ‘impossible’ for those who don’t wish to accept it !!!

Very Zen JC ... unfortunately "wishing" has nothing to do with this.

One cannot test the accuracy of a scientific model if they don't have a scientific model. Without a model there is nothing to test. What would you test?

J C wrote: »

In any event, the science of Intelligent Design has made great strides in accurately and definitively identifying the appliance of intelligence wherever Intelligently Designed artefacts are encountered!!

The "identifying appliance of intelligence" is a non-scientific concept. You have no model of what this intelligence is so you have no way of testing if something is or is not an appliance of it (ie an extension of the non-existent model).

J C wrote: »

…..so you admit that Intelligent design COULD falsify Spontaneous Evolution……just like I said it could…….

No, you said it was the ONLY thing that could, and that otherwise Darwinian Evolution was unfalsifiable.

Which was incorrect

J C wrote: »

.....and I didn’t say that ID was the only way to falsify Spontaneous Evolution…..

Actually this is almost exactly, word for word, what you said

J C wrote:

the point that I was making is that Spontaneous Evolution can only be falsified by Creation / ID

J C wrote: »

obviously Creation Science is also capable of falsifying Evolution…….and it has done so AS WELL!!!!

Creationism is intelligent design, unless you are arguing that God is not intelligent.

J C wrote: »

Could I suggest that to ALL rational people this is common sense!!!:)

You can, but "common sense" has little to do with science.

You can make any common sense judgement you like, but without a tested scientific model you are not being scientific

J C wrote: »

So, for the Evolutionist it is ‘unscientific’ to draw rational conclusions based on repeatably observable evidence……..

For the scientist it is "unscientific" to draw conclusions based on repeated observable evidence, as I'm sure you know being a trained scientist yourself.

You first need a model/theory. You can then test the predictions of this theory against observed evidence. Observed evidence on its own is rather useless. For a start without a model the observation can't be evidence for anything, it is just an observation unconnected from any theory.

J C wrote: »

HOW do you draw rational conclusions then????

You form a theoretical model (a scientific theory). You test this model to see if it is accurate at matching or predicting observed phenomena.

Based on the results of these tests you alter your model to make it more accurate, and test it again. Rinse and repeat as it where.

When you have a model that appears to be highly accurate at matching and predicting observation you may conclude that the theory is accurately modelling what is actually happening.

J C wrote: »

......because their whole worldview is dependent on it's validity......and they therfore have a deep emotional investment in Evolution being true!!!!:)

Which is why to be considered proper science you need a falsifiable model (something evolution has but intelligent design don't have), because you cannot fake a falsifiable model. It either is accurate or it isn't, and it most be possible to repeatable demonstrate that it is accurate.

Creationists/IDist don't have this. I can't say for certain why, but it is hard not to draw the conclusion (in a totally unscientific manner of course ) that they don't have a falsifiable model because they don't want to accept the possibility that it can be falsified.

J C wrote: »

…..I personally don’t believe that there is a ‘Starlight Problem’ in the first place!!!!:cool:

What you personally believe is irrelevant.

J C wrote: »

There is considerable debate on whether light does have an upper limit …… within BOTH Conventional and Creation Science…..and here is an example of the debate within Conventional Science on the issue
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/guest/davis/

"Considerable debate" wouldn't be the phrase I would use. Like all scientific theories the model of light and space time may be inaccurate. But it matches and predicts observation very well, which suggests it is highly accurate. Even if the theory of light isn't full accurate, it is accurate most of the time, which leads to my conclusion that the universe looks very old, even if it isn't.

If it is not accurate it is up to every scientists working the the field to produce a more accurate model.

J C wrote: »

…..the key phrase is that it ‘LOOKS LIKE’………light had an upper limit and the Universe is very big!!!!

You are right, the key phrase is "looks like" .. the physics models of light appear to be very accurate.

J C wrote: »

the speed of light may indeed have had been much greater during the Creation Event……
………and the VISIBLE Universe may not be as large as conventional cosmologists believe!!!

Certainly.

And if Creationist believe this to be so it is up to them to create a scientific model of this and demonstrate that this model if more accurate at matching and predicting observation than the current model. It also might help to explain why the current models appear to be accurate.

This is something they have, surprisingly, not done so far.

J C wrote: »

….and the Universe is therefore NOT very old at all.:)

If your assertion is correct. You need to demonstrate scientifically that it is.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
One can be a Christian and an evolutionist. But one's position then would be scientifically and biblically untenable.

Not impossible, just untenable - incapable of being defended, as an argument, thesis, etc.; indefensible.

Only if that Christian's faith demands a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. The vast majority of modern Christian sects do not require this. I personally know a number of Catholic geneticists who see no conflict between evolutionary theory and their faith.

Yes, most modern 'Christian' sects have abandoned the historic understanding of the Old and New Testaments. Even some true Christians have adopted an allegorical understanding of Genesis. But it is not a matter of literal or allegorical, for both are found in the Bible. It is a matter of which applies to the Genesis account. Removing the Creation and the Flood from historical narrative to make it allegory is simply indefensible if one wants to hold on to any system of interpretation and the historic faith of the Church.

One can ditch the grammatical/historical hermeneutic and pick and choose what is literal and what allegorical purely on what one hears science or history teaches - but one cannot then show why any miraclous event in the Bible is to be taken literally. The virgin conception of Christ, His atoning death, His resurrection and ascension, the coming of the Holy Spirit, etc.

I put it to you that this is a dishonest way of handling Scripture. It should be taken as it appears, according to normal rules of interpretation; as the Church historically took it. If that doesn't appear to be in line with reality, then abandon the faith - treat it as a man-made story. But don't claim to be Christian in the authentic sense of the word.

Real Christians who have caved in on the issue need to retrace their paths. They can't have it both ways, and since they do believe in the virgin conception of Christ, His atoning death, His resurrection and ascension, the coming of the Holy Spirit, etc. they should also believe in the historicity of the Genesis account.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Sadly, paying closer attention to what Looy wrote than he did, is exactly what I did.

In the context of a logical argument, "untenable" means "cannot be held" and the people who hold such untenable views are wrong -- that means, quite simply that AiG believes that to have "scientifically and biblically tenable" views, a believer must be a genesis-verbatimist.

Indeed they do. But that is not what you alleged they believed:
AiG believes a person had to believe in a literal Genesis to be a Christian [underlining mine]. You pointed out they also believed one did not have to believe this in order to be a Christian - and so you accused them of disagreeing with themselves:
Seeing AiG regularly disagree with reality is fun, but it's much more enjoyable to see them disagree with themselves

As I said, you really need to pay closer attention!

wolfsbane

Free on-line books on Creation/Evolution:

The Creation Answers Book by Dr Don Batten (contributing editor), Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/

Refuting Evolution
A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/

Ciaran500

wolfsbane wrote: »

Refuting Evolution
A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/

Only had a quick scan through that but its all the same old arguments that has been discussed and refuted in here.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

robindch wrote:

AiG believes that [...] a believer must be a genesis-verbatimist

Indeed they do.

Sounds like we're in agreement then.

Only you've now stopped agreeing with yourself, but hey, that seems to be something creationists enjoy!

toiletduck

wolfsbane wrote: »

Free on-line books on Creation/Evolution:

The Creation Answers Book by Dr Don Batten (contributing editor), Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/

Refuting Evolution
A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/

Had a quick scan through it, same old same old...

But evolution is not just about ape-like creatures turning into humans. Evolution is a philosophy trying to explain everything without God. Thus, it must be applied to the origin of the universe and solar system.

Haha! Actually believe that?

Eschatologist

wolfsbane wrote: »

bonkey said:


Now that bonkey has confirmed his meaning, I renew my appeal to all scientists here:

*** Would each scientist here please indicate if bonkey is correct in his definition? ***

Yes I would agree. Interpretation however is directly linked to how much and how good the evidence is and some interpretations are more solid than others.

To give a geological example, say I were out mapping an area and I found myself standing in a field with a rock of one type to my left and a rock of another type to my right with a strip of bog running between the two. To start with, assuming a boundary exists between the two would be a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what I see but I need more information to establish the nature of it. Whether the boundary was gradational or abrupt I wouldn’t be able to say with certainty - perhaps walking along the inferred boundary for a good distance in either direction will turn up outcrops which will back up my interpretation. It might turn out not to be a lithological boundary at all but a structural one, like a fault. Only careful and extensive mapping will clear up the matter for sure, by accumulating better data. With a number of such observations I can begin to construct a model.

This is exactly the type of field work I undertook for my undergraduate mapping project. It’s a good example of interpretation in action so it might be beneficial to describe my project method a bit: I didn't read up on previously published maps or papers on my mapping area so I could basically start from scratch with only background knowledge from lectures. This way, my interpretations of what I found would be independent and not too biased based on what I’d learned before.

So I identified the various rocks types, established boundaries and collected samples etc. At the end of it all (and man, it was gruelling!) I had produced a number of field sheets and notebooks full of observations and sketches. Now I could attempt to piece together the geological history of the area, the most likely and reasonable interpretation of what I’d mapped.

Later I got my hands on all available papers and read up on others’ interpretation of the area and was pleased to find that most of what I’d concluded was in accordance with previous work. Thin sections taken from collected samples backed up claims I’d made which otherwise would have stayed in the realms of inference.

So that’s it – I had the data, the observations. It’s then up to the mapper to interpret that data in a way that makes sense. It may not be right but the more mapping that’s done the more robust the interpretation. My constructed geological history, or model of how the rocks got that way, is scientific if it’s reasonable based on the nature and regional setting of the rocks and the context of previous work on the area, especially if my maps corroborate other's work. If I went out on a limb claimed say “Actually, I think the area represents a deep marine environment” contrary to the generally accepted views, then I must provide evidence from the field to my peers of why I think it’s so. If I have little to none or say “I just think it is”, that’s unsubstantiated opinion, is unscientific and would be ignored.

Models and interpretations are intricate things and in the context of mapping sometimes the model is the interpretation! (as I see it).

Eschatologist

On the subject of free books (be warned, it's over 300 pages) here's a neat one - Theory of the Earth:

http://caltechbook.library.caltech.edu/14/01/TheoryoftheEarth.pdf

This was originally published in 1989 and has since been updated in the second edition. It's one of the most comprehensive and interdisciplinary approaches to geology and the Earth, and was recommended to us in first year by our geophysics lecturer.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Free on-line books on Creation/Evolution:

The Creation Answers Book by Dr Don Batten (contributing editor), Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/

Refuting Evolution
A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/

Things like this annoy me

If Creationists want to say that the neo-Darwinian evolutionary model of the development of biological life is wrong or inaccurate then they should put forward arguments explaining why. Even better they should put forward a testable falsifiable model that is more accurate than Darwinian evolution.

But when they put forward misrepresentations of what evolution actually says (or what other scientific theories say) it is just silly. Evolution says what it says. It might be wrong, but it is pretty clear in what it says if one just takes the time to study it properly.

If evolution, or the big bang, are so flawed and inaccurate there should be no need to lie about what they state.

It's like arguing that Christianity is a bad religion because it says you should engage in sex with sheep.

And Creationists really really really have to stop calling anyone with a theory they consider contradictory to YEC an "evolutionist" ... biological evolution has nothing to do with things like the big bang or the science behind carbon dating.

Eschatologist

The Creation Answers Book by Dr Don Batten (contributing editor), Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/

Chapter 11 Continental Drift - Hmmm all of 10 pages of the same old arguments.

"The current theory that incorporates sea-floor spreading and continental drift is known as ‘plate tectonics’.2

2. Some geologists are still sceptical of various aspects of plate tectonics."

Sewing the seeds of doubt! I would like to know which geologists and what aspects exactly, just out of interest. Not a very explanatory footnote that.

Zombrex

Eschatologist wrote: »

The Creation Answers Book by Dr Don Batten (contributing editor), Dr David Catchpoole, Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Carl Wieland
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/

Chapter 11 Continental Drift - Hmmm all of 10 pages of the same old arguments.

"The current theory that incorporates sea-floor spreading and continental drift is known as ‘plate tectonics’.2

2. Some geologists are still sceptical of various aspects of plate tectonics."

Sewing the seeds of doubt! I would like to know which geologists and what aspects exactly, just out of interest. Not a very explanatory footnote that.

That is a common Creationist tactic, asserting that there is doubt and "heavy debate" in an area. This, they hope, gives the impression that their guesses and conclusions are more valid because science has not yet developed very accurate models.

Firstly, most of the time Creationists claim there is strong debate in an area of science they are lying. There is certainly debate in all areas of science, but the impression they often give that science doesn't have a clue how something works is more often than not a fabrication designed to further the aims of Creationists.

Secondly even if scientists don't have a clue about a particular area that still has nothing to do with the validity of Creationists claims. Simply because an area of science is still being explored doesn't mean than any and all claims are equally valid.

It is up to the Creationists to put forward testable models of their claims.

Galvasean

toiletduck wrote: »

Had a quick scan through it, same old same old...

the free book wrote:

But evolution is not just about ape-like creatures turning into humans. Evolution is a philosophy trying to explain everything without God. Thus, it must be applied to the origin of the universe and solar system.

Haha! Actually believe that?

Sheesh, its no wonder that book is free!

But seriously the first step to winning any battle is 'know thy enemy'. It seems the Creationist lobby haven't figured that one out yet.