Well, at least they let you know when you're leaving the web site so you can turn down the gain on your bullshit filter...
What is the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design?
by somebodylovesme 87 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
hooberus
Here are your original 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. 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.
Lets deal with these please.
-
Abaddon
hooberus
My original points?
What, that AiG exemplifies bad science and decietful presentation of data in pursuit of an agenda?
Do you really want to have a discussion over my original phrasing when the additonal data I have supplied is about exactly the same claim made by AiG? Is it you feel you have mileage to gain on my original phrasing and would rather avoid discussiong the more detailed data as you have no hope of defending AiG against that?
So, even if the AiG data is wrong, if I don't say it right yoiu'd rather argue over that?
Don't make me laugh...
Well, I think the correspondence over the alleged wood is a great example. The firm that dated it thought it was a rock. There is no mention of this in, for example, the page on AiG on the Three Sisters. You would find that in a mainstream scientemention is made of any credible doubts about the nature of a find.
For example, most papers supporting an 'Out-of-Africa' model make mention of the multi-regional model, and vica-versa, and actually consider the relative merits of the evidence for each model.
No such openess and honesty on AiG.
In the conversation that is covered on the second link I supplied at one point Snelling associates concern about 'contaminbation' of the sample with ad hom accusations against the laboratory concerned. This is patent nonsense and pure avoidance on Snellings part. He has genuine scientific qualifications and there is no way possible someone with a Ph.d in Geology could suddenly forget that 'contamination' of samples can refer to in-situ contamination, excavation contamination, in-transit contamination, or accidental contamination in the lab.
To avoid having to discuss the sample being contaminated (which would invalidate the data) he pretends he's defending the lab concerned from accusations of dishonesty or incompetance when he KNOWS that 'contamination' in this context is no such accusation of improper behaviour.
But you have chosen your source of 'scientific data', and seem determined to lie in it no matter what doubts are raised about the credibility or competence of those supplying that data.
Yet again, by your insistance on a literal interpretation of a book written by bronze-age pastoralists you forever limit god to the small box that they made for him. Rather than opening your eyes to the true nature of the world around you as it actually is and the glory of 'creation, you inisist it has to be as you'd like to see it. A simplistic literal story, rather than the metaphorical account it in all probability is intended to be.
I ask you hooberus, if it's not a metaphor, can you explain why, when the population of most species of animal was two, and of a few species seven pairs (on exit from the Ark) god THEN tells man he can eat animals?
Doesn't this strike you as rather bloody stupid? I'm surprised Noah didn't say something like "oh, thanks god, but we'll wait a few years until we can have a kebab without making the species extinct". But god tells them to do this without any caveat or warning to breed stocks first, and Noah makes no reaction indicating he would do so.
Why?
BECAUSE IT IS A STORY. IT ISN'[T REAL.
Just as a kid can come up with 'why?' questions in fairy stories which are pretty unanswerable as they've seen the flaws in the fable, so too can a person WHO IS WILLING to see 'truth' as is is, rather than as they wish it to be, see a metaphorical account as clearly as the nose on their own face.
Feel free to rack up your Creationist claims. You've not yet managed to present one that falsifies general evolutionary theort, and in all that time you have also failed to prove creation in any way.
I don't expect that situation to chnage hooberus. It's sad you do. But that is because it's not really about the facts, is it? It's about clinging to a belief out of a misguided sense of faith. Faith in fables is silly. Believe in god, by all means, but don't believe in the fairy tales in Genesis as literal unless you can present a very different order of proof for them.
-
hooberus
First lets deal with your original points/accusations, then we can deal with your new ones.
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.
If a lump of wood (or other object) is found within a rock matrix, then indeed it can be used to provide dating evidence. This is commonly done with rocks (called inclusions) in which the inclusion is used to give a maximum date for the formation/cementing of the surrounding rock. This is no evidence of "bad science" or being "almost dishonest." It may later possibly be disputed that the material is a genuine inclusionary substance, however this does not mean that the original researcher is guilty of dishonesty.
The second highlighed section is not supported by any reasonable interpretation of the evidenece given.
If the inclusionary wood or other substance is less than 50,000 years old, then the surrounding 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.
The third section I would LOVE to see the proof of.
The point about evidence for carbon - 14 increasing since the flood is discussed in several creationist publications such as books by John Morris etc.
I see no evidence for your original implications of dishonesty. There is of course disagreement on many issues, but this is different than dishonesty.
-
hooberus
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.
I have read the second link (I hope to study it more). As far as the above one particular point really stood out: Whay would Joe Meert refer to Snelling's beliefs of a recent creation and global flood as a "narrow misinterpretation of Genesis"?
This made me curious. Does Meert not believe that Genesis teaches a recent creation and global flood (Even those who don't believe in Genesis usually at least admit that it teaches creation etc.)?
I believe that this is Mr. Meerts review of "The Answers Book" by AIG scientists:
17 of 51 people found the following review helpful:
Apologetics and Science take a hit, December 13, 2000 Reviewer: Joseph Meert (see more about me) from Battle Creek, Michigan United States Wow! It is difficult to know where to start describing this book. Ham and colleagues have chosen to misrepresent and misinterpret much of modern science and the Bible. One can only imagine their true purpose in writing this book. It's too bad that this book will present many Christians with a false image of both God and science as it seeks to develop a new religion of ye-creationism. The scientific arguments in the book are designed to bolster a flawed apologetics and the authors are forced to twist both to fit their world-view. There is nothing in the Bible that agues against an old earth on which evolution has taken place. Ham and colleagues argue that the Bible places limits on what their God could or could not have done. Having said that, this book is a must read for anyone interested in understanding how religion can run amuck.
-
hooberus
Do you think that someone who says: "There is nothing in the Bible that agues against an old earth on which evolution has taken place." is a good source of information on creation evolution issues?
-
hooberus
For example, most papers supporting an 'Out-of-Africa' model make mention of the multi-regional model, and vica-versa, and actually consider the relative merits of the evidence for each model.
No such openess and honesty on AiG.
From your comments one might assume that evolutionists look at "both sides" of an argument, whereas creationists do not. Actually on a related issue AIG did just that: They gave both the creationist as well as the evolutionary interpretation of mitochondrial data indicating a descent of modern people from one woman.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp
Returning to the ?Eve? debate, it is clear from the above example (by just swapping the sexes around) that the evidence from mtDNA, which has suggested that all modern humans come from one woman, can mean one of two things.
There really was only one couple in the beginning?i.e, mitochondrial Eve could be the real (biblical) Eve, or:
All modern humans are descended from only a small population existing at one time. The other ?mitochondrial lines? (from the other females living alongside the one whose mitochondrial ?surname? is found in all populations today) have become extinct whenever a line had no female offspring. ?Mitochondrial Eve? is the only one of the original population in whose offspring there has been a continuous supply of female descendants in each generation. Any of the other women living alongside her could have contributed nuclear DNA to today?s populations, via their sons.
I trust the analogy is clear. The mitochondrial Eve data does not force the belief that there was only one woman from whom we all descended?in other words, it doesn?t prove the Bible?but?a very important ?but??it is most definitely consistent with it. In other words, had there been more than one mitochondrial ?surname?, it would have been a severe challenge to the biblical scenario. And it was not something that was expected by evolutionists. To explain it in their scenario requires a small population of modern humans to arise in one part of the world (archaic humans having already evolved and spread across the globe), and from there, spread out to replace all the other less-evolved humans, so that we all descend from that small original population (the ?out-of-Africa? or ?Noah?s Ark? theory of human evolution).
-
hooberus
Do you really want to have a discussion over my original phrasing when the additonal data I have supplied is about exactly the same claim made by AiG? Is it you feel you have mileage to gain on my original phrasing and would rather avoid discussiong the more detailed data as you have no hope of defending AiG against that?
Now that some of your previous points have been delt with hopefully we can now discuss your new more detailed data from Joe Meert. Of course anyone who says "There is nothing in the Bible that agues against an old earth on which evolution has taken place." should probably not be taken as an absolutely reliable source on creation / evolution issues (in my book anyway).
-
funkyderek
I'm not sure there's any point in this, as hooberus seems unwilling or unable to grasp the simplest points when it comes to the subject of biology. But for those who may be convinced by his superficially plausible arguments:
The mitochondrial Eve data does not force the belief that there was only one woman from whom we all descended?in other words, it doesn?t prove the Bible?but?a very important ?but??it is most definitely consistent with it.
It most definitely is not! "Mitochondrial Eve" is the name given to the most recent common ancestor of all living humans in a purely matrilineal line. That such a person must have existed is inevitable. The only question there has ever been over this is when and where she lived. One thing can be sure: she did not live 6,000 years ago.
In other words, had there been more than one mitochondrial ?surname?, it would have been a severe challenge to the biblical scenario.
Now you're talking complete, unadulterated nonsense. There are dozens of mitochondrial "surnames" due to mutation. And you're right, that does present a huge problem for those who believe humans have only been here for 6,000 years. You need a mutation rate about 25-40 times greater than what is actually observed, a tall order for someone who doesn't believe in evolution at all.
If there was only one mitochondrial surname, then it would be impossible to tell when mitochondrial Eve lived. Everybody on Earth would show exactly the same degree of relatedness. It is the differences between the mitochondria of different populations that allow scientists to reconstruct our ancestry.
And it was not something that was expected by evolutionists.
Yes it was. Mitochondrial Eve is a mathematical necessity. Such a being had to exist. I'm sure there were all sorts of theories, hypotheses and guesses as to when she lived, ranging from your 6,000 years to millions of years ago. The point of the research was to determine where and when. The answer was about 200,000 years ago in Africa. This fits very well with an evolutionary scenario and not at all with creationism.
To explain it in their scenario requires a small population of modern humans to arise in one part of the world (archaic humans having already evolved and spread across the globe), and from there, spread out to replace all the other less-evolved humans, so that we all descend from that small original population (the ?out-of-Africa? or ?Noah?s Ark? theory of human evolution).
That's correct. The data gathered seems to support an out-of-Africa hypothesis as does a lot of other evidence. Those who believed in concurrent evolution have mostly revised their opinions. Those who believe in creation 6,000 years ago are never likely to.
-
Abaddon
hooberus
I have read the second link (I hope to study it more). As far as the above one particular point really stood out: Whay would Joe Meert refer to Snelling's beliefs of a recent creation and global flood as a "narrow misinterpretation of Genesis"?
Isn't it funny you make no comment about the disreputable behaviour Snelling seems to be guilty of? It seems no matter what level of evidence is presented regard the competence or integrity of a Creationist, you have no real interest of doing anything other than defending Creationism - even if it means ignoring the behaviour of fellow Creationists rather than condeming it when reasonable to do so.
You then get even funnier
Does Meert not believe that Genesis teaches a recent creation and global flood (Even those who don't believe in Genesis usually at least admit that it teaches creation etc.)?
Woah! I thought we were discussing Snelling's behaviour. What does Meert's beliefs as to the meaning of Genesis have to do with that? The bit I quoted said "Creationists, like Snelling, rely on a false dichotomy and conclude that if evolution is wrong, then their narrow misinterpretation of Genesis is correct." and then you said "Does Meert not believe that Genesis teaches a recent creation and global flood" thereby completly validating the point! You also make a straw man accusation against him - "usually at least admit that it teaches creation etc.)? - as he doesn't say he doesn't believe that it describes a creative process - he says he believes there is no bar to an old Earth evoltuionary model in the Bible (unless you beleiev it is a lietral word for word account which we all know you do).
Because YOU believe that the Genesis account is literal, you question the competence of someone who doesn't agree with your interpretation! How on Earth can I believe that you have any genuine intention to examine the scientific evidence when you do this? You've decide you are right, and that for you seems to be the end of it.
Do you think that someone who says: "There is nothing in the Bible that agues against an old earth on which evolution has taken place." is a good source of information on creation evolution issues?
Yes, because I respect his scientific credentials and do not believe the Bible is literal as there are all too many incidents (like the Noah one I mentioned) which show it's not.
From your comments one might assume that evolutionists look at "both sides" of an argument, whereas creationists do not. Actually on a related issue AIG did just that: They gave both the creationist as well as the evolutionary interpretation of mitochondrial data indicating a descent of modern people from one woman.
Is this you starting off another line of attack without having made any satisfactory response to Snelling's behaviour?
I do believe it is!
Apologetics and Science take a hit, December 13, 2000