by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends
No you claimed there were scientific sources for young earth creationism. There are indeed sources but not scientific ones.
So far we have looked at one who has publicly denied everything he said in his book. Shall we go on? How about Henry Morris and how his so called flood geology was based on the visions of Ellen White? Are you really proposing we accept this as a "scientific" source?
To Scotsman -
I never said you did - just perhaps were ignoring some of it or perhaps unaware of the scientists who have a different view on the fossil record. There is indeed 2 sides to this story.
I don't ignore evidence, biology was my minor in college. There are two sides to the story, I have a feeling (and from talking to many people about this subject) that when you see a scientist disagreeing with evolution they are actually disagreeing with current teachings about HOW evolution took place not that it NEVER took place. For example many that talk about "Darwin's theory in trouble" quote scientists who are actually critisizing Darwin's theory that evolution was a gradual process in every case taking millions of years. From the evidence evolution can take place in both long periods and short bursts. This doesn't mean that Darwin's theory is in trouble, the basis of common ancestry is most certainly not in trouble, here's a video to illustrate what I'm talking about...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
For listing evolutionary dead ends you said...
No point - you will merely read from a book / quote a scientific paper that suggests an evolutionery process of sorts which is yet to be proven.
Or I will show you the ones that you feel are evolutionary dead ends are in fact not evolutionary dead ends at all. Can you show a trait in the animal kingdom that just spontaneously came about, or was there a very similar species that then mutated a specific trait that aided in their survival.
I usually start with your kind asking if you can explain the extra telomeres in chromosome 2 of the human genome which shows the merger of two primate chromosomes with creation in mind? Why would God use the markers for the end of chromosomes telomeres to have extra in this one chromosome in humanity to make it SEEM that they were two merged primate chromosomes if indeed he had created them from scratch. Especially since these telomeres are benign?
For JaguarBass-
The first book has been covered by cofty so I guess I'll take the second
"THe Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris
Refutation Joel Cracraft, "Systematics, Comparative Biology and the Case Against Creationism," in Laurie R. Godfrey, Scientists Confront Creationism
Your second book's ("In 6 Days Why 50 Scientist choose to believe in Creation" By John Ashton) main argument is irreducable complexity which was thoroughly dismantled in Kitzmiller v Dover (this is the bacterial flagellum theory). Here take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU
I guess I pass this off to Cofty for the next couple of books
Thats fine if you want to criticize my sources, at least that's keeping you honest. I have no problem with your criticizing them.
You said they didnt exist. They have to exist if your going to criticize them.
Everybody has the same facts we are all free to interpret them according to our agendas.
There are sources that talk about all sorts of crazy theories, hell people believe the tabloids with Bat Boy ect. Does that mean because they exist they are valid? To borrow a common thread between us, the Watchtower SAYS they teach truth, does that mean they do? Where is there evidence? Are the people who are refuting their arguments valid or simply because the Watchtower says they're right and the refutations are wrong we should ignore the refutation's evidence?
I said there are many scientific writings to support a young biblical earth.
THere are many scientific writings to support a young biblical earth.
You said no there isnt. They claim to be PHD's to me that makes them a scientist they have written books.
Just because you dont agree with their interpretations doesnt make them cease to exist.
Just because you call there literature theological doesnt mean they are not scientist and there writings are not scientific.
I think you may mean something else and your side stepping what you dont know how to put into words.
But I have been very clear and concise in my statements.
Are you trying to say that I said these authors where writing in scientific journals?
You might think that. But thats not what I said.
I gave you their books and you dont agree, fine. But there not going to disappear for you.
You seem to be smart enough to know that a scientist can not write in a scientific journal about a young earth
and creationsim and keep his job and respectability.
How can you view such a system as legitimate and honest?
Its just like the legal profession and plea bargining people will say anything to save their lives and shorten their
prison time.
Scientist will say anthing to feed their families and pay their mortgage.
If they spent 6 to 8 years on their degree their not going to risk their credibility going against the party line.
Many jobs and businesses are like that.
If you want to be an atheist power to you, you have my blessing.
They claim to be PHD's to me that makes them a scientist they have written books
I know people with Phds, one I am thinking of in particular is an idiot except for the very narrow field he wrote his esoteric thesis on. Don't accept the opinion of an engineer like Walter Brown on geology or biology - you wouldn't ask your pharmacist to do brain surgery for you would you?
Accepting or rejecting evolution is not about preference its about evidence. Please do some research on your sources, I have made a start for you - maybe tomorrow
OK I'm off ot bed (2am in UK)
You said no there isnt. They claim to be PHD's to me that makes them a scientist they have written books.
Just because you dont agree with their interpretations doesnt make them cease to exist.
Just because you call there literature theological doesnt mean they are not scientist and there writings are not scientific.
I think you may mean something else and your side stepping what you dont know how to put into words.
But I have been very clear and concise in my statements.
My brother has a PHD in English, if he wrote a book on Young Earth Creationism because he had a PHD after his name that would make him a scientist to you and also make his book a credible source for young earth creationism? Some of these authors have a PHD in engineering, or Mathematics and they're giving their arguments against the BIOLOGICAL field or Theoretical Physics, or Archeological fields. These are things the authors are not qualified to do and that is why these sources while they exist are most certainly not credible. I guess the question would be, would you accept the advice of someone who has a doctorate in Theatre to treat and cure you if you had lung cancer? Who would you rather treat you for this cancer a doctor who has studies with mounds of evidence and other doctors supporting him that happened to study at Harvard medical school or would you rather trust a doctor that studied at an uncredited university who's "cure" has no supporting evidence and is roundly ridiculed by his peers? If you said you'd trust a theatre doctor to treat you and you'd accept the treatment of the second doctor, well that's great I have an online degree and a miracle peppermint oil I can sell you for $1000 an ounce.
Their writings are what are called apologist, which they are most certainly not scientific. Scientific writings are essentially "here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them", while these books are "here is the conclusion, what evidence can we find that supports it".
You seem to be smart enough to know that a scientist can not write in a scientific journal about a young earthand creationsim and keep his job and respectability.
What, you believe that Creation Science BS from Expelled. Two words, Michael Behe. He wrote Darwin's Black Box which is considered perfectly legitimate. The arguments therein for the time were well respected by the scientific community and as a scientist Michael Behe is not roundly ridiculed. It is only since his dogmatic refusal to accept new evidence that has refuted his original position has he received criticism from the scientific community.
When a scientist writes his thoughts on theology, the document is NOT a scientific article.
The Earths Catrostophic Past, Geology, Creation and the Flood" by Andrew Snelling
OK let's look at your first witness for young earth creationism. Andrew Snelling is a hypocrite. He is a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo.
The rest of the time he is a consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.
Let me refer to one of his papers as quoted by one of his colleagues Dr Alex Ritchie
During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.
2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.
3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.
When he writes for his theological pseudo-science magazine he never makes mention of his acceptance of "millions of years". When he writes peer reviewed papers he never owns up to his young earth creationism.
Dr Ritchie concludes..
One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?
Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.
Shall we go on to look at the rest of your "sources"?
One thing that I have found interesting is the facts that evolutionists always, always engage in source attacks whenever any non-evolutionist resource is recommended (or even referenced) be it website or book.
The evolutionist who haven't read the publications will always do a "search" and immediately paste any neagtive info that they can find.
Evolutionists simply can't tolerate anyone actually reading any publications against their belief system.
They will consistently "review" books without reading then and try to dimiss them as "lies", or refer to other evolutionists reviews (that they haven't read, and dogmatically pronounce the non-evolutionary literature to have been "refuted"). Its also interesting since when they recommend pro-evo. resources the non-evolutionists usually don't behave in the same way.
These kind of consistenently employed tactics are one reason confirming to me anyway that the embrace of evolution is usually due to non-evidence based reasons.
For a response to the above ad hominem regarding Snelling see: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp
LOL
If God is the absolute alpha - ie nothing came before Him and he therefore always was - what did He do with Himself for the eternity that preceeded His momentous act of creation? If we suppose He created all the other supernatural beings before He decided to set off the Big Bang, even if He did that trillions of years before, then what did He do with Himself the trillions upon trillions of years before that? Did He just float around keeping Himself company?
The unliklihood of a supreme being having created the universe goes immediately to the unliklihood of the existence of a supreme being in the first instance. Chicken and egg all over again.
This 'chicken and egg' applies to what came before the universe also. Nothing, nothing, nothing... then something. How?
Perhaps the universe was always here, or another universe was before it, or before it... but still it all comes down to where did it start? Something was eternal... something was always here. Perhaps there was no 'time' as we know it, but God simply was ? I don't think we can fully grasp eternity - no beginning and no end - because we all had a beginning.
Tammy
For JaguarBass-
The first book has been covered by cofty so I guess I'll take the second
"THe Genesis Flood" by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris
Refutation Joel Cracraft, "Systematics, Comparative Biology and the Case Against Creationism," in Laurie R. Godfrey, Scientists Confront Creationism
See my previous post.
Your second book's ("In 6 Days Why 50 Scientist choose to believe in Creation" By John Ashton) main argument is irreducable complexity which was thoroughly dismantled in Kitzmiller v Dover (this is the bacterial flagellum theory). Here take a look:
Its obvious that you haven't read the "in 6 days book". Thanks for the "review" though. (see previous comments)
B.T.W. I've actually read a good part of it. It doesn't have a specific "main argument" at all. Here it is: http://creation.com/in-six-days/
As I said before:
One thing that I have found interesting is the facts that evolutionists always, always engage in source attacks whenever any non-evolutionist resource is recommended (or even referenced) be it website or book.
The evolutionist who haven't read the publications will always do a "search" and immediately paste any neagtive info that they can find.
Evolutionists simply can't tolerate anyone actually reading any publications against their belief system.
