http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
hooberus, I'm so proud of you. You managed to paste a link from a site other than Answers in Genesis. Well done! A real pity you didn't seem to understand much of it, but it's a start!
What is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design?
by somebodylovesme 87 Replies latest jw friends
-
funkyderek
-
Abaddon
ID is a trojan horse for creationistic psedo-scienece.
I mean, how can so many people be fooled by something that falsifies its own premise by its definition?
As has been pointed out, it complex designs require intelligent designers then intelligent designers require intelligent designers.
This seems to establish ID as a rather dishonest form of Creationism. It seeks credibility through crude decepetion so that Creationistic pseduoscience can be inserted in curriculums.
The insertion of what is essentially theologically based teaching into school curriculums is a well know social and political agenda of many Christian fundamentalists.
It's an old trick.
In the UK they got rid of a nuclear power station simply by renameing it. Windscale, with its appalling safety record, became Sellafield. Different name, same thing, same people, same problems, different PR. Fooled loads of people.
The National Front turned into the British National Party. Different name, same thing, same people, same problems, different PR. Fooled loads of people.
-
hooberus
AIG's views on the Intelligent design movement
-
Abaddon
Hi hooberus
As you've been spending time on AiG, I hope you will have at long last had the time to prepre the defence of the bad science and mnisrepresentation I have pointed out on that website in the past.
Or will you just carry on quoting from it regardless of the quality of infiormation it supplies?
-
hooberus
Below (the line) is one of your examples from another thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/50144/1.ashx
____________________________________________________________________________________
What I don't like to see is stuff like this
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v25n2_sisters.asp
For these rocks, long-age geologists have assigned an age of around 230 million years based on their fossil content and their relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region. Recently, a creationist geologist measured the carbon-14 content of a piece of wood found in a quarry in the overlying Hawkesbury Sandstone. 7 Long-age geologists wouldn't bother analyzing for carbon-14 because they believe the rock is 230 million years old. All carbon-14 should have disappeared by 50,000 years, at the most. There should be no carbon-14 left. However, the analysis confirmed a small but significant amount of carbon-14 in the wood-clear evidence that the sandstone is less than 50,000 years old. The small level of carbon-14 does not reflect an age, but rather the low concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere before the Flood (carbon-14 has been building up since the Flood).
The first section highlighed red is appalling; readers are being asked to link the age of a lump of wood found in a quarry with geological features. There is no linkage. To me this is more than bad science, it's almost dishonest. The second highlighed section is not supported by any reasonable interpretation of the evidenece given. The third section I would LOVE to see the proof of.
-
hooberus
Lets look at your points:
The first section highlighed red is appalling; readers are being asked to link the age of a lump of wood found in a quarry with geological features. There is no linkage. To me this is more than bad science, it's almost dishonest.
Your first section highlighted ends with a footnote (# 7). Here it is:
Snelling, A.A., Dating dilemma: fossil wood in ?ancient? sandstone, Creation 21(3):39?41, 1999. Return to text.
clicking on the revelant arcticle link ("Dating dilemma") takes us to this arcticle and information:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp
The Hawkesbury Sandstone has been assigned a Middle Triassic ?age? of around 225?230 million years by most geologists.1 , 6 , 7 This is based on its fossil content, and on its relative position in the sequence of rock layers in the region (the Sydney Basin). All of these are placed in the context of the long ages timescale commonly assumed by geologists.
Fossil wood sample
Because of its hardness and durability, the Hawkesbury Sandstone not only provides a solid foundation for downtown Sydney?s skyscrapers, but is an excellent building material. A number of Sydney?s old buildings have walls of sandstone blocks. Today, the Hawkesbury Sandstone is mainly used for ornamental purposes.
To obtain fresh sandstone, slabs and blocks have to be carefully quarried. Several quarries still operate in the Gosford area just north of Sydney, and one near Bundanoon to the south-west.
In June 1997 a large finger-sized piece of fossil wood was discovered in a Hawkesbury Sandstone slab just cut from the quarry face at Bundanoon (see photo, right).8 Though reddish-brown and hardened by petrifaction, the original character of the wood was still evident. Identification of the genus is not certain, but more than likely it was the forked-frond seed-fern Dicroidium, well known from the Hawkesbury Sandstone.2 , 7 The fossil was probably the wood from the stem of a frond.
So why then do you claim:
The first section highlighed red is appalling; readers are being asked to link the age of a lump of wood found in a quarry with geological features. There is no linkage. To me this is more than bad science, it's almost dishonest.
-
Abaddon
Yes, that's ONE example. I assure you there are more. Here's more info on that lump of 'wood';
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_5.html
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/crefaqs.htm#who
Here's the text of correspondence quoted in the second of the above links;
From: Alex Cherkinsky[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:58:55 PM
To: Meert Joe
Subject: Re: Some questions
Dear Joe
I remember this sample very well. So they called it "wood'? It wasn't wood at all and more looked like the iron concretion with the structures lightly similar to wood. I have told about that to submitter, but anyway they wanted to date the sample. I think maybe this concretion was formed significantly later than Triassic period and I do not think that is a very rare case when you can find younger formation in the old deposits especially if it is sand or sandstones which could be easy infiltrated with oil solutions. If you have more questions please let me know.
Best regards.
Dr.Alexander Cherkinsky
Radiocarbon Lab ManagerIt seems you use a web site that will claim something is a piece of wood when the company employed to date it says it isn't. They don't mention it. You would call equivalent behaviour in a scientist you disagree with (i.e. an evolutionist) 'dishonest' or 'deceitful'.
Look, you can come up with 'falsifications' of evolution or 'proofs' of the flood that I, Derek, Alan, or one of the other posters that know stuff about evolution can knock away into the long grass where they belong, or we can eviscerate various Creationist and ID theories as we come accross them.
The end result is the same. Time and time again Creationism and ID are shown to reply upon pseudoscience at the best, ignorance as a norm, and deception at the worst.
Show me one discussion about Creationism where one of these outcomes hasn't been the conclusion.
-
hooberus
The second highlighed section is not supported by any reasonable interpretation of the evidenece given.
If the wood is less than 50,000 years old, then the sandstone should also be. This is because the wood would probably be an inclusion in the sandstone and inclusions are older than the surrounding matrix. This is why inclusions are used to generate maximum ages.
-
hooberus
The following arcticle discusses issues related to the wood sample and charges against creationists regarding this matter:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp
-
Abaddon
hooberus, when you're defending something it's wise to check what you're defending it against. You are so sure that you can rely upon the honesty and scientific knowledge of the people involved that you completely fail to defend this AIG claim from what is wrong with it.
It's not wood, the finder and AIG chappie Andrew Snelling was alerted to this
Read the second link I provided. It's educational. There's a bit you should really consider
This is another excellent example of supposed 'creation science'. All creation science is reactionary. There is no creation model and there is no original research aimed at establishing a creation model. Creationists, like Snelling, rely on a false dichotomy and conclude that if evolution is wrong, then their narrow misinterpretation of Genesis is correct.