The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

So you now say scientists don't propose specific mechanisms to explain the evidence, and then discard those proposals when a better solution is found?

Now any proposed mechanism/s of mental illness may be debated and discarded - but that does not falsify the basic theory of mental illness. So to with, e.g, water canopy in creationism and punctuated equilibrium or uniformitarianism in evolution.

The evidence that has been found through the years since Darwin has revised the theory of evolution. Numerous additions and variations have been proposed, and tested, and either discarded or kept. Science has filled in many of the details of, for example, mechanism, with modern genetics, of which Darwin knew nothing. At this point, epigenetic transfer of information is beginnning to be accepted as another (and currently poorly-understood) mechanism for heredity, which seems to offer a form of Lamarckian inheritance. Along the way, various teleological arguments have been trimmed back off the main theory.

The result is at this point that little is left of Darwin's original theory except the basic outline, which is encapsulated in the well-known phrase "survival of the fittest". While this is a convenient tag-line for the theory, it is only that, and current evolutionary thinking bears little resemblance to Darwin's original ideas. We have kept the name "evolution", but the theory has been discarded and changed as new evidence has come in.

Creationism, on the other hand, has not changed, and cannot change. It must remain as per the Biblical account, and evidence is accepted or rejected based on whether it (a) fits in with Genesis, and (b) can survive public scrutiny. Mechanisms are certainly proposed, examined, and discarded by Creationists, and this looks like science to the untrained eye. The difference is that it is not possible to allow anything that conflicts with Genesis. If that includes the bulk of the evidence (which it certainly seems to - all the holes that Creationists like to think they've found amount, in any case, to a tiny fraction of evolutionary theory), then that evidence is ignored in favour of the evidence that is considered to work with Genesis. The well-preserved dinosaur remnants are a good example - a few well-preserved microstructures is suddenly evidence that dinosaurs only lived a few thousand years ago, whereas the fact that nearly all dinosaur remnants have been turned into rock by the passage of millions of years is silently ignored.

You asked me what I'm doing here - I'm here because you're here, and you seem to be here to mislead people so that they believe what you erroneously believe. That such a debate happens is not reflective of a "scientific controversy", but a standard "good citizen" response to what is basically false advertising on your part.

Scofflaw

robindch

> little is left of Darwin's original theory except the basic outline, which
> is encapsulated in the well-known phrase "survival of the fittest"

"Survival of the fittest" hasn't ever encapsulated Darwin's theory, nor did Darwin apparently use it to describe his own work. The phrase was thought-up by a free-market economist, Herbert Spencer some years after the Origin of Species was published.

For brevity and accuracy, "differential reproductive success" is hard to beat

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Like the prediction that we will find dinosaur bones not fully fossilized?

No.

Why would that be a prediction of creationism?

Check the list of scientists who are writing and lecturing against evolution. They ARE scientists.

The list is negligable when compared to the number of evolutionary biologists engaged in active research, and creationist scientific publications are non-existant.

As I said... Evolution is not disputed.

As we have covered before, when it comes to choosing which PhD scientist I think is lying, I will believe those Christians with proven honesty before any unbeliever who is operating in a deluded state anyway. Your opinion on their articles must be evaluated in that light.

This paragraph amounts to nothing but rhetoric. To call the scientific community deluded and unbelieving, especially when Christian scientists who accept and study evolution vastly outnumber the total of scientists who believe in creationism, is just plain silly.

Unless you're just talking about me. Well no need to take my opinion on the matter, since you're only interested in talking about credentials, look at the huge number of scientists whose expertise far far outweigh any creationist list you can put forth.

Post anything you like. I just see no point if I can already read it on the anti-creationist sites.

I'm not trying to convince you. You are unwilling to educate yourself on the matter. But it allows me to show others reading this thread how hollow creation arguments are.

This debate matters whether I get a degree in physics/mathematics/chemistry/biology or not. The point is to make folk aware that evolution is being challenged by scientists of equal intelligence/learning to the evolutionists.

Well you have not supported this assertion. You need to provide references to scientific papers which reflect such a controversy. Posting rehashed AiG articles which pander to a close minded audience is pointless.

You want everyone to think there is no scientific debate on origins, but do so on the self-imposed basis that there is only one side - yours. The creationist sites contain enough to show that is mere evolutionary propaganda masquerading as science.

Again... more rhetoric... please back up your claims.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert, you need to read what I said again: I'm implying nothing of the sort. All I stated was that discarding any particular mechanism does not necessarily disprove the theory.

Well then out of curiosity... What could disprove creationism?

wolfsbane

Sorry I can only drop in for a moment tonight, but I've been thinking of what subject would best test the creation/evolution debate. Abiogenesis seems to be the crunch issue. I've just found this and if Morbert would like to fulfil his promise to shred it, I'll do my best to follow:

Its written by Jerry R. Bergman. His bio: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/bergman-j.html

The article Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html

robindch

> test the creation/evolution debate. Abiogenesis seems to be the crunch issue.

To mix a few metaphors, the balls will be dropping like flies off hell's brass monkeys before somebody (who knows something about evolution) will be able to help somebody else (who doesn't) to understand that evolution and abiogenesis are totally, entirely, completely separate things which are not related. Never have been. Never will be.

Looking at how many times this has come up and been politely pointed out, and then ignored, I can't help but think of the Darian entry from the t.o. Jargon File. Sigh.

In other news, god's current chief (anglican) representative on Earth, Rowan Williams, came out strongly against creationism today, saying that it resulted in a "jarring of categories" which is about the strongest condemnatory language that I've ever heard any (anglican) archbishop come out with. This story here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329438915-103602,00.html

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Sorry I can only drop in for a moment tonight, but I've been thinking of what subject would best test the creation/evolution debate. Abiogenesis seems to be the crunch issue. I've just found this and if Morbert would like to fulfil his promise to shred it, I'll do my best to follow:

Its written by Jerry R. Bergman. His bio: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/bergman-j.html

The article Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html

At a first brief reading, it seems that as usual, evolution has been conflated with the origin of life. The two are regarded as separate - for the former there is a well-understood and evidentially supported theory, for the latter there are only speculations which are extremely difficult to test in a human timeframe.

As usual, the quotation regarding the state of the fossil record is over half a century out of date. I'm sure it is much quoted by Creationists, since it conveniently ignores an explosive growth in the quality of the fossil record during that time.

The scientific quotes come either from Creationists or from TV/film documentaries, not peer-reviewed papers.

Extremely large assumptions are raised and derided in the same sentence. For example :

Cells eventually somehow "learned" how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule

which (a) assumes that DNA molecules have to be involved, (b) puts this in a teleological and dismissive way 'somehow "learned"'. As usual, Creationists seem unable to leave behind their assumption that everything has a goal.

For some reason, the author then spends several paragraphs pointing out the flaws in ancient theories of spontaneous generation, in the apparent belief that he's describing modern theories about the origin of life. Possibly this represents the current bleeding edge of Creationist science?

Anyway, not enough time to enjoy this fully, and I believe wolfsbane specifically asked for Morbert...

regards,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Why would that be a prediction of creationism?

Because creationism (Young Earth type is what I'm referring to in all my uses of the term) asserts that all biological things have been on earth no more than about 6000 years. It is then feasible that remains of creatures now extinct will be found in non-fossilised states and well as fossilsed ones.

But you said such a prediction is not what you meant by 'putting forth testable hypotheses and a theoretical framework.' Maybe you would give me a few examples of what you have in mind?

The list is negligable when compared to the number of evolutionary biologists engaged in active research, and creationist scientific publications are non-existant.

We have already agreed that the great majority of scientists are not creationists. We differ on whether the view of the majority must be right.

Your comment that creationist publications are non-existant is evidently false - eg. see http://www.rae.org/crepub.html. and http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/p_jerlstrom.asp

You need to provide references to scientific papers which reflect such a controversy. Posting rehashed AiG articles which pander to a close minded audience is pointless.

The many listed articles by scientists on the creationist sites are proof of the debate. Only by refusing to acknowledge them and the books published - eg. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, can evolutionists hope to persuade the masses that evolution is the one true faith.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

whereas the fact that nearly all dinosaur remnants have been turned into rock by the passage of millions of years is silently ignored.

If it was proved that it took millions of years to fossilize something, you would be right. But that is not the case.

I'm here because you're here, and you seem to be here to mislead people so that they believe what you erroneously believe. That such a debate happens is not reflective of a "scientific controversy", but a standard "good citizen" response to what is basically false advertising on your part.

You are to be commended for your good intentions, even though you are dreadfully wrong. The Apostle Paul once stood in those shoes:
1 Timothy 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, 13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

What could disprove creationism?

Good question. Ultimately, it would take a theological case to be established to make me reject the proposition. But I would be glad to acknowledge that creationism had no scientific case to support it if it could be showed that life can be generated from chemicals. The increase in information need for that would make the evolution of man a likely occurance.

That's of the top of my head - there may be other things but I can't think of any at the moment. The whole dating thing is always going to be open to debate as to whether the assumptions are correct. Likewise with cosmogogy.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

evolution and abiogenesis are totally, entirely, completely separate things which are not related. Never have been. Never will be.

That is a world-class cop-out! What was this about: Dickerson, R.E., Chemical evolution and the origin of life, Scientific American 239(3):62–102, 1978.

Chemical evolution is actually part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’,defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form’. Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

For the fuller article from which I have drawn this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp
It would indeed be very convenient for evolutionists to begin with a self-replicating molecule - but the problem for them is getting one to start with. Sounds like you want to put 'self-replicating molecule' where creationists have God.

In other news, god's current chief (anglican) representative on Earth, Rowan Williams, came out strongly against creationism today, saying that it resulted in a "jarring of categories" which is about the strongest condemnatory language that I've ever heard any (anglican) archbishop come out with.

I'm so relieved he did. Imagine Christians having the support of a man who believes so little of the Bible! :eek:

Evolution will no doubt be even more firmly endorsed when Anglicanism has its first lesbian archbishop.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

That is a world-class cop-out!

Species can emerge from other species, without the first species on Earth emerging from chemicals in the manner abiogenesis predicts.

This is what causes some confusion to those outside science, the difference between theories of fundamentals and theories of scenarios.

General Relativity is the former and Cosmology is the latter for example.

Evolution just states that life can modify itself through differential reproductive success. It says nothing about the age of the Earth, for example.

Abiogenesis states that life can develop from chemicals in a certain manner.

However we have a theory of the development of life on Earth which uses evolution, abiogenesis and what we have learned from radioactive dating.
What Dawkins was talking about is this theory.
This can be incorrect without any of its constituents being incorrect.

Sounds like you want to put 'self-replicating molecule' where creationists have God.

You have a dreadful view of how science operates. It's just being investigated if a self-replicating molecule can give rise to life. That’s it.
The one thing to remember about science, is that it is very "bland" with its statements and proposals. We aren't searching for a "materialist creator", or something like that.

robindch

> That is a world-class cop-out!

Not if you sit down and try to think about it for a few minutes. Here, I'll explain again, as it's been a fortnight since I last did and the exercise is good for my fingers.

Evolution - explains why organisms change over time. Doesn't say squat about how life arises, just how organisms change from generation to generation. Try thinking of that phrase I've mentioned over and over - "differential reproductive success". Go out for a walk. Have a cup of coffee. Read the sentence and think about it again. "reproductive" means that evolution concerns reproducing organisms only. Saying that evolution is wrong because you haven't demonstrated biogenesis is like saying that gravity doesn't exist because you haven't demonstrated the existence of the Higgs Boson. They are not connected, no matter how much you'd like them to be, or think that they are.

"Chemical evolution" - now, be careful here! Note the first word in this: it's "chemical". It's not "biological", or "economic" or "linguistic" or "religious" or "memetic" or any of the many other types of evolution. This one is "chemical". That means that it doesn't refer to biological evolution which means that you can't rubbish *biological* evolution just because Ken Ham says that you can rubbish *chemical* evolution (which he doesn't understand either).

> It would indeed be very convenient for evolutionists to begin with
> a self-replicating molecule

It's not just convenient, it's exactly what they do! You're getting somewhere. Not very far, or very fast, but it's definitely a step forward. Now, just try to keep on thinking about this, so that you can appreciate what's going on here - evolution talks about how life continues. Doesn't say anything about how it started. Just about how it continues. Even if you can understand this very, very simple thing, then we'll have made some progress.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

If it was proved that it took millions of years to fossilize something, you would be right. But that is not the case.

I take it you mean that fossilisation over millions of years hasn't been experimentally proven - about which you're right, of course. It's impossible to get the grants, unfortunately.

wolfsbane wrote:

You are to be commended for your good intentions, even though you are dreadfully wrong. The Apostle Paul once stood in those shoes:
1 Timothy 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, 13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

How nice. Not only am I frequently prompted by Satan, but I am also "a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man". I'm blushing.

Seriously though, I don't get as much time as I'd like for persecution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Whiskey Priest

A question:

given the almost unimaginable successes of science, the immense amount of proof of the applicability of the scientific method, and the almost unbelievable changes it has wrought in the last hundred years...

...how does science manage to get it so completely wrong about evolution and dating of the Earth?

After all, neither evolution, nor dating, are in any way unusual pieces of science. And if you Creationists are right, at least the following fields of science require substantial revision, or complete abandonment:

1. all evolutionary biology
2. all taxonomic biology based on evolutionary relationships
3. much of modern genetics
4. all of palaeontology
5. all of stratigraphy
6. all geological dating
7. plate tectonics
8. all theories of petroleum formation
9. all theories of mineral formation
10. OK, all of modern geology
11. most of modern archaeology
12. all of palaeoclimatology
13. most of geomorphology
14. much of modern linguistics
15. large amounts of modern geography
16. most of modern cosmology
17. all of modern astrophysics
18. large chunks of apparent human history...

...well, you get the idea.

So, again, given the outstanding successes of science in such a large number of other fields, how is it that the conclusions reached by the same methods in these fields are so amazingly, almost ludicrously incorrect?

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Because creationism (Young Earth type is what I'm referring to in all my uses of the term) asserts that all biological things have been on earth no more than about 6000 years. It is then feasible that remains of creatures now extinct will be found in non-fossilised states and well as fossilsed ones.

All that tells us is dinosaurs once lived in the past. It is not a test of creationism.

But you said such a prediction is not what you meant by 'putting forth testable hypotheses and a theoretical framework.' Maybe you would give me a few examples of what you have in mind?

There are none for creationism.

We have already agreed that the great majority of scientists are not creationists. We differ on whether the view of the majority must be right.

They've collectively put far far more man-hours into research and data collection and integration of studies, so their opinions are more informed.

And of course we can't forget the fact that there is no scientific theory of creationism anyway. So your whole point is somewhat meaningless.

Your comment that creationist publications are non-existant is evidently false - eg. see http://www.rae.org/crepub.html. and http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/p_jerlstrom.asp

I know that creationists publish scientific papers when they perform sound scientific studies.

e.g. (From talkorigins)

Creationists do get published in reputable peer-reviewed science journals when they do real science. For example:

* Steven A. Austin, Gordon W. Franz, and Eric G. Frost, "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." (International Geology Review 42: 657, 2000)
* Leonard Brand on the Flood deposition interpretation of Coconino Sandstone (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 28: 25-38, 1979; Geology 19: 1201-1204, 1991; Journal of Paleontology 70: 1004-1011, 1996)
* Harold G. Coffin on deposition environments of fossil trees (Journal of Paleontology 50: 539-543, 1976; Geology 11: 298-299, 1983)
* Robert Gentry on polonium haloes (American Journal of Physics, Proceedings 33: 878A, 1965; Science 184: 62-64, 1974; Science 194: 315-318, 1976)
* Grant Lambert on DNA error rates (Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 387-403, 1984)
* Jan Peckzis on mass estimates of dinosaurs (Journal of Theoretical Biology 132: 509-510, 1988; Journal of Paleontology 63: 947-950, 1989; Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 14: 520-533, 1995)
* Sigfried Scherer on ducks as a single kind (Journal für Ornithologie 123: 357-380, 1982; Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 24: 1-19, 1986)


The problem is there are no papers on creationism published. Could you find me one paper which makes the case for creationism.

The many listed articles by scientists on the creationist sites are proof of the debate. Only by refusing to acknowledge them and the books published - eg. Behe, Darwin's Black Box, can evolutionists hope to persuade the masses that evolution is the one true faith.

The lack of scientific publications of creationism is proof that there is no debate.

And Michael behe's book has been refuted.

P.S. I'll have the response to the article on abiogenesis tomorrow.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

Morbert said:

Good question. Ultimately, it would take a theological case to be established to make me reject the proposition. But I would be glad to acknowledge that creationism had no scientific case to support it if it could be showed that life can be generated from chemicals. The increase in information need for that would make the evolution of man a likely occurance.

That's of the top of my head - there may be other things but I can't think of any at the moment. The whole dating thing is always going to be open to debate as to whether the assumptions are correct. Likewise with cosmogogy.

So do we agree that creationism is not a science?

And we've been through the whole information thing before. Biological information can and does increase with evolution. This has been demonstrated.

And as for generation of life from chemicals.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

And again.... I'll point out the corrections needed in that article you gave me when I have more time on the PC

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Evolution - explains why organisms change over time. Doesn't say squat about how life arises, just how organisms change from generation to generation.

This is a very narrow conception of 'evolution'. Creationists could sign up to it.

So you are content to argue the case for 'self-replicating molecule to man' evolution, acknowledging you don't know how such a molecule could have got there to begin with. That is quite unlike any scenario I have encountered before - certainly not in the popular media presentations by Attenborough, Dawkins, etc., where the Big Bang is the starting point of their account of man.

But taking your version, can you tell me where it has been observed that any organism has fundamentally changed - a fruit-fly into a moth, for example, rather than just another sort of fruit-fly? Maybe you say, There hasn't been enough time. That at least makes your theory a bit of speculation, not the 'proven beyond reasonable doubt' science commonly claimed by evolutionists.

The hard facts of irreducible complexity, mathematical probability and the law of entrophy indicate how unlikely the macroevolution scenario really is.

wolfsbane

Whiskey Priest said:

...well, you get the idea.

So, again, given the outstanding successes of science in such a large number of other fields, how is it that the conclusions reached by the same methods in these fields are so amazingly, almost ludicrously incorrect?

I get the idea. But the issue is not about the amount of good science - the stuff creationist scientists have excelled in! - but as to why scientists who produce good science then propound rubbish science. The answer is really to do with their assumptions and attitudes. Everyone, scientists included, looks for the explanation that best suits their world-view and/or the peer pressure they face.

If the evidence is very clear, they should not be able to hold to false theories, but if it is complex, then it happens.

Now, which camp is failing to deal with their false assumptions? Here's an example from your list - genetics - to show that creationism is no foe of real science: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

wolfsbane

Mobert said:

All that tells us is dinosaurs once lived in the past. It is not a test of creationism.

No, it tells us that dinosaurs lived within the last 6000 years, completely overthrowing the evolutionary account and completely supporting the creationist account. That's a testable hypothesis in my view.

The problem is there are no papers on creationism published. Could you find me one paper which makes the case for creationism.

Would the scientific establishment publish them? Look at what happened in the Smithsonian. So creationists are left to publish and peer-review among themselves. Check the sites for the research and articles. See the TJ archive for articles and links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/archive/

And Michael behe's book has been refuted.

In your opinion. And of course, it does constitute a a 'paper on creationism' in that it disproves evolution as a mechanism for biological life.

John Doe

wolfsbane wrote:

can you tell me where it has been observed that any organism has fundamentally changed - a fruit-fly into a moth, for example, rather than just another sort of fruit-fly?

This really shows how poor your knowledge of evolution is. Evolution occurs through competition within a species. Fruit flies evolve in order to become more effective at reproducing. They are in competition with other fruit flies, not with moths. Why, oh why, would a fruit fly change into a moth? There would be no advantage whatsoever to be gained from it! There are currently in this world both fruit flies and moths. Neither is at a more advanced evolutionary stage than the other, by definition.

Imagine a fruit fly changed into a moth. According to evolution, it would have to change some aspect of itself to be more like some aspect of a moth. This would then have to result in more of its offspring surviving. The proposition that it could go on to change every single aspect of itself to that of a moth is incredibly unlikely. Maybe if fruit flies were introduced to a habitat suitable for moths but not for fruit flies this might begin to happen. More likely the flies would just die out.

As it is, because of evolution, fruit flies exist in habitats that suit fruit flies just fine, thank you very much. Why would they not? I'm sorry, this proposition is just so incredibly off base and fundamentally flawed that I can't emphasise it sufficiently. I'm sure someone else will oblige.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

So do we agree that creationism is not a science?

No, only that my belief in it is not solely based on science.

Biological information can and does increase with evolution. This has been demonstrated.

Really? You'll need to remind me of the proof.

Has God a sense of humour? Here's an interesting item I found tonight:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Cosmic nebulae usually look like blobs in space, but astronomers using the Spitzer Space Telescope reported on Wednesday they have found a nebula twisted like the double helix of DNA.

"Nobody has ever seen anything like that before in the cosmic realm," said Mark Morris of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Most nebulae are "formless, amorphous conglomerations of dust and gas," Morris said in a statement, adding that this one "indicates a high degree of order."

The discovery of the twisted nebula, which stretches across 80 light-years at the center of the Milky Way, the galaxy that includes Earth, was reported in the current edition of the journal Nature.

wolfsbane

John Doe said:

As it is, because of evolution, fruit flies exist in habitats that suit fruit flies just fine, thank you very much. Why would they not? I'm sorry, this proposition is just so incredibly off base and fundamentally flawed that I can't emphasise it sufficiently.

OK, let me phrase it better: Since evolutionary theory requires all present life to have come from lifeforms quite unlike them - man, fish, fruit-flies all coming from one common ancestor - why do we not see such change occurring today, especially in the case of short lifespan organisms?

As it is, because of evolution, fruit flies exist in habitats that suit fruit flies just fine, thank you very much. Why would they not?

Surely scientifc research would be capable of changing the enviroment to encourage evolutionary change?

John Doe

I don't know why not actually. But I can think of a few reasons that fit the bill. For one thing, recorded human history goes back a few thousand years. Evolutionary science goes back far, far less. The average lifetime of a species is six million years. It is therefore unlikely that we would be able to watch one species change into another before our eyes.

Everything is evolving in order to become more suited to its habitat. If you start from one lifeform and spread across an entire planet, you're going to end up with the same thing in a lot of different habitats and climates. Thus, you will require a lot of different versions of the same lifeform, adapting to suit conditions. When this lifeform has adapted to each place, thus becoming more than one, in fact millions of lifeforms, it doesn't need to adapt quite so much anymore. Variation within species is now sufficient to improve each generation's chance of surviving to procreate.

This could all be absolute rubbish, I don't know the actual reason, but by thinking for five minutes I've managed to come up with this possibility. It seemed fairly obvious to me. Scientific research might be able to do adjust in order to promote evolution, but it would be a spectacularly difficult process. A change in living conditions is, historically speaking, more likely to cause the extinction of a species than it is to cause a major change in the animal/plant/whatever. One can see this in the enormous amount of species that have become extinct in the planet's history. Surely you're not suggesting that scientists risk killing millions of plants/animals/whatever just to see a couple from one species change in a way that you Creationists could accept as major?

Whiskey Priest

wolfsbane wrote:

I get the idea. But the issue is not about the amount of good science - the stuff creationist scientists have excelled in! - but as to why scientists who produce good science then propound rubbish science. The answer is really to do with their assumptions and attitudes. Everyone, scientists included, looks for the explanation that best suits their world-view and/or the peer pressure they face.

If the evidence is very clear, they should not be able to hold to false theories, but if it is complex, then it happens.

Now, which camp is failing to deal with their false assumptions? Here's an example from your list - genetics - to show that creationism is no foe of real science: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/genetics.asp

In essence, then, your claim seems to be that science, at least in the areas that conflict with Creationism, does not in fact proceed in an objective, scientific way...

How is this allowed to happen? Is it tacitly accepted by other scientists outside these fields? How does one tell the good science from the bad, given there's clearly good science going on (oil is being found, genetic therapies are being used, etc)?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Because creationism (Young Earth type is what I'm referring to in all my uses of the term) asserts that all biological things have been on earth no more than about 6000 years. It is then feasible that remains of creatures now extinct will be found in non-fossilised states and well as fossilsed ones.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, it tells us that dinosaurs lived within the last 6000 years, completely overthrowing the evolutionary account and completely supporting the creationist account. That's a testable hypothesis in my view.

Well, the claim that all things lived within the Biblical timeframe is certainly a testable prediction of YEC. On the other hand, Creationists certainly did NOT offer as a prediction that unfossilised dinosaur bone would be found before it was. It is being done backwards, as all Creationist 'science' is done.

Seriously, wolfsbane, we know how old Egyptian mummies are - they're Biblical. The oldest one is dated to 3500BC, using both dating techniques and historical records - that's 5500 years, just 500 years shy of your 6000. And they just aren't fossils - they're just very very dry, with terribly leathery skin. And I'm afraid the oldest ones are naturally mummified (dried out due to being in a desert, rather than the later embalming techniques). Given most dinosaur fossils are found in deserts, we'd have found a dinosaur mummy by now. Sorry, there just aren't any - instead, 99.999% of them have been turned into rock by the passage of time.

wolfsbane wrote:

Would the scientific establishment publish them? Look at what happened in the Smithsonian. So creationists are left to publish and peer-review among themselves. Check the sites for the research and articles. See the TJ archive for articles and links: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/archive/

Yes, unfortunately, you can say the same for UFOlogists. And they too have plenty of websites showing their "research".


Scofflaw

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

The hard facts of irreducible complexity, mathematical probability and the law of entrophy indicate how unlikely the macroevolution scenario really is.

wolfsbane, are you deaf?
For the millionth time entropy isn't even applicable to evolution.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

but as to why scientists who produce good science then propound rubbish science. The answer is really to do with their assumptions and attitudes. Everyone, scientists included, looks for the explanation that best suits their world-view and/or the peer pressure they face.

Isn't it weird the way every time somebody produces rubbish science it's in an area that conflicts with biblical literalism.
I mean, what are the odds?

However wolfsbane, there are areas of science where a theory that has been useful also contradicts biblical literalism.
These theories would be both good and rubbish science by your standards.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Isn't it weird the way every time somebody produces rubbish science it's in an area that conflicts with biblical literalism.
I mean, what are the odds?

However wolfsbane, there are areas of science where a theory that has been useful also contradicts biblical literalism.
These theories would be both good and rubbish science by your standards.

Yes, it's amazing the way science can put men on the Moon, cure an amazing range of diseases, allow people on different sides of the planet to argue about Creationism, and yet completely fail to live up to this track record whenever it has to deal with anything relevant to the Bible.

It almost makes one wonder.

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Isn't it weird the way every time somebody produces rubbish science it's in an area that conflicts with biblical literalism.
I mean, what are the odds?

However wolfsbane, there are areas of science where a theory that has been useful also contradicts biblical literalism.
These theories would be both good and rubbish science by your standards.

Yes, it's amazing the way science can put men on the Moon, cure an amazing range of diseases, allow people on different sides of the planet to argue about Creationism, and yet make such gross errors whenever it has to deal with anything relevant to the Bible.

It almost makes one wonder.

amused,
Scofflaw