The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

> My scientific friends beg to differ, and observing the desire to suppress
> debate amonsgt the evolutionist camp, I reckon they I'll stick to them.

Ach, wolfsbane, could you give up the "debate suppression" line, please? You do not promote your viewpoint when your best response to any criticism is that all we want to do is to suppress debate (hello, can you see what's going on *here*?), or that we're The Establishment, or some other bromide?

I'd also like you, please, to confirm where your "scientific friends" received their qualifications, and what they received them in and what contribution they've made in their respective areas. From your descriptions of them so far, I have considerable doubts about their competency.

> The scientists who hold to YEC are every bit as qualified as those who do not.

We are not arguing whether or not their qualifications were received fairly or not. We are pointing out -- with ample evidence for those who wish to read it -- that what they write is stupid.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Belief has very little to do with science. You can believe what ever you wish. Science's position is "we don't know", which is the only valid scientific position. Anything else is just a guess.

Glad to hear it. If only such modesty characterized the scientific establishment. But they 'know' so much about historical processes, they do not merely speculate. This from the University of Michigan,THE BIG BANG: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm If you sit and try to imagine the whole of the entire universe it would be mind-boggling. However, science has now told us that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. It is easy to get caught up in the large scale of the issue in discussing years by the billions, yet, this time still passes. As we travel through our own lives here on Earth, we also travel through the life of our universe. (emphasis mine).

But see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/bigbang.asp

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

In your opinion, with your understanding, with your bias and insecurities. My scientific friends beg to differ, and observing the desire to suppress debate amonsgt the evolutionist camp, I reckon they I'll stick to them.

Er, wolfsbane, I hate to mention it, but what exactly do you mean by "debate"? There are scientists arguing with Creationists all across the Internet, and in public lectures, in the media, etc...what exactly are you looking for if that isn't debate?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

We are not arguing whether or not their qualifications were received fairly or not. We are pointing out -- with ample evidence for those who wish to read it -- that what they write is stupid.

Actually, more "what they write on Creationism is stupid". Several Creationists have published mainstream scientific articles which use ordinary evolutionist assumptions. While these are not generally anything to set the world alight, they are perfectly respectable scientific articles/publications. Only when the Creationist writes something on Creationism does their scientific judgement need to be laid aside, because it conflicts with more important beliefs.

On that note, would any of our Creationists care to say "if the evidence contradicted the Bible even in the smallest thing, I would gladly lay aside my belief in God, because a God lacking evidentiary support is clearly a manmade fabrication"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Diogenes said:

Now you don't know mankind lived to the age of 700, but you believe it. And in your attempt to make others believe it you're dragging in actual science to support it, to try and legitimise creationism by proxy

You cannot prove your first assertion the mankind used to have a life expectancy of 700 hundred years. Speculating as to why it occured and trying to figure out why the life expectancy was truncated is just a clever ruse by creationists. By asking us to consider how people's life expectancy was cut down, they're planting the nugget of the idea that people did live to be 700. And this is how creationism will get in, tiny nuggets, tiny factiods, slowly and surely eating away, and this is why stuff that you are spouting needs to challenged.

I'm responding to a report (it is true I believe that report, but that is incidental). I now ask if there is any mechanism that could account for the phenomenon. So I'm guilty of some slight of hand! Given that the premise is a global Flood, I don't think an argument about how longevity could be shortened would entrap anyone. Sounds very paranoid to me. Make sure you keep taking the tablets.;)

Considering someone is basing his argument on a book and some pretend scientists backing it up

That just proves you know nothing of the debate. There is nothing pretend about these scientists. You may disagree with their conclusions, but they are every bit as much scientists as any of the rest.

Don't let your ignorance or paranoia blind you to the possibility that you may be wrong.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

However, science has now told us that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. It is easy to get caught up in the large scale of the issue in discussing years by the billions, yet, this time still passes. As we travel through our own lives here on Earth, we also travel through the life of our universe. [/I] (emphasis mine).

But see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/bigbang.asp

And the difference between the two is:
One has support from satellites in near-Erath orbit. The other has nothing, it is just polemic.
And I've read the book. I makes at least two errors that show a lack of knowledge of basic calculus, so it's not exactly an excellent scientific test.

I seriously don't understand how you think there is equal merit here.
Answers in Genesis just says "The Big Bang is wrong, look at this book".
Where as mainstream science has actually done experiments.
How do you think they are scientifically equal?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Is your theory that this relates to an increase in casual sex? Has there actually been such a rise in casual sex in the last decade? I don't recall 1995 as particularly un-permissive myself...

Not sure. Maybe a greater recklessness; a binge sex-life to accompany the binge-drink culture? Both combined leading to less condom use? Maybe a cumulative effect - the number of infected cases rising making the new infected rapidly increase even with the same amount of sexual activity?

Not really. Japan, which is the source of the animated stuff, has actually gone the other way, reducing the availability of real paedophilic pornography. Gateway arguments are terribly easy to make, and always sound like they make sense, but I can't remember any of them that turned out to actually hold up on examination.

I hear you. But it is worth keeping an eye on. For example, here's something I first heard of Sunday last: Dutch court lets paedophile party contest country's general election
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1822972,00.html#article_continue

As ever, applying the same standards to God that we apply to our fellow humans produces results we might call "discordant".

I agree. A big mistake to equate the two.

Diogenes

wolfsbane wrote:

Diogenes said:



I'm responding to a report (it is true I believe that report, but that is incidental).

Which report?

I now ask if there is any mechanism that could account for the phenomenon. So I'm guilty of some slight of hand!

Understatement of the millenium.

Given that the premise is a global Flood, I don't think an argument about how longevity could be shortened would entrap anyone. Sounds very paranoid to me. Make sure you keep taking the tablets.;)

:rolleyes: That there was a global Flood is a hypothesis, and it's timing has been very effectively ridiculed on this thread. How would this stripping of our atmospheric protection to cosmic radiation have occured? Shouldn't we see evidence of the mass deaths and wastage to flora and fauna in the fossil record?

I could keep going along the above tagent and you'd keep offering more and more outlandish comments, however I'd just be doing what you want to make this debate about, to discuss the scientific merits of how something you cannot prove in the first place (mankind used to live to age 700) was effected by something you cannot prove happend in the second place (cosmic radiation effected our lifespan reducing it 10fold ish)

That just proves you know nothing of the debate. There is nothing pretend about these scientists. You may disagree with their conclusions, but they are every bit as much scientists as any of the rest.

I've followed the debate throughly. Read the entire thread. Most of the articles and scientists you quote and drop in to support your claims rarly bother with peer review or any of the other rigours of real scientists. Oh I'm sure you'll hold up one or two examples that defy the curve of what you are posting, but whats that saying about Swallows and Summer? :rolleyes:

Don't let your ignorance or paranoia blind you to the possibility that you may be wrong.

And don't let your blind faith obscure the fact that this is pseudo science nothing more nothing less

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

And the difference between the two is:
One has support from satellites in near-Erath orbit. The other has nothing, it is just polemic.
And I've read the book. I makes at least two errors that show a lack of knowledge of basic calculus, so it's not exactly an excellent scientific test.

I seriously don't understand how you think there is equal merit here.
Answers in Genesis just says "The Big Bang is wrong, look at this book".
Where as mainstream science has actually done experiments.
How do you think they are scientifically equal?

Was I arguing anything about scientific equality? Was I not making the point about the scientific establishment often expressing itself with certainty when it should admit it is speculating? The two articles illustrated that.

The AiG quote was from Nobel physicist Leon Ledermann. Here it is again: [referring to cosmological speculations like the big bang in science books and articles] “When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up.” Do you have a problem with him?

robindch

> actually, more "what they write on Creationism is stupid".

I counter with "what they write on evolution is stupid", consisting as it sadly does, of lies, evasions, misdirections, misquotes, ad-hominems and other infelicities. In fact, they contain just about everything except original research or original thought. AiG's marketing budget simply can't stretch to either, I suppose.

What these fine men -- where are all the women creationist "scientists"? -- write on creationism is, as our eminently qualified cosmologist (?) Son Goku has pointed out, just a series of tediously-formatted polemics, intended to baffle the well-meaning folk who keep the creationists in business.

More on arising divisions within the creationist camp soon, btw. It appears that AiG suffered its first major schism recently, while a well-known YEC arch-rival is currently helping federal investigators with their enquiries concerning a series of fraud allegations and planning irregularities. So much for creationist unity and morality, it seems!

robindch

> Was I not making the point about the scientific establishment often
> expressing itself with certainty when it should admit it is speculating?

Hmmm.... that's a bit ironic coming from somebody who believes (as I assume you do) that god manifests himself in biscuit-form every sunday morning!

.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Young earth theories are not considered these days because there is no evidence for them. They are simply made up by Creationists who refuse to accept modern science because it conflicts with their religous book.

The creationist scientists offer the the evidence, but establishment science refuses to debate it with them, refusing to publish their papers and ostracizing those evolutionist scientists who would permit such professional debate. The only debate is on the web or in the public debating arena.

It is actually the Creationists who refuse to consider the evidence, not the other way around.

Evolutionists throw it up, creationists will critique it. Look at the creationist sites.

Nope, refusal because there is no evidence (please don't quote AnswersInGenesis again, being anti-bible is not evidence)

Are you ignorant of the multitude of scientific arguments creationism uses, or are you just trying a smear? See, for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Was I arguing anything about scientific equality? Was I not making the point about the scientific establishment often expressing itself with certainty when it should admit it is speculating? The two articles illustrated that.

It's not speculating, there is enough evidence so that it is not speculation.
However I'm actually asking a question independantly of what you said. Do you actually think there is equal amounts of cosmological evidence for Creationism and the Big Bang theory?

wolfsbane wrote:

The AiG quote was from Nobel physicist Leon Ledermann. Here it is again: [referring to cosmological speculations like the big bang in science books and articles] “When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up.” Do you have a problem with him?

No, but as ever AiG is quoting him out of context. He is talking about Pop Science books painting a false picture of things by going easy on the reader, not that Cosmologists is largely make things up.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Hmmm.... that's a bit ironic coming from somebody who believes (as I assume you do) that god manifests himself in biscuit-form every sunday morning!

Firstly, certainty is consistent with religion. Finding it so prominent in establishment science just confirms it too is a religion - 'scientism'.

Secondly, no, Baptists are like the rest of their Evangelical brethren, no worshippers of wafer-gods. Christ physically is in Heaven, at His Father's right hand, waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool. He is present with His people by the Holy Spirit, whom He sent to care for us until He returns.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Matter's "creation", must have been atemporal therefore.

a·tem·po·ral
adj.
Independent of time; timeless. Right. Matter has always been, but time had a beginning. I think that is the other hand clapping.

Infact it doesn't even go against Creationism, so I really don't understand what you're saying here.

Yes, is does sound a bit like what we say of God. He always was. But matter came into existence at a certain time.

But that's the point: given theism's premise, it makes sense. Given materialism's premise, it is illogical - and very unscientific.

robindch

> certainty is consistent with religion. Finding it so prominent in
> establishment science just confirms it too is a religion

Well, let's take a look at this claim of yours then, shall we? From the last TO article posted to this forum, we find the following:

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.

I've highlighted in bold the bits which refute the claim you make that science claims to provide the final answers to everything. I could produce many more sites saying exactly the same thing, even my own small contribution here, but I trust you get the point. Do you accept it?

Also, just because you view the world as black and white and full of other people's believed-infallible, but faulty, religions, doesn't mean that it actually is. Likewise, some people's conclusions are provisional and open to revision -- see above -- and not finalized and closed, like yours.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Ach, wolfsbane, could you give up the "debate suppression" line, please? You do not promote your viewpoint when your best response to any criticism is that all we want to do is to suppress debate (hello, can you see what's going on *here*?), or that we're The Establishment, or some other bromide?

You want us to pretend the Smithsonian incident didn't happen? That papers are refused only on the basis that they are not scientific? Waken up. It may suit you at the moment for those you disagree with to be suppressed, but remember the adage from the 1930s: They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew... Recognise censorship when you see it. Recognise propaganda when it is blared out. Recognise the abuse of power in time, for your time will come too if you ignore it.

I'd also like you, please, to confirm where your "scientific friends" received their qualifications, and what they received them in and what contribution they've made in their respective areas. From your descriptions of them so far, I have considerable doubts about their competency.

Here's a list of PhD scientists. Their bios should tell you what you want. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

As to those personally know to me, here is one (bios from two articles):
Edgar Andrews, BSc, PhD, DSc, FIM, CEng, CPhys, is Emeritus Professor of Material Science in the University of London, having retired in September 1998. He set up the Department of Materials at Queen Mary and Westfield College in 1968 and became its first Head. He is an international expert in the science of large molecules and has published over one hundred scientific books and research papers. He is President of the Biblical Creation Society and also the author of several theological works and books on science and evolution.

Edgar Andrews, BSc, Ph.D., DSc, FInstP, FIM, CEng, CPhys.
(Born 1932). Chemist. Emeritus Professor of Materials Science, University of London.

Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., Welwyn Garden City, England, technical officer, 1953-55; Rubber Producers’ Research Association, Welwyn Garden City, senior physicist, 1955-63; University of London, Queen Mary College, London, England, reader, 1963-68, Professor of materials, 1968-present. Chartered engineer. Director of Evangelical Press and QMC-Industrial Research Ltd.; chairman of Clarendon School Trust, 1975-81; consultant to Dow Chemical Co.

Education: University of London, B.Sc., 1953, Ph.D., 1960, D.Sc., 1968.

Author: Chemistry and Physics of Rubberlike Substances, 1963; Fracture in Polymers (monograph), 1968; Is Evolution Scientific?, 1977; From Nothing to Nature (A Young People’s Guide to Evolution and Creation), 1978; (ed. and co-author) Developments in Polymer Fracture, 1979; The Promise of the Spirit, 1982; Christ and the Cosmos, 1986; Free in Christ (commentary), 1996; A Glorious High Throne, 2003. Is Evolution Scientific? and From Nothing to Nature have been published in Swedish, and the latter book is being translated into Norwegian. Contributor of more than eighty articles and reviews to scientific journals throughout the world.

Honors: A. A. Griffith Silver Medal from Materials Science Club of Great Britain, 1977, for published works on fracture.

“Truth is a unity, and this is my basic approach to science and religion. Biblical revelation must be compatible with genuine scientific discovery, but revelation must take precedence since human enquiry is flawed by human nature. The Bible makes it clear that God is sovereign in creation, providence, and the personal salvation of the soul through faith in Jesus Christ.

“In my scientific research I am concerned mainly with understanding the phenomena of interest. Although much of my work is applied (i.e., engineering) science, I am still a physicist at heart, seeking to reveal by research the excellent harmony of nature and its unity as expressed by the laws of science.”

Source: Contemporary Authors Online. The Gale Group, 2001.

Edgar Andrews. “TEACHING THE TRUTH ABOUT EVOLUTION,” http://www.churchsociety.org/publications/leaflets/Leaf_Andrews_Teaching.pdf

Edgar Andrews. “MAN: CREATED OR EVOLVED?” http://www.globalchurchofgod.co.uk/Keepers%20Brother.doc

We are not arguing whether or not their qualifications were received fairly or not. We are pointing out -- with ample evidence for those who wish to read it -- that what they write is stupid.

That is the debate, whether they or you are writing stupid science. From the abuse I've seen on this list and in the anti-creationist sites, I'm strengthened in my confidence in the creationist case. Truth can express a bit of ridicule from time to time, but error needs to hid behind abuse and shout loudly lest anyone searching hear what creationism is saying.

Keep it up, it is a good signpost to where the truth really is.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

The creationist scientists offer the the evidence, but establishment science refuses to debate it with them

They don't refuse to debate with them, they debate with them all the time. Any time a Creationists brings out another wacky idea 10 proper scientists step up to point out the flaws and nonsense in the argument.

wolfsbane wrote:

, refusing to publish their papers

Scientific papers are not published until they can be shown to be soild through peer review. The biggest problem Creation Science has is that it has failed misterablly to convince the rest of the scientific community that they are actually on to something real. Why? Because they aren't.

wolfsbane wrote:

The only debate is on the web or in the public debating arena.

Where all the other nut job ideas are ... you want to know who killed Kennedy??

wolfsbane wrote:

Are you ignorant of the multitude of scientific arguments creationism uses, or are you just trying a smear?

These aren't scientific arguments.

If there was no God I think this should be like this, because it isn't that proves there is a god This is not a scientific argument.

wolfsbane wrote:

See, for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genetics.asp

[/quote]
This is what I'm talking about. The only way Humphrey's points stand is if you ignore huge portions of already well established science.

That, I would imagine, is what he is hoping for, that the people reading that page will be rather uneducated in matters of astrophysics or geology and think to themselves "umm, that kinda makes sense".

This is the disservice to science, to truth. Humphrey's is deliberatly leaving out large sections of established scientific study to make his points seem more plausable, so the uneducated masses will lap this cr@p up. His interest is not in educating people to the truth of the universe, but convincing them of his religous position, which he can't actually back up in normal scientific methods.

robindch

> Recognise the abuse of power in time, for your time will come too if you
> ignore it.

Jeez, take it easy. All we're discussing here is some ideas about what happens when a nucleic acid changes over time. This isn't a religion, you know...

> You want us to pretend the Smithsonian incident didn't happen?

I want you to substantiate your serious claim that there is systemic supression of information. The smithsonian incident, as has been explained to you long ago, was the fault of an editor who ignored a publication's guidelines for review and was correctly rapped for doing so. More info here.

I would also like you to list your "scientific friends", who (by your own admission) control your view of science, and who have carried out original, peer-reviewed, published research in biology and might, you'll agree, be in a position to be able to comment upon the suppression of information in peer-reviewed, published research in biology. I am not interested in materials scientists, excellent people though I'm sure they are (though, you may like to ask them about suppression of research in their fields. In my own two years studying material science, I was certainly unaware of it).

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

But that's the point: given theism's premise, it makes sense. Given materialism's premise, it is illogical - and very unscientific.

Explain how it is. Unless you explain how it is unscientific, then that's simply an assertion.

wolfsbane wrote:

You want us to pretend the Smithsonian incident didn't happen? That papers are refused only on the basis that they are not scientific? Waken up. It may suit you at the moment for those you disagree with to be suppressed, but remember the adage from the 1930s: They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew... Recognise censorship when you see it. Recognise propaganda when it is blared out. Recognise the abuse of power in time, for your time will come too if you ignore it.

:rolleyes:
Take the statement "the world is 6,000 to 10,000", it isn't a theistic statement. Yet nobody outside very fundamentalist christianity has ever honestly looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that the world's age is anywhere in that range.
I can understand why you say this stuff, but you have to understand you sound mad to most when you compare anything to the holocaust.
It's a cheap, intellectual lazy, emotive trick that gets you out of making an actual argument.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Not sure. Maybe a greater recklessness; a binge sex-life to accompany the binge-drink culture? Both combined leading to less condom use? Maybe a cumulative effect - the number of infected cases rising making the new infected rapidly increase even with the same amount of sexual activity?

Possibly the case - sort of a "disposable lifestyle" effect? Interesting to see the figures for Ireland, which one would take to be a little way behind the UK.

wolfsbane wrote:

I hear you. But it is worth keeping an eye on. For example, here's something I first heard of Sunday last: Dutch court lets paedophile party contest country's general election
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1822972,00.html#article_continue

Mmm. Yes, I saw that. I've also seen a fair amount of analysis which suggests that it actually is a couple of nutcases blown out of all proportion by the media. Frankly, I'd take it more seriously if it were in Belgium.

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree. A big mistake to equate the two.

I will always allow a theist that opt-out!

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

robindch said:
You want us to pretend the Smithsonian incident didn't happen? That papers are refused only on the basis that they are not scientific? Waken up. It may suit you at the moment for those you disagree with to be suppressed, but remember the adage from the 1930s: They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew... Recognise censorship when you see it. Recognise propaganda when it is blared out. Recognise the abuse of power in time, for your time will come too if you ignore it.

Really this is pathetic, you do your best to show that your beliefs are scientific you post up half of the AiG website as gospel truth, ignore or misunderstand actual science and then whinge that its all a big conspiracy. You cannot seem to accept that you might just be wrong. If this is your attitude then you will continue in your dissonance no matter how much evidence in planted in front of you.

“Truth is a unity, and this is my basic approach to science and religion. Biblical revelation must be compatible with genuine scientific discovery, but revelation must take precedence since human enquiry is flawed by human nature. The Bible makes it clear that God is sovereign in creation, providence, and the personal salvation of the soul through faith in Jesus Christ.

This doesn't mean he's right. Why must religion and science be compatible?
Why must revelation take precedence? There are no logical reaons given here, there are no reasons at all. As a result its just the opinion of some religous guy and is not a proper rational arguement.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is the debate, whether they or you are writing stupid science.

No the debate is whether creationism can even think about calling itself a science. Its not even stupid science its just a bunch of religious nuts trying to justify their irrational beliefs by grabbing hold of anything that sounds remotely scientific and claiming it is rock solid science. So stop the poor repressed creation science arguement, it just shows the childish and shamefully self promoting attutide of a minority intent on censoring actual science. You have been given every oppertuntiy here to prove your views and everyone of them have been instantly shot down with scientific evidence and logic.

Scofflaw

Wolfsbane, I hope you'll allow me to ask my question specifically of you? If I were able to present you with evidence (that you had to accept) that contradicted the Bible, and that simply could not be explained away, would you abandon God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

That is the debate, whether they or you are writing stupid science. From the abuse I've seen on this list and in the anti-creationist sites, I'm strengthened in my confidence in the creationist case. Truth can express a bit of ridicule from time to time, but error needs to hid behind abuse and shout loudly lest anyone searching hear what creationism is saying.

Again, purely as a matter of interest, how many secular young earth sites are there? No ties to religion, but arguing for a young earth?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Son Goku wrote:

Yet nobody outside very fundamentalist christianity has ever honestly looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that the world's age is anywhere in that range.

Thats a good point.

If the western scientists were so wrong in their dating, surely non-christian scientists from other areas of the world, Asia, communist Russia etc would have pointed this out by now.

If the world is really only 6000 years old this is realitively simple to discover. A YEC can claim that western science is anti-Biblical and suppressing the truth, but what about science from areas where Christianity isn't even the main religion. Why are they coming up with the same 4 billion year old date?

The reality is no one but Young Earth Creationists has ever studied the evidence and come up with a 6000 years date, or anything near that. This would lead one to believe that Young Earth Creationists have made a mistake.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Truth can express a bit of ridicule from time to time, but error needs to hid behind abuse and shout loudly lest anyone searching hear what creationism is saying.

Which is why YEC sites such as AiG spend 99% of their time attacking normal science, rather than putting forward an actual scientific argument.

They figure if they can confuse enough people who don't really understand advance science they can slip in their theories without anyone noticing that they are nonsense.

This is why you will find YEC are very unwilling to actually debate their theory of a Young Earth, instead perferring to spent their time attacking established theories of Old Earth (created or otherwise). This is because the YEC theory doesn't actually hold up under any scrutiny. There are so many holes in it it is hard to know where to begin. I'm not a historian or a scientist but it was easy to show that there wasn't a Biblical Flood in 2300 BCE in two posts. If you lose your Biblical Flood you lose the YEC justification for pretty much everything we see on Earth, from oil deposits to the Grand Canon.

You believe proper scientists don't seriously consider YEC theories. In fact they do, for about 30 seconds, and realise that they are nonsense. It is easy to realise they are nonsense, in an instant. They then get back to proper science.

robindch

> You believe proper scientists don't seriously consider YEC theories. In
> fact they do, for about 30 seconds, and realise that they are nonsense.
> It is easy to realise they are nonsense, in an instant. They then get
> back to proper science.

Yes, but how much time do scientists have to fritter away countering the fertile potting compost of shameless self-promoters like Ham, his marketing departments and his thousands of me-toos? How many hours are wasted by teachers each year answering the same ten scripted questions that students have been instructed to ask by their self-appointed religious "leaders", when the students could instead have been actually have been thinking for themselves instead? (btw, it's interesting to see that the questions are copyrighted -- what level of hypocrisy is too great for these clowns?) When did the US's "National Center for Science Education" have to dig itself in as "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools", rather getting on with its actual job of promoting science in general?

Why don't creationists have the courage of their convictions and live without the products of the science that they reject -- things like computers, transport, modern medicine, food, etc, etc, etc? Is it that they are simply too selfish? And too dumb to make a contribution to science anwyay?

.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

How many hours are wasted by teachers each year answering the same ten scripted questions that students have been instructed to ask by their self-appointed religious "leaders", when the students could instead have been actually have been thinking for themselves instead? (btw, it's interesting to see that the questions are copyrighted -- what level of hypocrisy is too great for these clowns?) When did the US's "National Center for Science Education" have to dig itself in as "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools", rather getting on with its actual job of promoting science in general?

Why don't creationists have the courage of their convictions and live without the products of the science that they reject -- things like computers, transport, modern medicine, food, etc, etc, etc? Is it that they are simply too selfish? And too dumb to make a contribution to science anwyay?

.

I remember my poor Junior Cert science teacher having to deal with a particularly smart arse student back in school.

The student wanted to know how we can be sure atoms are there if we can't "see" them with a microscope. God love my teacher, but he obviously had no idea how to answer the question, he kept saying "but you don't need to be able to see it to know its there", which unforunately for him came across as him not knowing the answer.

My class mate took this as some kind of acknowledgement that she has discovered a serious flaw in modern science :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I remember my poor Junior Cert science teacher having to deal with a particularly smart arse student back in school.

The student wanted to know how we can be sure atoms are there if we can't "see" them with a microscope. God love my teacher, but he obviously had no idea how to answer the question, he kept saying "but you don't need to be able to see it to know its there", which unforunately for him came across as him not knowing the answer.

My class mate took this as some kind of acknowledgement that she has discovered a serious flaw in modern science :rolleyes:

I'm sure there's a proverb somewhere that covers the delight of the stupid when they have fooled themselves into thinking they've found a hole in the theories of the smart. Perhaps a really gnomic Chinese one, or Armenian?

Or Biblical:

Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Bible, Proverbs 26:4 (NIV)

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [...]the same ten scripted questions that students have
> been instructed to ask by their self-appointed religious "leaders" [...]

Before any creationist me-too's Well's questions, the NCSE has provided brief point-by-point answers to each one here, with a much more extensive point-by-point reply and rebuttal here.

The original questions are internationally coprighted by the creationist Wells, while the answers from the scientists are free. I wonder if any of our creationist colleagues find it curious that this creationist seems to be more interested in money than knowledge?