The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

All real processes go with an increase of entropy.

Correct.

wolfsbane wrote:

Heat loss may be a direct part of that

No, unusable heat loss is pretty much all entropy is for big things like us and genes.

wolfsbane wrote:

, but regardless, the fact is all things move from a higher ordered state to a less ordered one over time.

*Anybody who doesn't care about entropy skip this*
No, things don't move from a more ordered to a less ordered state.
They move from a more special to less special state Which will often correspond with what humans call disorder, but this doesn't imply that things are becoming more disordered, because essentially nature doesn't "know" what disorder means. It isn't a physical aspect of the world.

For instance, using two dice, a dice role of 7 has more entropy than a dice roll of 2.
Why?
Well, a roll of 7 can be gotten from rolling {1,6},{2,5},{3,4},{4,3},{5,2} or {6,1}. Where as 2 can only be gotten from {1,1}.
So a roll of 7 can be the end result of five different histories, where as 2 can only be the result of one history. In this sense 7 is more "generic" than 2. Picking out 7's actual past would be very difficult as it is the end result of five different pasts.

Entropy is basically a measure of how generic a state something is in.
Or to be more accurate how difficult its past is to point out.

For instance ashes in a fire have massive entropy, because a million different ways of burning a million different shapes and types of wood would leave pretty much the exact same ash. Ash is a very generic state.

How this is confused with disorder is that disordered states happen to be the states with the some of the greatest entropy you can find.

Take a messy, disordered room. You could have messed it in a million different ways and it would still be messy, but a tidy room can't be arrived at so generically. A tidy room is special state, with a much easier to pick out past.

However sometimes a very ordered state can have massive entropy. For instance, if you look at a Black Hole there is almost no way to tell what it has eaten or what the star that formed it was like, almost any star could have lead to the Black Hole. Therefore it has massive entropy because its past is almost impossible to distinguish. However a black hole is total order. It is literally a perfect sphere with almost no imperfections. So, one of the most ordered objects in the universe has massive entropy.

An increase in entropy, basically means an increase in how unimportant your past is or how generic you are.

Does this demonstrate why entropy won't destroy genetics.

The Answers in Genesis site shows that they don't understand the concept.
*End*

Sometimes we can inject new energy into the system - as the costly repairs to my car attest! - but how is the gene pool improved? By interbreeding we reduce the negative consequences, but over time the damage mounts. Starting from a perfect gene pool 6000 years ago, we are still functioning well, but start 200K+ ago and the degradation would be enormous.

Bacteria have moved through millions of generations in the last century alone and they don't show any degradation.
Even using human remains from 4000 years ago, we haven't degraded genetically in the least.

It is a helpful assumption. But it should be open to review. One set of appearances may conflict with another: only one can be right, so the assumption must be set aside. For example, the apparent age of the earth by one dating method will conflict with that by another.

Unfortunately for that argument, dating methods don't disagree.
Even ones based on completely different phenomena. They would have to all be wrong, as they are all giving us the same answer.
They all say "billions of years old". Thats twenty different methods using different physical principles. If that many different approaches say the same thing then I think they should be trusted.

Can you give me a reason, in light of twenty different methods agreeing, why I should assume the universe isn't as old as it is?

If you can, can you also tell me why, scientifically, I should choose it being created old 12,000 - 6,000 years ago over a 1586 creation.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Does this demonstrate why entropy won't destroy genetics.

No. For living things, order is crucial. A jumble of information may have the same number of components as the organised body, but it represents a degradation of it. A disassembled jig-saw, for example. A rotting corpse also. And all the stages that lead to that.

Unfortunately for that argument, dating methods don't disagree.
Even ones based on completely different phenomena. They would have to all be wrong, as they are all giving us the same answer.

See: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=282 and http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

If you can, can you also tell me why, scientifically, I should choose it being created old 12,000 - 6,000 years ago over a 1586 creation.

We have the historical record.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

No. For living things, order is crucial. A jumble of information may have the same number of components as the organised body, but it represents a degradation of it. A disassembled jig-saw, for example. A rotting corpse also. And all the stages that lead to that.

Entropy is not disorder. Entropy can't degrade genes because it isn't disorder, it doesn't disorganize stuff.
There is no disorganization force, where are you getting this from?

Entropy is a measure of how generic something is.
Do you think having multiple possible histories is something that will destory genes.

Entropy is not disorder.

wolfsbane wrote:

See: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=282 and http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Except they present a false account and actually make stuff up at points.
And still only criticise radioactive dating. I've read them before.
Where are the other 19 methods?

wolfsbane wrote:

We have the historical record.

Why can't they have been created "fully formed".

And why not 1,257,894 years ago? Or any arbitrary year.

EDIT: How many times do I have to explain that entropy just can't destroy genes, because it makes no sense?

That statement is equivalent to saying "I hope my house doesn't decay due to it being a generic semi-detached".

Entropy is measure of how unimportant your history is.

Yossie

Son Goku wrote:

Entropy is .....

It's not directly related to this discussion, but I always liked Woody Allen's take on the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, which says (roughly) that entropy is always increasing (in a closed system).

"Sooner or later everything turns to sh!t"

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Entropy is not disorder. Entropy can't degrade genes because it isn't disorder, it doesn't disorganize stuff.
There is no disorganization force, where are you getting this from?

Entropy leads to disorder, with some exceptions in the short term, but always in the end. I've noted the disputes about definitions amongst the experts, but seems to me undeniable that whatever we call it, all things move from what everyone regards as a more ordered state to a disordered one. I noted one objector to information theory who asserted entropy leads to a higher ordered state: his view was that the order we see in the galaxies, planets, life is the disordered state and that the heat-death scenario where everything is the same is the ordered state!

Here's a few of my findings on a Google:

"Entropy is the measure of a system's energy that is unavailable for work. Since work is obtained from order, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the disorder, or randomness, of a system. The concept of entropy was proposed in 1850 by the German physicist Rudolf Clausius and is sometimes presented as the second law of thermodynamics."
Britannica.com (2003)


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entropy for: en·tro·py (ntr-p)
n. pl. en·tro·pies
1. Symbol S For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.
2. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
3. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
4. The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society.

http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=entropy&x=0&y=0 for: Main Entry: en·tro·py
Pronunciation: 'en-tr&-pE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -pies
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary 2en- + Greek tropE change, literally, turn, from trepein to turn
1 : a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder and that is a property of the system's state and is related to it in such a manner that a reversible change in heat in the system produces a change in the measure which varies directly with the heat change and inversely with the absolute temperature at which the change takes place; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2 a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder
3 : CHAOS, DISORGANIZATION, RANDOMNESS

http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy1.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_29May2002.asp for an interesting exchange on the subject.

Where are the other 19 methods?

Perhaps you would list these non-radioactive methods so I could check? Here's some in the meantime:
The earth: how old does it look? http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp
Evidence for a Young World. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
How old is the earth? http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter8.asp

But see ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A for fuller links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

Why can't they have been created "fully formed".

And why not 1,257,894 years ago? Or any arbitrary year.

Because the historical record shows otherwise. Unless we subscribe to the conspiracy theory that all cultures were misinformed by their leaders subsequent to 1586. In that case we need to doubt we are actually on this list now - maybe it's all a dream. Just as likely as the 1585 conspiracy idea.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

I've noted the disputes about definitions amongst the experts, but seems to me undeniable that whatever we call it, all things move from what everyone regards as a more ordered state to a disordered one.

There is no dispute. There is the same definition and concept everywhere. The wording just changes depending on the arena of study. Be it QM or thermodynamics.
A system moves from a less generic state to a more generic state.
Even the word order has a different meaning in a thermodynamic context, it doesn't mean disorder as you usually think of it.

The hot, randomly moving clouds of hydrogen, helium, e.t.c. that form planetary systems have much less entropy than the planets they eventually lead to.

A planet would look more ordered to most than a sprawling cloud of hydrogen and it is more ordered in the every day sense of the word.
However it has less entropy than the planet.

wolfsbane wrote:

All the definitions

Sorry but most of those are a bit off. Websters in particular has always been bad for physics. Particularly in defining anything to do with relativity.

Perhaps you would list these non-radioactive methods so I could check?

Let's start with spectra-line dating for galaxies.

wolfsbane wrote:

Because the historical record shows otherwise. Unless we subscribe to the conspiracy theory that all cultures were misinformed by their leaders subsequent to 1586. In that case we need to doubt we are actually on this list now - maybe it's all a dream. Just as likely as the 1585 conspiracy idea.

Exactly!
Thats my point. We don't even need to have been fooled by our leaders. We could have all just been created in 1586 as if the world had existed before then.
We could have been created "in transit".

This could have happened at any date.
This my point, your "Created old" argument can be applied to any date ever.
And ultimately it's a nihilistic kind of argument.
Ultimately we would have to doubt that we're even on this forum.

Read the parts in bold as a single sentence.

Can you tell me scientifically why, if we reject how old the Universe is from experiment and assume it was created old, that we should pick 6,000 - 12,000 B.C. as the actual age above any other random age?

Couldn't the universe have been created old at any point?

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Let's start with spectra-line dating for galaxies.

I'm sorry, I can't find any reference to that in the material on the creationists sites. But for dating involving the cosmos see: 'Exploding stars point to a young universe' at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/stars.asp
For a bigger choice: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp under Astronomy.

Thats my point. We don't even need to have been fooled by our leaders. We could have all just been created in 1586 as if the world had existed before then.
We could have been created "in transit".

The books and artifacts would have to have been created likewise. That's nothing to do with apparent age or maturity. That would be deception. The record we have of creation is one of maturity, not pretence. You would have to suggest how an instantaneous creation 6000 years ago could have been done otherwise.

Can you tell me scientifically why, if we reject how old the Universe is from experiment and assume it was created old, that we should pick 6,000 - 12,000 B.C. as the actual age above any other random age?

Couldn't the universe have been created old at any point?

We should not reject the age derived from experiment. We must just be careful not to interpret the results with presuppositions that may be wrong. To impose a uniformitarian ageing process is just such a presupposition. It is one possibility. There are others: rates of change that varied; mature creation.

The universe could have been created old at any point - but the evidence would point to its real age as well as its apparent age. Just as it does in the actual world.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

He kindly sent a personal reply. In that he states:
'The truth is that I never claimed that Dalrymple ignores the issue of excess argon. To the contrary, in my chapter in the first RATE book published in 2000 I was careful to quote Dalrymple extensively and to make sure I did not misrepresent him. The unbelieving scientist who is making the claim that I lie is allowing his bias to cloud his judgement and falsely accuse me.

And specifically, I stated that he had lied in the particular paper that I was reading. He did do so. He might like to claim that he doesn't, but I'm afraid Snelling deliberately misrepresents Dalrymple.

In his personal response to you, he actually does so again:

wolfsbane wrote:

May I suggest you obtain a copy of that first RATE book and read the relevant section of my chapter, chapter 5, namely, pages 125-159. While Dalrymple acknowledges that excess argon may cause problems with rocks a few million years old or younger I maintain that he ignores the obvious implication that the same problem could well exist in older and ancient rocks. After all, the reason he recognises that excess argon is a problem in young rocks is because he has other means of knowing that those rocks are young. On the other hand, it logically follows that if excess argon causes a problem in young rocks, then it likely would cause a problem in older rocks.

If you read Dalrymple, you'll find that what he says is that the amounts of excess argon he has found may shift dates by a couple of million years at most, if they are ignored. He says that this is a problem only in younger rocks, because there a couple of million years is a significant fraction of the age, whereas in older rocks it is an insignificant fraction of the age. In other words, an age of 2MY+/-1MY is not much use, whereas an age of 400MY+/-1MY is fine.

Snelling, on the other hand, right there in his reply to you, has just claimed, again, that Dalrymple is ignoring the fact that there may be argon discrepancies in older rocks.

wolfsbane wrote:

What I show is that argon is mobile and can be inherited by rocks and minerals making them older or younger depending on whether there has been gain or loss, and this is routinely recognised in the secular geologic literature. I have given copious examples in that chapter which are fully referenced. For example, there is the case of biotite flakes that give different ages on their edges to their centres, ages different by hundreds of millions of years. Then there are plagioclase crystals in metamorphic rocks that give ages of twice the age of the earth! There are also diamonds that give ages older than the age of the earth! So much for excess argon not causing a problem with supposedly ancient rocks. Who's the one being dishonest? Certainly it is not me, because I have just used examples from the secular geologic literature. Rather, it is this unbelieving scientist who is either blissfully or deliberately unaware of these copious examples in the secular geologic literature.

Yes, that's why what is used is the average age. The bulk argon in a rock gives a correct age, but only by way of the average. An average implies that there are values away from it. This is statistics, which you may have heard of.

wolfsbane wrote:

You will see then that I have provided ample documentation and examples to refute the ignorant claims being made by this unbelieving scientist in his efforts to undermine the integrity of myself and my work, but that kind of attack simply will not succeed given the weight of evidence that is already available in the secular geologic literature against these radioisotope dating methods. It only saddens me that Christians allow unbelieving scientists to sway them, instead of accepting that the creationists are working with the utmost integrity as fellow Christians, while the unbelieving scientist has his integrity tainted by the evil one, sadly.

That's the answer, then, is it? My problem is actually that I am following orders from my dark lord and master? My integrity is 'tainted'? I can't work out whether I'm more irritated or amused. One thing I'm certainly glad of is that most of your kind have withered away in the light of reason.

wolfsbane wrote:

The creationist sites are there for those seeking the truth.

Not based on anything we've seen here they're not.


Scofflaw

Son Goku

Snelling wrote:

while the unbelieving scientist has his integrity tainted by the evil one

That is not something a decent scientist says wolfsbane.
For a scientist to say that another scientist's work is suspect, due to his opinion that he has been tainted by a supernatural entity bent on corrupting mankind, is moronic.

samb

I believe the world was created mature by the Almightly God, yesterday. You can't disprove it

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

That is not something a decent scientist says wolfsbane.
For a scientist to say that another scientist's work is suspect, due to his opinion that he has been tainted by a supernatural entity bent on corrupting mankind, is moronic.

It is in line with Christian reasoning, eg. 2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

But what are you saying? Is it alright to accuse another scientist of lying, as long as we don't say he has been deceived by Satan into doing so? Is that decent? Is the only moronic part the belief in the supernatural?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

That's the answer, then, is it? My problem is actually that I am following orders from my dark lord and master?

I doubt that is the only reason preventing understanding in evolutionary scientists. Faulty reasoning, inadequate knowledge of the facts, faulty assumptions - scientists from both camps are exposed to those as well. But the underlying influence driving the hostility to creationism is likely to be of spiritual origins.

Not based on anything we've seen here they're not.

Thankfully, the free-speech we still enjoy allows the readers to investigate for themselves rather than fall for the 'Trust me, I'm a scientist' line.

wolfsbane

samb said:

I believe the world was created mature by the Almightly God, yesterday. You can't disprove it

You have to account for the written, photographic and other artifact evidence that suggests an earlier date.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

samb said:

You have to account for the written, photographic and other artifact evidence that suggests an earlier date.

They were created "fully formed".

wolfsbane wrote:

But what are you saying? Is it alright to accuse another scientist of lying, as long as we don't say he has been deceived by Satan into doing so? Is that decent? Is the only moronic part the belief in the supernatural?

Yes, wolfsbane the moronic part is the belief in the supernatural. I hope everybody stops believing in God so that the world becomes an evolution-ocracy. Only then will my atheist plan be complete. Mwa ha ha!:rolleyes:

Of course it's not belief in the supernatural. What's wrong here is instant rejection of somebodies work because they don't believe what you believe.
i.e. what is going on in that guys mind is:
Non Chrisitan scientist = tainted = work not to be trusted.
Which, for a scientist, I repeat, is moronic.

Thankfully, the free-speech we still enjoy allows the readers to investigate for themselves rather than fall for the 'Trust me, I'm a scientist' line.

If only they'd fall for the "Trust me, I'm evidence" line.

I doubt that is the only reason preventing understanding in evolutionary scientists. Faulty reasoning, inadequate knowledge of the facts, faulty assumptions - scientists from both camps are exposed to those as well. But the underlying influence driving the hostility to creationism is likely to be of spiritual origins.

If anybody thinks this post has been dismissive, this is why.
No matter what arguement we make to wolfsbane, it is still going to be processed as "Secularist atheist scientist is speaking, therefore it is lies".
The above quote finally proves this to me.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

They were created "fully formed".

Weird. It of course bears no relationship to the creationist arguement: the historical record of man is definitely only in the thousands of years. None of it was created fully formed. It is the natural world, not the artificial one, that creationists say was created mature. All the irreducibly complex organisms, the seas and earth, the cosmos.

Of course it's not belief in the supernatural. What's wrong here is instant rejection of somebodies work because they don't believe what you believe.
i.e. what is going on in that guys mind is:
Non Chrisitan scientist = tainted = work not to be trusted.
Which, for a scientist, I repeat, is moronic.

That would be moronic. But it is not what was said. I'm sure all creation scientists believe much of the work of non-creation scientists is fine. The problem is just where their presuppositions against supernaturalism cause them to refuse to consider the evidence in a skewed way.

No matter what arguement we make to wolfsbane, it is still going to be processed as "Secularist atheist scientist is speaking, therefore it is lies".
The above quote finally proves this to me.

As I've said above, secular atheist scientists say much that is true. Their arguements can be critically examined and whatever is true can be accepted.

Morbert

Hey wolfsbane... I noticed you said you didn't want to bother posting up creationist arguments, but then go on to post up the lies spread by Answers in Genesis.

So which is it? Would you like me to demonstrate the error of Ken Ham's ways, or are you going to continue shoving your fingers in your ears because the big bad EVILutionists are exposing your utter disregard for both sceince and understanding.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is hilariously non-existent, your grasp of cosmology is worse than JC's, and your concept of molecular biology leaves... eh... a hell of a lot to be desired.

As I've said before. The debate is over. It has been over for many years. And it is most certainly over in this thread. Especially since you have admitted an unwillingness to educate yourself on the matters of evolutionary biology, the only scientifically verified explanation of life on earth today. Instead you spout the same old refuted arguments, and run away into your cave of ignorance when someone corrects you.

You're entire argument boils down to "There must be a debate because there are people who believe in ID and creationism." So I'm going to be blunt... That is a Bull**** argument. It hasn't worked in the courts. It hasn't worked in the school systems, it hasn't worked in the scientific community, it hasn't worked anywhere other than with those who have no interest in learning about the immense veracity of evolution.

Just because people like you and other creationists make noise doesn't mean there's a debate.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Hey wolfsbane... I noticed you said you didn't want to bother posting up creationist arguments, but then go on to post up the lies spread by Answers in Genesis.

So which is it? Would you like me to demonstrate the error of Ken Ham's ways, or are you going to continue shoving your fingers in your ears because the big bad EVILutionists are exposing your utter disregard for both sceince and understanding.

I posted to answer a serious moral accusation made by an evolutionist. I am happy to refer interested parties to the creationist websites so they can check the arguments out for themselves. I'm not a scientist, so can only offer the basic arguement. You could post all of the arguements from these sites and respond one by one, if you like. Might just be easier to list the evolutionist sites that do so - the creationist site http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/ even provides links to some of these.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is hilariously non-existent, your grasp of cosmology is worse than JC's, and your concept of molecular biology leaves... eh... a hell of a lot to be desired.

In your not-so-humble opinion. But you have the same contempt for PhD scientists, so I don't feel too exposed.

You're entire argument boils down to "There must be a debate because there are people who believe in ID and creationism." So I'm going to be blunt... That is a Bull**** argument. It hasn't worked in the courts. It hasn't worked in the school systems, it hasn't worked in the scientific community, it hasn't worked anywhere other than with those who have no interest in learning about the immense veracity of evolution.

In other words, it hasn't worked with the evolutionists. See the difficulty? Were these unbiased judgements? Not from the hysteria one sees from them.

But I'm happy to report that creationism may be having some effect on the ordinary citizen:
'Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.

The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm.

Echoes of http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%207:43-49;&version=31;49;47;9; ? The Establishment as opposed to the people.:)

robindch

> I'm sure all creation scientists believe much of the work of
> non-creation scientists is fine. The problem is just where their
> presuppositions against supernaturalism cause them to refuse
> to consider the evidence in a skewed way.

Well, leaving aside debating creationism with you and extending the question from above, do you think that this way of looking at things should be extended further past biology?

A few examples -- my car started misfiring today, so should I demand that "supernatural" causes should be invoked by my mechanic to explain why it putt-putted occasionally on the way from Belfast? Should I go to another Belfast dentist because my own one didn't even consider for one second that Satan might have been the cause of my sore tooth? Was I impelled to go to my car (just in time to stop it from being clamped) by an anonymous, but benevolent, patron saint of parking disorders?

I'm asking these questions because I do not understand why you think that god should be invoked as an explanation for questions in biology which have perfectly good god-free answers.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

I'm asking these questions because I do not understand why you think that god should be invoked as an explanation for questions in biology which have perfectly good god-free answers.

The difference is between how things now operate and how they came to be in the first place. The development of a child in the womb tells us nothing about how humans began. The cause of the misfiring car tells us nothing about how the car came into existence. Only how they work.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

I posted to answer a serious moral accusation made by an evolutionist. I am happy to refer interested parties to the creationist websites so they can check the arguments out for themselves. I'm not a scientist, so can only offer the basic arguement. You could post all of the arguements from these sites and respond one by one, if you like. Might just be easier to list the evolutionist sites that do so - the creationist site http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/ even provides links to some of these.

So we can agree that you are not able to understand the arguments you put forth via links to AnswersinGenesis and other sites. You are, in fact, hoping the jargon in such sites will fool the less informed into believing there is a substance to creationism.

Furthermore, we can agree that you are incapable of defending such arguments, as you do not have the necessary knowledge and understanding needed to do so.

In your not-so-humble opinion. But you have the same contempt for PhD scientists, so I don't feel too exposed.

It is fact, not opinion. But you, of course, are unable/unwilling to try and understand such fields of science, so you can't really defend yourself can you?

In other words, it hasn't worked with the evolutionists. See the difficulty? Were these unbiased judgements? Not from the hysteria one sees from them.

My point still stands. All you've done is labelled anyone who sees through such shallow arguments an evolutionist.

But I'm happy to report that creationism may be having some effect on the ordinary citizen:
'Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.

The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm.

Echoes of http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%207:43-49;&version=31;49;47;9; ? The Establishment as opposed to the people.:)

Although the ID movement has a lot of funding, it's never going to outweigh evolution for the reasons I've mentioned above.

And notice how the scientific community is still overwhelmingly in support of evolution. Oh, that's right, I forgot. They're nothing but a bunch of close minded Atheists.

It'll take more than shiny colours and flashy campaigns if ID wants to take evolution's place.

[edit]-The bottom line is evolution is in the Majority in both scientific and public eyes.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

So we can agree that you are not able to understand the arguments you put forth via links to AnswersinGenesis and other sites. You are, in fact, hoping the jargon in such sites will fool the less informed into believing there is a substance to creationism.

Furthermore, we can agree that you are incapable of defending such arguments, as you do not have the necessary knowledge and understanding needed to do so.

Not having the specialized knowledge in each field does not mean that one can't understand the thrust of the argument. Even where the whole thing is above my head - especially the maths - my point is that scientists who do have such ability refute the evolutionist position.

You want me to be an expert in all these fields before I can point out that evolutionist claims are challenged by other experts in the field. That is just an attempt to silence the opposition, to gag the debate. You should have nothing to fear from people searching the sites for themselves - unless you know in your heart that King Evolution has no clothes.

They're nothing but a bunch of close minded Atheists.

Well, not all. Some are listening. Many creationist scientists were once just like them, but had their eyes opened.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Not having the specialized knowledge in each field does not mean that one can't understand the thrust of the argument. Even where the whole thing is above my head - especially the maths - my point is that scientists who do have such ability refute the evolutionist position.

I've never seen it. I've read every single Creationist Astrophysics and Theoretical Physics paper ever written and their arguments and mathematics are abysmal.
They refute standard position on the Big Bang for instance, but what they propose instead is useless and doesn't fit the evidence.

You can refute until the cows come home, but the fact is that the standard theory matches the evidence and theirs doesn't.

And Creationists still haven't moved from Cosmology, if they ever get past that hurdle they'll have to start disputing the Standard Model of particle physics, something that'll be nigh-on impossible to attack.

It of course bears no relationship to the creationist argument: the historical record of man is definitely only in the thousands of years. None of it was created fully formed. It is the natural world, not the artificial one, that creationists say was created mature.

Don't you understand the analogy we're making.
Just as equally as the natural world could have been made fully formed, the historical records could have been created fully formed as well.
Essentially there is nothing to put Creationism above a 1586 creation.
Both resort to things being created old, with no way for this "old creation" to be tested.

You say that man's historical record is definitely as old as it would appear, yet the light coming from galaxies is an artefact of old creation.

Why are you so sure one is actually as old as it appears and the other must be an illusion?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert wrote:

Hey wolfsbane... I noticed you said you didn't want to bother posting up creationist arguments, but then go on to post up the lies spread by Answers in Genesis.

I posted to answer a serious moral accusation made by an evolutionist. I am happy to refer interested parties to the creationist websites so they can check the arguments out for themselves.

Nope. You posted the links, I accused one of the authors of lying, you posted his response, I pointed out that he'd lied in exactly the same way again in his reply to you.

wolfsbane wrote:

Thankfully, the free-speech we still enjoy allows the readers to investigate for themselves rather than fall for the 'Trust me, I'm a scientist' line...I'm not a scientist, so can only offer the basic arguement...In your not-so-humble opinion. But you have the same contempt for PhD scientists, so I don't feel too exposed.

You know, the really funny thing here is that the only person claiming "trust me, I'm a scientist" is you, on behalf of the scientists who you find acceptable. The rest of us are arguing the science, you're arguing from authority.

wolfsbane wrote:

But I'm happy to report that creationism may be having some effect on the ordinary citizen:
'Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.
The Establishment as opposed to the people.:)

I'm sure a lot of people haven't moved out of the Middle Ages yet. I see no reason why they should have left the 19th century.

Scofflaw

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

A few examples -- my car started misfiring today, so should I demand that "supernatural" causes should be invoked by my mechanic to explain why it putt-putted occasionally on the way from Belfast?

What kind of car does an evilutionist drive?

Wolfsbane, would you accept that there is not a single truth in the world that Jesus Christ doesn't make the claim over: "This is mine"?

samb

wolfsbane wrote:

samb said:

You have to account for the written, photographic and other artifact evidence that suggests an earlier date.

Then equally you must account for the geological, cosmological, genetic, archaeological, palaeological, and other artifact evidence that suggests a much older date.
But sorry you don't understand these topics so you simply believe an interpretation of a book written 19 hundred years ago, by authors who new nothing about the scientific disciplines listed above. Don't you think you are being lazy?

Excelsior

Psst. Samb. Genesis was written between 3200 and 2800 years ago...

Asiaprod

Utah House Kills Evolution Teaching Bill
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - Public schools won't have to change the way they teach evolution, after the House on Monday gutted, and then killed, a bill that would have required science courses to mention alternative theories.
Senate Bill 96 failed in the House on a 28-46 vote, after a lengthy debate that saw the bill changed twice.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, had said it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man had descended from apes, and rattling the faith of students. The Senate passed the measure 16-12.
House sponsor Rep. Jim Ferrin, R-Orem, started Monday's debate with a substitute bill, which removed the phrase about teaching the "origins of life." Ferrin said the phrase should come out because current state curricula only includes teaching the origins of species, not human evolution.
Ferrin had no trouble getting support for his substitute, but House lawmakers weren't as eager to support the bill's underlying premise.
Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan, said he feared passing the bill would force the state to then address hundreds of other scientific theories - "from Quantum physics to Freud" - in the same manner.
"I would leave you with two questions," Wyatt said. "If we decide to weigh in on this part, are we going to begin weighing in on all the others and are we the correct body to do that?"
House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Urquhart suggested amending the bill to leave it with just one sentence that read, "The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements, consistent with Subsection 1, relating to scientific instruction of students on the origins of species."
"I think it's appropriate to leave this up to the Board of Education," Urquhart said.
Ferrin argued against the amendment, saying that he wasn't trying to stop the teaching of evolution in schools, nor suggesting that religious thought should be taught.
"However, if that scientific instruction goes to the origin of species, when it postulates that humans, apes, snakes, cows whales or whatever all evolved from a common ancestor. Then I would say, if that can be empirically proven, let's teach it as such," Ferrin said. "But if it's merely an inference, then let's teach is as inference."
The amendment passed 44-31 and was followed quickly by the vote that killed the bill itself.
Buttars monitored the debate from the House floor. Afterward he said he was disappointed.
Buttars said he doesn't believe the defeat means that most House members think Darwin's theory of evolution is correct. "Absolutely not. It means the vote was wrong in my opinion," Buttars said. "I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape."
[/FONT]

*sigh*

Creationists: even if you did manage to attack evolution successfully, you still have to provide positive evidence of creation beyond "my book says so". Otherwise it's a case of I don't know so god did it.

As scofflaw has pointed out, the only person arguing from authority (yay for fallacies) is wolfsbane who keeps insisting that everyone else is doing it.
Try to fix that, hm?

As for evolution itself, I don't ever remember learning it in science o.o I dropped biology after junior cert though...
anyway why can't you guys (creationists) accept creationism is a faith? What's wrong with that? Do you really think it's somehow weakened if you say something like "Look guys, I know what the science says, but this is my faith, I can't prove it using the scientific method, so let's teach it to kids in religion class instead"?

samb

Excelsior wrote:

Psst. Samb. Genesis was written between 3200 and 2800 years ago...

ye, whatever.

John Doe

Scofflaw wrote:

You know, the really funny thing here is that the only person claiming "trust me, I'm a scientist" is you, on behalf of the scientists who you find acceptable. The rest of us are arguing the science, you're arguing from authority.

Exactly so, as Poirot would say.