PDA

View Full Version : The dangers of a belief in a spiritual "truth"



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Desmond
29-10-2010, 10:17 AM
We are not talking about a cutesy pet theory only impacting a handful of scientists here.As of 2008 there were 3.2 million PhDs worldwide, of which 700 have registered on the creationist maintained site dissentfromDarwin. So that's about 0.02%. Or 99.98% not disputing evolution.

Quite a preponderance indeed.

But hey, what would they know, right.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-10-2010, 10:52 AM
As of 2008 there were 3.2 million PhDs worldwide, of which 700 have registered on the creationist maintained site dissentfromDarwin. So that's about 0.02%. Or 99.98% not disputing evolution.

Quite a preponderance indeed.

But hey, what would they know, right.
That argument certainly does not stand. 0.02% on one creationist side does not mean that everyone else completely support. You don't count those that register on other sides or express heir dissent in other way. It does not count those that disagree but don't express it publicly.
Finally, it does not count the overwhelming majority that doesn't give a stuff.
So the 99.98% figure is completely meaningless and express "those that not with us are against us" mentality.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-10-2010, 11:33 AM
And as I already pointed out independent schools also have to teach the curricula set by the board of education. Both government and independent can teach extra curricula activity and so a comparison of the two is not particularly enlightening on front of curricular content.

It's good to see that you do not object to school extending the basic curriculum.



You obviously are confusing "informed" with "motivated". Yes the parents have a vested interest in their childrens' education however this makes them no better qualified to make curricular decisions. Educational and discipline experts still make the most informed decisions, even if they are ones that you don't find palatable.

What you call "educational and discipline experts" I call department of education bureaucrats. On those subject I trust my children's school teachers and it's board much more.


The National Sciences Teachers Association would comprise many biology teachers I would estimate hundreds at least. The National Physics Teachers Association would be most Physics teachers. The Botanical Society of America comprises plant biologists in the main and would comprise again hundreds if not thousands of professional biologists.
Teachers associations and unions are not very famous for tolerating dissent among it's members.




I don't think it exists at all. But if you are right and evolution is baloney, how come so many of the world best scientists are convinced otherwise? You can't both be right. Either you are wrong, they are wrong, or one of you are deliberately lying. However that can only work for you if all the scientists are lying that requires a conspiracy.
Yet again you fail to see the difference questioning part of the theory and calling the whole theory a baloney. Given you numerous logical mistakes it's understandable. As I said before, you are the only one talking conspiracy, I have very little time for conspiracy theorists. In reality group-think and general indifference is a much better explanation.
There is also a difference (that you miss yet again for the reason outlined above) between accepting evidences (which many scientist honestly do) and militantly attacking those that do not accept. Given that you are in the latter camp, your herd mentality is coupled with totalitarian ("if you not with us you are against us").


The so-called Cambrian explosion can be explained by evolution and transitional fossils are multitudinous. (For the record we have actually discovered quite a lot of new fossils in the last 150 years since Darwin's time. We also know that life on earth pre-dates the Cambrian by quite a long time. The Cambrian was around 530 mya and fossils from 1,400 mya has been discovered).
It's not "so-called", it's a term that scientists accept. Read about it first as you obviously not familiar with the subject.






I had a quick scan the story looks like a right-wing beatup as the film is being included in an English curriculum. So from a science perspective it is an non-issue.
Nice to see you trying to weasel out of this one. OK, I'll ask it differently:
Would you object if it was included in science curriculum? Would you object if a school was allowed to include in the science curriculum?

Adamski
29-10-2010, 11:34 AM
That argument certainly does not stand. 0.02% on one creationist side does not mean that everyone else completely support. You don't count those that register on other sides or express heir dissent in other way. It does not count those that disagree but don't express it publicly.
Finally, it does not count the overwhelming majority that doesn't give a stuff.
So the 99.98% figure is completely meaningless and express "those that not with us are against us" mentality.
I agree with Igor. The 99.98% figure is meaningless.

Rincewind
29-10-2010, 11:40 AM
That argument certainly does not stand. 0.02% on one creationist side does not mean that everyone else completely support. You don't count those that register on other sides or express heir dissent in other way. It does not count those that disagree but don't express it publicly.
Finally, it does not count the overwhelming majority that doesn't give a stuff.
So the 99.98% figure is completely meaningless and express "those that not with us are against us" mentality.

As argued in the as yet not replied to post above.

(1) Major association of scientists and teachers of physical and life sciences have released official statements endorsed by those associations.

(2) You have twice claimed the vast majority of scientists don't give a stuff and I think you are just generalising your own view to what scientists believe.

I think if you removed your head from your arse for long enough to actually talk to scientists you will find that they generally do give a stuff. Some of this has to do with pursuit of new knowledge which is the object of their chosen profession. But also it is important to scientists who all teach at the university level that the students that matriculate to university have the right basic understanding of their subject.

However, I agree that 0.02% confirmed idiots does not mean all 99.98% others are orthodox but the number is not all that much lower since as argued in the post above, many associations have released statements endorsing Evolution as important, scientifically well-founded and fundamental in the sense that it interrelates various disciplines in a consistent and enlightening way. It is certainly fair to say the vast majority of life scientists agree that Evolution is a scientific fact.


Finally, I will reiterate that your two specific objections (Cambrian explosion and transitional fossils) are explained by evolution and don't throw the idea into doubt. If your understanding of evolution is based primarily on Darwin's Origin of Species, then you may be surprised to learn that science has discovered quite a lot in the last 150 years.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-10-2010, 11:50 AM
However, I agree that 0.02% confirmed idiots does not mean all 99.98% others are orthodox...
It's quite telling that Rincy summarily call 700 PhD scientists idiots.
It turn out that in RW's blinkered world calling for "Careful examination" is enough to be branded an idiot.

Doesn't it tell heaps about Rincewind himself?

Igor_Goldenberg
29-10-2010, 11:55 AM
Rincewind,

A little reading before running your mouth might save from embarrassent in the future:

Below is the extract from "Dissent of Darwin FAQ" (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php)




5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signers endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?

No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written. Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory’s central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life. Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.



It still a heresy in Rincewind universe, though.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-10-2010, 11:57 AM
A little more for Rincewind benefit, bow from
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM (http://www.pssiinternational.com/)

"As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory."


Is Rincewind going to brand them idiots as well?

Rincewind
29-10-2010, 12:00 PM
It's good to see that you do not object to school extending the basic curriculum.

You obviously haven't been paying sufficient attention, or perhaps this is a comprehension problem opn your part. I statement this position in post #168.

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=291657&postcount=168


What you call "educational and discipline experts" I call department of education bureaucrats. On those subject I trust my children's school teachers and it's board much more.

You are mistaken with your characterisation. The department of education using domain and educational experts to come up with curricula which are then open to comment from recognised bodies. For example the Australian Mathematics Society was asked to comment on proposed changes to the mathematics curriculum. I have little doubt a similar review process takes place for other state and national curricula. Such a review process would be completely unworkable if individual schools were all coming up with their own from scratch. Hence the present process of mandated minimum curricula and then school extending that in the way they feel appropriate.


Teachers associations and unions are not very famous for tolerating dissent among it's members.

I never quoted any unions so what's your point?


Yet again you fail to see the difference questioning part of the theory and calling the whole theory a baloney. Given you numerous logical mistakes it's understandable. As I said before, you are the only one talking conspiracy, I have very little time for conspiracy theorists. In reality group-think and general indifference is a much better explanation.
There is also a difference (that you miss yet again for the reason outlined above) between accepting evidences (which many scientist honestly do) and militantly attacking those that do not accept. Given that you are in the latter camp, your herd mentality is coupled with totalitarian ("if you not with us you are against us").

I think you have been hoist on your own petard here Iggy. While baloney is my word, you did say you hold evolution in question because of a number of issues. Originally you argued that evolution didn't explain abiogenesis. Once we disabused of the notion that evolution proposes to explain the origin of life, you then threw up the Cambrian explosion and transitional fossils. Again your objections are due to your lack of familiarity with the subject matter. But you are clearly saying a number of smaller issues does call into the question the bigger theory, no matter hoe well the bigger theory might explain, say, the descent of man.


It's not "so-called", it's a term that scientists accept. Read about it first as you obviously not familiar with the subject.

Ummmm.... That is what "so-called" means.


so·-called (sō′kôld′)

adjective

1. popularly known or called by this term: the so-called nuclear powers
2. inaccurately or questionably designated as such: a so-called liberal

You assumed I meant 2 I guess and we can get into a discussion as to how applicable the tyerm "explosion" is to a process that spanned millions of years.


Nice to see you trying to weasel out of this one. OK, I'll ask it differently:
Would you object if it was included in science curriculum? Would you object if a school was allowed to include in the science curriculum?

Actually I answered your question, and didn't weasel out of anything. You are now asking a different question.

Since you are the one proposing the inclusion of the documentary in the science curriculum and since you have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the basic subject matter, I would be highly suspicious of any recommendation you might make. I've never seen the film so I can't comment on the subject matter of the film but I would be guided by the opinions of the relevant boards of education and review of their recommendations by professional bodies. However the question is moot since it is just a right-wing beat-up of a question based on a right-wing beat-up of a story - AKA nonsense on stilts.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-10-2010, 12:12 PM
Since you are the one proposing the inclusion of the documentary in the science curriculum and since you have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the basic subject matter, I would be highly suspicious of any recommendation you might make. I've never seen the film so I can't comment on the subject matter of the film but I would be guided by the opinions of the relevant boards of education and review of their recommendations by professional bodies. However the question is moot since it is just a right-wing beat-up of a question based on a right-wing beat-up of a story - AKA nonsense on stilts.

Come on Rincy, be a man, try to answer instead of barraging abuse. I didn't even ask whether you'd support it, just would you oppose it or not?
You didn't read much of criticism of Darwinism either, but it didn't stop you from expressing a clear opinion.

Desmond
29-10-2010, 12:14 PM
I agree with Igor. The 99.98% figure is meaningless.I don't think it is meaningless. It might sounds very impressive to say in isolation that we have 700 scientists who believe x, but to put that into perspective with the total, it is indeed very small.

If you have a better estimation, let's hear it.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-10-2010, 12:22 PM
I don't think it is meaningless. It might sounds very impressive to say in isolation that we have 700 scientists who believe x, but to put that into perspective with the total, it is indeed very small.

If you have a better estimation, let's hear it.
Pick any number between 0 and 99.98% It will as good as estimation (i.e as meaningless).

Rincewind
29-10-2010, 12:41 PM
Rincewind,

A little reading before running your mouth might save from embarrassent in the future:

Below is the extract from "Dissent of Darwin FAQ" (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php)




5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signers endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?

No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written. Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory’s central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life. Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.



It still a heresy in Rincewind universe, though.

People are allowed to dissent if they prefer but there is nothing here which questions anything I have already posted. Yes a small number (approximately 1000) of people with PhD, some of whom are scientists dissent for a number of different reasons. However, that does not change that the vast of majority don't nor that there is any credible scientific alternative.

Their statement is


“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Which doesn't say very much at all. Certainly no alternative is posited. I'm not keen on the first sentence but I agree wholeheartedly with the second.

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2010, 12:42 PM
Pick any number between 0 and 99.98% It will as good as estimation (i.e as meaningless).

My meaningless estimate would be 99% flat.

Rincewind
29-10-2010, 12:47 PM
Come on Rincy, be a man, try to answer instead of barraging abuse.

I did answer your question and gave reasons.


I didn't even ask whether you'd support it, just would you oppose it or not?

Actually your word were would I object. I think your choice of words underlines your intention (i.e. a beat-up of a beat-up). Instead of trying to bait and switch perhaps you should stick to the some of the other issues you have already raised and not defended.


You didn't read much of criticism of Darwinism either, but it didn't stop you from expressing a clear opinion.

I think you are clearly talking out of your arse here. Get a clue or go back to the chess threads.

Rincewind
29-10-2010, 01:12 PM
A little more for Rincewind benefit, bow from
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM (http://www.pssiinternational.com/)

"As medical doctors we are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the origination and complexity of life and we therefore dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory. This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory."

Is Rincewind going to brand them idiots as well?

This is a little bit of stronger statement than that signed by scientists but as a group "Physicians and Surgeons" are not necessarily across biology and evolution (as opposed to physiology).

Again they "dissent from Darwinian macroevolution as a viable theory" but offer no alternative.

Again it is signed by a relatively small number of individuals.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-10-2010, 01:12 PM
Actually your word were would I object. I think your choice of words underlines your intention (i.e. a beat-up of a beat-up). Instead of trying to bait and switch perhaps you should stick to the some of the other issues you have already raised and not defended.

So would you object or not?
I am surprised such a simple question make you choke.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-10-2010, 01:15 PM
People are allowed to dissent if they prefer but there is nothing here which questions anything I have already posted. Yes a small number (approximately 1000) of people with PhD, some of whom are scientists dissent for a number of different reasons. However, that does not change that the vast of majority don't nor that there is any credible scientific alternative.


Weren't you the one who called them idiots?


Their statement is


“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Which doesn't say very much at all. Certainly no alternative is posited. I'm not keen on the first sentence but I agree wholeheartedly with the second.
Yet you are objecting to "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory" in the school. What a hypocrite!

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2010, 01:16 PM
A little more for Rincewind benefit, bow from
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM (http://www.pssiinternational.com/)

Hmmm, I believe we were discussing the views of people who have PhDs. :lol:

Some members of the medical profession like to throw their weight around on unrelated issues. That lot remind me of Doctors for Forests.

Rincewind
29-10-2010, 01:18 PM
So would you object or not?
I am surprised such a simple question make you choke.

Iggy, how is this even relevant to the discussion we are having. We are talking about your misunderstanding of life sciences and you are deliberately trying to derail the discussion with a totally unrelated hypothetical question of your own concoction, probably due to your misunderstanding of the original newspaper item.

The film is of no interest to me. I have not seen it and I have never wanted to. Its inclusion in an English curriculum as a non-required text causes me absolutely no problems. Its inclusion in a science curriculum is just some Iggy devised nightmarish scenario and is not an issue. If you want to discuss it I suggest you find someone interested in the discussion. I'm not required to answer every hypothetical you can think of.

Correcting you basic errors of logic and misunderstanding of simple science is as much time as I want to waste on you at present.

Desmond
29-10-2010, 01:19 PM
My meaningless estimate would be 99% flat.
Generous IMO, but I can live with that.

antichrist
29-10-2010, 01:26 PM
I agree with Igor. The 99.98% figure is meaningless.

Ain't it quaint - that 99.98% figure is very similar to the same genes humans and apes share - well blow me down, coz that gene figure is meaningless to creationists as well.

Rincewind
29-10-2010, 01:28 PM
Yet you are objecting to "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory" in the school. What a hypocrite!

When did I do that?

Careful examination of the evidence is to be encouraged. There are no viable alternatives confirmed by the statements of the professional bodies I quoted and evidenced by the statements of the so-called "dissenters" you mentioned who posit no alternative hypothesis.

Rincewind
29-10-2010, 10:52 PM
Weren't you the one who called them idiots?

Yep. And they are.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-10-2010, 11:54 AM
Yep. And they are.
That tells everyone what a myopic ignorant fool you are. Well done, Rincy!

Rincewind
30-10-2010, 12:58 PM
That tells everyone what a myopic ignorant fool you are. Well done, Rincy!

You seem to be good at making claims but not so good at providing any backing. For example, how is the insult "myopic" even relevant here? Regarding ignorant. You have shown in this thread you have no idea about biology. No idea how school curricula are derived or applied. No idea on the working of science, academies and academia in general. And no no idea of the real purpose behind the "dissenters" sites you gleefully quoted from.

Regarding the signatories. Either they are idiots because they have let their religious convictions over-ride their scientific judgement. Or else they are idiots for allowing themselves to be manipulated by a fundamentalist religious organisation (Discovery Institute) to further the socio-political aims of their program to proselytise academia.

As has been pointed out, evolution is not controversial, there is no alternative hypothesis which is being debated because any alternatives (such as they are) are religiously motivated and not backed up by evidence.

Now, earlier you mentioned the so-called Cambrian explosion and transitional fossils. As I said there is no reason in either of these areas to raise serious doubts as to the veracity of evolution. But of course, it depends on what you mean by the terms so I won;t jump to any conclusions. What is it about these issues that makes you question evolution?

Spiny Norman
30-10-2010, 03:14 PM
For example, how is the insult "myopic" even relevant here?
<snip>
And no no idea of the real purpose behind the "dissenters" sites you gleefully quoted from.
Igor's use of "myopic" is apparently a pejorative, since I assume he has no justified knowledge of the quality of your eyesight ... so is your use of "gleefully", since I assume that you have no justified knowledge of his state of mind when quoting certain websites.

Pot, kettle, black.

Rincewind
30-10-2010, 04:02 PM
Igor's use of "myopic" is apparently a pejorative, since I assume he has no justified knowledge of the quality of your eyesight

Well, derrrr, Einstein. But how does "myopic" even have a pejorative relevance here? Did I not plan for the future or make some transitive gain for an overall long term deficit?


so is your use of "gleefully", since I assume that you have no justified knowledge of his state of mind when quoting certain websites.

Regarding Iggy's state of mind when quoting the website, I can make a reasonably accurate determination of his state of mind from his changed posting style. He addressed the post to me personally. He obviously thought he had "caught me out" when he said


A little reading before running your mouth might save from embarrassent in the future

He also was playing up to the audience (in his imagination) since later in the same post he speaks of me in the third person.


It still a heresy in Rincewind universe, though.

I mean if you igore the grammatical errors you can see he obviously felt he was the cat who swallowed the canary. Almost makes one feel sorry for him... Almost. :lol:


Pot, kettle, black.

What bullshit!

I described Igor as gleeful and am happy to explain why to the thicker in the readership if they can't see it for themselves. Igor described me as myopic (obviously pejoratively) and just want an explanation as to why. Perhaps I am being thick in this case but I can't see the justification. If Iggy could explain it, I would be interested. That's all.

antichrist
30-10-2010, 06:55 PM
Igor's use of "myopic" is apparently a pejorative, since I assume he has no justified knowledge of the quality of your eyesight ... so is your use of "gleefully", since I assume that you have no justified knowledge of his state of mind when quoting certain websites.

Pot, kettle, black.

Now Frostie, I have no eyedeer what you are yapping about - can you explain in simple english

Desmond
07-11-2010, 10:30 AM
tnb_pmRDpqU

Would anyone like to answer the caller's question?
Any takers?

Oepty
07-11-2010, 11:31 AM
Any takers?

Which one? there are at least 2 questions asked.
Scott

Desmond
07-11-2010, 11:43 AM
Which one? there are at least 2 questions asked.
Scott
A practical application arising from creationism.

Oepty
07-11-2010, 11:50 AM
A practical application arising from creationism.

As I believe that trying to use science to prove Genesis 1 to be correct is a pointless waste of time, I will pass on trying to answer that question. I will be stunned if there is one though. Over to Jono etc.

I guess though the reverse question is, what practical applications have been made from the science of biogenesis?
Scott

Desmond
07-11-2010, 12:30 PM
As I believe that trying to use science to prove Genesis 1 to be correct is a pointless waste of time, I will pass on trying to answer that question. I will be stunned if there is one though. Over to Jono etc.

I guess though the reverse question is, what practical applications have been made from the science of biogenesis?
Scott
Creationism in the broader sense. For instance if all the non-creationist geologists have it all so wrong then it should place creationists in a better position to say predict earth quakes, find oil deposits, find gold veins and so on. Yet where are these real world applications?

Oepty
07-11-2010, 01:22 PM
Creationism in the broader sense. For instance if all the non-creationist geologists have it all so wrong then it should place creationists in a better position to say predict earth quakes, find oil deposits, find gold veins and so on. Yet where are these real world applications?

I am not a scientist, I work in a warehouse. How am I susposed to work it out?
I don't really care either. Science has nothing to do with why I believe what I believe.
Scott

Desmond
07-11-2010, 02:11 PM
I am not a scientist, I work in a warehouse. How am I susposed to work it out?
I don't really care either. Science has nothing to do with why I believe what I believe.
Scott
OK

Anyone else?

Spiny Norman
07-11-2010, 02:25 PM
One practical application of creationism might be the saving of your soul Boris. ;)

Desmond
07-11-2010, 02:39 PM
One practical application of creationism might be the saving of your soul Boris. ;)
Soul? I'm with Primus, myself. ;)

Oepty
07-11-2010, 04:07 PM
OK

Anyone else?

Are you going to answer my question as to what practical applications have been made from the claim life started from non life spontaneously billions of years ago? I was thinking it was an easy question to answer.
Scott

Rincewind
07-11-2010, 04:17 PM
Are you going to answer my question as to what practical applications have been made from the claim life started from non life spontaneously billions of years ago? I was thinking it was an easy question to answer.

That question is far from settled from a scientific point of view. So biogenesis is not at all a fair analogy. If you were to ask about the practical application of a knowledge that the earth is billions of years old that is easy and Boris alluded to a few of those before. Likewise common descent of all animals has a large number of practical benefits from cross species organic replacement and tracking of the mutation of viruses for pandemic prediction and control.

Rincewind
07-11-2010, 04:22 PM
One practical application of creationism might be the saving of your soul Boris. ;)

Christianity is not equivalent to creationism. The two largest Christian faiths (Catholicism and Church of England) both find that science is not at conflict with faith in the soul and salvation, and in fact there are thousands of regular geologists and biologists who are Christians. Likewise Modern and Reform Judaism find very little or no problem with science and tenets of their faith.

Oepty
07-11-2010, 04:27 PM
That question is far from settled from a scientific point of view. So biogenesis is not at all a fair analogy. If you were to ask about the practical application of a knowledge that the earth is billions of years old that is easy and Boris alluded to a few of those before. Likewise common descent of all animals has a large number of practical benefits from cross species organic replacement and tracking of the mutation of viruses for pandemic prediction and control.

But biogenesis theory, whatever it might be, I have no idea about it, is sciences answer as to how life started, Genesis 1 is the Bible's answer. They are equivalent so I was just asking and your answer seems to be none.
Scott

Rincewind
07-11-2010, 04:37 PM
But biogenesis theory, whatever it might be, I have no idea about it, is sciences answer as to how life started, Genesis 1 is the Bible's answer. They are equivalent so I was just asking and your answer seems to be none.

We have very little idea how life got started. We have a fair idea when it happened but it is so long ago even that is like to within a few million years. The actual mechanism is not known to any degree of certainty.

But you can't cherry pick one part of science (especially one that science makes no specific claims on knowing) and say what has that poorly understood piece of science lead to?

Boris said all of creationism, the 10,000 years of history, the single worldwide flood geology, etc, etc, etc. Anywhere where the creationists have excised science because it conflicted with their literal interpretation of scripture. Where has any of that pseudoscience lead to practical benefits?

The reverse question is where has the science that creationism rejects lead to benefits. As already noted there are many, many examples of that.

Oepty
07-11-2010, 04:45 PM
We have very little idea how life got started. We have a fair idea when it happened but it is so long ago even that is like to within a few million years. The actual mechanism is not known to any degree of certainty.

OKay far enough



But you can't cherry pick one part of science (especially one that science makes no specific claims on knowing) and say what has that poorly understood piece of science lead to?


I did not know it is known as poorly understood part of science. It was not meant as a trick question or anything, just a question.



Boris said all of creationism, the 10,000 years of history, the single worldwide flood geology, etc, etc, etc. Anywhere where the creationists have excised science because it conflicted with their literal interpretation of scripture. Where has any of that pseudoscience lead to practical benefits?


Okay, when I think creationism I think of Genesis 1 taken literally as the way life started. Did not realise it was being used in a broader sense sorry. Things like the flood are, to me, independent events, not creationism.



The reverse question is where has the science that creationism rejects lead to benefits. As already noted there are many, many examples of that.

Okay.
Scott

Desmond
07-11-2010, 05:45 PM
Are you going to answer my question as to what practical applications have been made from the claim life started from non life spontaneously billions of years ago? I was thinking it was an easy question to answer.
Scott
I agree with what RW already said but would add that:

If we did understand abiogenesis well and were able to reproduce it, then I'd suggest the applications would be rather significant. Perhaps throw the abiogeneis dice a few times and we'll get an antivirus to use to fight viruses that ail us today. Who knows what else.

Contrast a 7-day non-repeatable creation from an unknowable being. Not much we can do with that.

Oepty
07-11-2010, 06:25 PM
I agree with what RW already said but would add that:

If we did understand abiogenesis well and were able to reproduce it, then I'd suggest the applications would be rather significant. Perhaps throw the abiogeneis dice a few times and we'll get an antivirus to use to fight viruses that ail us today. Who knows what else.

Contrast a 7-day non-repeatable creation from an unknowable being. Not much we can do with that.

Interesting if, but still if. May or may not be possible I guess, who knows.

As far as the unknowable being goes, I think the unknowable bit is wrong. Knowing God is pretty fundamental part of things, John 17:3, 'And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent'
Scott

antichrist
07-11-2010, 06:26 PM
Interesting if, but still if. May or may not be possible I guess, who know.

As far as the unknowable being goes, I think the unknowable bit is wrong. Knowing God is pretty fundamental part of things, John 17:3, 'And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent'
Scott

Listen Scott, there have been dozens of "holy" books all contradicting each other - the Bible has no authority - try and be more intellectual

Igor_Goldenberg
07-11-2010, 06:29 PM
try and be more intellectual
That's priceless!!!:clap: :clap: :clap: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oepty
07-11-2010, 06:42 PM
Listen Scott, there have been dozens of "holy" books all contradicting each other - the Bible has no authority - try and be more intellectual

Sounds too much like hard work. Tried it before and failed, not going to make the same mistake again.
Scott

Desmond
07-11-2010, 07:58 PM
Interesting if, but still if. May or may not be possible I guess, who knows. We could be closer than you think. link (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/)


As far as the unknowable being goes, I think the unknowable bit is wrong. Knowing God is pretty fundamental part of things, John 17:3, 'And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent'
ScottThe bible says that does it? I'll take your word for it.

Oepty
07-11-2010, 08:07 PM
We could be closer than you think. link (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/)


Seeing I wasn't really thinking any time line at all it is hard to be closer than I think.
Scott

Desmond
07-11-2010, 08:35 PM
Seeing I wasn't really thinking any time line at all it is hard to be closer than I think.
Scott
:lol: "may or may not be possible" yet as you say it is probably just a matter of time.

Oepty
07-11-2010, 08:58 PM
:lol: "may or may not be possible" yet as you say it is probably just a matter of time.

I DID NOT SAY IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME. I MEANT NOTHING LIKE THAT BY WHAT I SAID.
Scott

Desmond
07-11-2010, 09:31 PM
I DID NOT SAY IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME. I MEANT NOTHING LIKE THAT BY WHAT I SAID.
Scott
Ok.

Geez.

antichrist
08-11-2010, 05:15 AM
I DID NOT SAY IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME. I MEANT NOTHING LIKE THAT BY WHAT I SAID.
Scott

Listen Scott, a few months ago (inbetween barrings) I praised you for being more definitive in your posts - but now you have gone back to Mr. To & Fro Sit on Fence Arthur or Martha - I withdraw that commendation.

Oepty
08-11-2010, 05:25 AM
Ok.

Geez.

Just don't put words in my mouth and say I said I things I didn't and I won't get annoyed. I never said that humans could create life and you go and say that I said it was only a matter of time. That is just wrong, totally and utterly wrong. Don't do it, please
Scott

Oepty
08-11-2010, 05:27 AM
Listen Scott, a few months ago (inbetween barrings) I praised you for being more definitive in your posts - but now you have gone back to Mr. To & Fro Sit on Fence Arthur or Martha - I withdraw that commendation.

A/C - No changing of my mind here - just Boris not being able to read and putting words in my mouth - making up things I never said to serve his own ends. Very annoying and sad.
Scott

Desmond
08-11-2010, 07:10 AM
Just don't put words in my mouth and say I said I things I didn't and I won't get annoyed. I never said that humans could create life and you go and say that I said it was only a matter of time. That is just wrong, totally and utterly wrong. Don't do it, please
Scott
I made a mistake Scott. I thought you said / implied something that you didn't. You cleared it up, and that's fine. IDK why the hissy fit.

Anyway, if you had said what I thought then you would have been making sense. I mean if we take the frameowrk that abiogenesis is correct and young earthers are wrong, then it's not a case of man looking for some piece of magic that he may not ever find, it's just a case of putting the right chemicals under the right conditions and letting it happen. Perhaps speeding up the process too.

And 2 other things;
1. did you listen to the whole Youtube? Since you weren't sure what the caller's question was, I suspect not.
2. Did you read the article? Would it be fair to say we are closer than you thought? I mean closer in capability not necessarily in time.

Oepty
08-11-2010, 05:37 PM
I made a mistake Scott. I thought you said / implied something that you didn't. You cleared it up, and that's fine. IDK why the hissy fit.

Anyway, if you had said what I thought then you would have been making sense. I mean if we take the frameowrk that abiogenesis is correct and young earthers are wrong, then it's not a case of man looking for some piece of magic that he may not ever find, it's just a case of putting the right chemicals under the right conditions and letting it happen. Perhaps speeding up the process too.

And 2 other things;
1. did you listen to the whole Youtube? Since you weren't sure what the caller's question was, I suspect not.
2. Did you read the article? Would it be fair to say we are closer than you thought? I mean closer in capability not necessarily in time.

Thankyou for the acknowledgement of your mistake. If people claim I said things I didn't and especially if it disagrees with what I believe quite fundamentally then I will take them to task.
As far as the youtube clip goes, yes I listened to it all when you first put it up, hence I knew that more than 1 question was asked by the caller.
I have read the article but the science is a bit over my head so I can't really answer your questions.
Scott

Desmond
08-11-2010, 06:55 PM
Thankyou for the acknowledgement of your mistake. If people claim I said things I didn't and especially if it disagrees with what I believe quite fundamentally then I will take them to task.
As far as the youtube clip goes, yes I listened to it all when you first put it up, hence I knew that more than 1 question was asked by the caller.
I have read the article but the science is a bit over my head so I can't really answer your questions.
Scott
No problem.



So....
Any takers? A practical application arising from creationism.

Oepty
08-11-2010, 07:20 PM
Having now read though the article a number of times more I can see what it is saying, but it is not very impressive at all, can not see what all the fuss is about. It is hardly anything like creating life from scratch, from nothing.
Scott

Rincewind
08-11-2010, 10:09 PM
It is hardly anything like creating life from scratch, from nothing.

Creating life from nothing is a doddle compared with creating God from nothing.

antichrist
08-11-2010, 11:43 PM
Creating life from nothing is a doddle compared with creating God from nothing.

that a god cannot exist before anything else is just so stupid - creatures can only make things over years and years, not one flash and there is a universe

Oepty
09-11-2010, 05:43 PM
Creating life from nothing is a doddle compared with creating God from nothing.

I agree.
Scott

Edited to remove something I wrote which I am not sure I agree with.

Spiny Norman
09-11-2010, 06:12 PM
Any takers? A practical application arising from creationism.

The following article on Dembski's blog might prompt some ideas:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming

:lol:

At any rate, I think you are barking up the wrong tree Boris. Whilst I can't think of any practical application of science that arises only from creationism, neither can I identify any area of science which arises only from non-creationism.

Creationism and non-creationism both entail a person (lets say a scientist) having a set of beliefs about the origin of life, and since most of practical science typically concerns itself with what can be observed (and repeatedly so), one-off events like the origin of life are more to do with one's beliefs about history ... not something with which practical science typically intersects as best I can see.

I would be interested to learn whether you can identify any significant areas of practical application which have clearly arisen only from non-creationism and which could not have arisen from creationism.

I can't think of one at the present time ... though I should mention, in passing, that I restricted myself to practical science (observations, procedures, etc) and not theory-laden conclusions about said observations/procedures.

Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geology ... I don't see where any particular practical scientific application is available to non-creationists and not available to creationists, excepting cases where a creationist might have a moral objection to the practice of that science.

Creationist and non-creationists alike can:
-- look through telescopes and record their observations
-- cut up animals, sequence their DNA, etc
-- mix chemicals in test tubes, set up controlled chemical reactions, etc
-- look at rocks and assign them to known categories, measure radioactivity, and so on

What they do with their observations afterwards (and we can argue the toss about whether this really is a separate activity or whether the very act of observing is theory-constrained as some philosophers of science think) ... afterwards observations are fitted within theoretical frameworks and paradigms and then meaning is assigned. That is how, for example, measuring a particular quantity of C14 (practical science) becomes a belief about the age of an object (the observation is fitted into a paradigm and a particular theoretical framework).

I would be interested to know what you think, and whether you can identify any practical scientific applications that only a non-creationist can participate in to the exclusion of creationists.

Desmond
09-11-2010, 07:37 PM
The following article on Dembski's blog might prompt some ideas:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-a-multiverse-proponent-should-be-open-to-young-earth-creationism-and-skeptical-of-man-made-global-warming

:lol: Nice website. The very first thing one notices is that the header is a picture of the flagellum. Way to open with logically fallacious argument from ignorance.

Second thing the by line, "serving the intelligent design community". Translation: objectivity need not apply here.


At any rate, I think you are barking up the wrong tree Boris. Whilst I can't think of any practical application of science that arises only from creationism, neither can I identify any area of science which arises only from non-creationism.

Creationism and non-creationism both entail a person (lets say a scientist) having a set of beliefs about the origin of life, and since most of practical science typically concerns itself with what can be observed (and repeatedly so), one-off events like the origin of life are more to do with one's beliefs about history ... not something with which practical science typically intersects as best I can see.As I already said I mean creationism in the broader sence, not just its claims on the origin of life.


I would be interested to learn whether you can identify any significant areas of practical application which have clearly arisen only from non-creationism and which could not have arisen from creationism.

I can't think of one at the present time ... though I should mention, in passing, that I restricted myself to practical science (observations, procedures, etc) and not theory-laden conclusions about said observations/procedures.

Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Geology ... I don't see where any particular practical scientific application is available to non-creationists and not available to creationists, excepting cases where a creationist might have a moral objection to the practice of that science.

Creationist and non-creationists alike can:
-- look through telescopes and record their observations
-- cut up animals, sequence their DNA, etc
-- mix chemicals in test tubes, set up controlled chemical reactions, etc
-- look at rocks and assign them to known categories, measure radioactivity, and so on

What they do with their observations afterwards (and we can argue the toss about whether this really is a separate activity or whether the very act of observing is theory-constrained as some philosophers of science think) ... afterwards observations are fitted within theoretical frameworks and paradigms and then meaning is assigned. That is how, for example, measuring a particular quantity of C14 (practical science) becomes a belief about the age of an object (the observation is fitted into a paradigm and a particular theoretical framework).

I would be interested to know what you think, and whether you can identify any practical scientific applications that only a non-creationist can participate in to the exclusion of creationists.
How about using evolution theory in the field of biomedical research for starters.

Rincewind
09-11-2010, 07:55 PM
Creationism and non-creationism both entail a person (lets say a scientist) having a set of beliefs about the origin of life, and since most of practical science typically concerns itself with what can be observed (and repeatedly so), one-off events like the origin of life are more to do with one's beliefs about history ... not something with which practical science typically intersects as best I can see.

Spiny I don't think you understand science and what scientists do very well. Some science in certainly about repeatable experiment in a laboratory, certainly not most and not even most practical.

What we know from science about the age of the earth being billions of years old isn't because someone wrote it down that the big man in the sky said it was so and so no all scientists now believe that without question. That is how creationism (a religion) operates. Science came to that conclusion from looking at evidence and determining that the hypothesis that best fits the data is the billions of years one. That hypothesis is so confidently backed up with data that there is not scientifically tenable alternative. It is as close to fact as science can get.

Now you may want to live in a la-la land where science is taking measurements and not doing anything with them but that is not any kind of science, it would simply be butterfly collecting. Science is not butterfly collecting it is making hypotheses, testing them and fitting them together into a coherent theory. That is science.

The guys who take measurements and then try to accord it with their arbitrary and a priori beliefs aren't scientists, they're creationists. If you think creationists are scientists then I can see the root of your confusion.

antichrist
09-11-2010, 08:27 PM
I agree.
Scott

Edited to remove something I wrote which I am not sure I agree with.

see, you are not being definitive again, you are guilty

antichrist
09-11-2010, 08:32 PM
Spiny I don't think you understand science and what scientists do very well. Some science in certainly about repeatable experiment in a laboratory, certainly not most and not even most practical.

What we know from science about the age of the earth being billions of years old isn't because someone wrote it down that the big man in the sky said it was so and so no all scientists now believe that without question. That is how creationism (a religion) operates. Science came to that conclusion from looking at evidence and determining that the hypothesis that best fits the data is the billions of years one. That hypothesis is so confidently backed up with data that there is not scientifically tenable alternative. It is as close to fact as science can get.

Now you may want to live in a la-la land where science is taking measurements and not doing anything with them but that is not any kind of science, it would simply be butterfly collecting. Science is not butterfly collecting it is making hypotheses, testing them and fitting them together into a coherent theory. That is science.

The guys who take measurements and then try to accord it with their arbitrary and a priori beliefs aren't scientists, they're creationists. If you think creationists are scientists then I can see the root of your confusion.

It was so simple for Darwin, in South America where earthquakes pushed up mountains etc he saw different layers of creature fossils in each strata or level, each creature slightly different from the preceding and succeeding layer of creature. So logical and easy when you think of it.

But so incomprehensible to creationists coz they have a vested interest in not accepting it - their religion would be demolished. Grow up Frosty and get a spine for once.

Rincewind
09-11-2010, 08:35 PM
Grow up Frosty and get a spine for once.

I like the pun.

Oepty
09-11-2010, 08:35 PM
see, you are not being definitive again, you are guilty

Okay, you got me, I am in this particular instance guilty.
Scott

Spiny Norman
10-11-2010, 06:29 AM
How about using evolution theory in the field of biomedical research for starters.
Can you be more specific? AFAIK, all creationists accept common descent (either a full on version for those that accept evolutionary theory holus bolus, or a limited version "within kinds" for those that don't). What kind of biomedical research, and what particular part of evolutionary theory would be applied? I need to understand what they would be doing and why this would not be available to creationists. As I said, I've racked my brains and cannot come up with examples on either side. Even if you take 'baraminology' as a fairly specific young earth creationist idea, this is absolutely compatible with traditional evolutionary thinking (speciation) and I don't see why an evolutionist can't utilise those ideas within his framework.

Spiny Norman
10-11-2010, 06:32 AM
Spiny I don't think you understand science and what scientists do very well.
I know more about it than the average punter, having spent considerable time reading up on philosophy of science. Your view of science seems as quaint to me as mine obviously does to you.

It was Boris (not me) who wanted this discussion restricted to practical (not theoretical) applications of science. So please stop trying to take the discussion off topic.

Desmond
10-11-2010, 09:13 AM
Can you be more specific? AFAIK, all creationists accept common descent (either a full on version for those that accept evolutionary theory holus bolus, or a limited version "within kinds" for those that don't). What kind of biomedical research, and what particular part of evolutionary theory would be applied? I need to understand what they would be doing and why this would not be available to creationists. As I said, I've racked my brains and cannot come up with examples on either side. Even if you take 'baraminology' as a fairly specific young earth creationist idea, this is absolutely compatible with traditional evolutionary thinking (speciation) and I don't see why an evolutionist can't utilise those ideas within his framework.
Frosty, I don't know that your premise is correct. For one thing if creationists did not dispute evolution then they would not be mounting the campaign to teach ID as an alternative to it.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-11-2010, 10:34 AM
Frosty, I don't know that your premise is correct. For one thing if creationists did not dispute evolution then they would not be mounting the campaign to teach ID as an alternative to it.
And what is practical implication of disputablepart of evolution theory?

Spiny Norman
10-11-2010, 05:24 PM
Frosty, I don't know that your premise is correct. For one thing if creationists did not dispute evolution then they would not be mounting the campaign to teach ID as an alternative to it.
Well, I'm not sure its fair to blame me ... its your original challenge seems to me to be imprecise in its language.

What do you mean when you say evolution?

I am aware of a bunch of different kinds of evolution: stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution ... and within all of those you can either include or exclude origins (make it part of evolution, or treat is as a separate topic) ... within biological evolution you might mean anything from "change over time" through "random mutations plus natural selection" through "molecules to man" (which is what Jono refers to as "goo to you via the zoo"). It is this latter use of evolution that people often think of, but whether that is what you meant or not I can only speculate about at this stage.

What do you mean when you say creationism?

I am aware of a number of different flavours: young earth, old earth for starters (the latter basically accepting the vast bulk of evolutionary theory, whilst rejecting the origins component).

With that in mind, your statement "if creationists did not dispute evolution then they would not be mounting the campaign to teach ID" requires clarification, otherwise I really have no idea what it is that you are claiming about the motivations of those people.

It would help if you could absolutely rule in or rule out important factors such as beliefs about origin of life, origin of the universe, and so on, when referring to both evolutionism and creationism.

Desmond
10-11-2010, 06:39 PM
Well, I'm not sure its fair to blame me ... its your original challenge seems to me to be imprecise in its language.

What do you mean when you say evolution?

I am aware of a bunch of different kinds of evolution: stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution ... and within all of those you can either include or exclude origins (make it part of evolution, or treat is as a separate topic) ... within biological evolution you might mean anything from "change over time" through "random mutations plus natural selection" through "molecules to man" (which is what Jono refers to as "goo to you via the zoo"). It is this latter use of evolution that people often think of, but whether that is what you meant or not I can only speculate about at this stage.Biological only. I note once again that whilst your proposed application may include an evolution theme I don't restirct you to it.


What do you mean when you say creationism?

I am aware of a number of different flavours: young earth, old earth for starters (the latter basically accepting the vast bulk of evolutionary theory, whilst rejecting the origins component).

With that in mind, your statement "if creationists did not dispute evolution then they would not be mounting the campaign to teach ID" requires clarification, otherwise I really have no idea what it is that you are claiming about the motivations of those people.

It would help if you could absolutely rule in or rule out important factors such as beliefs about origin of life, origin of the universe, and so on, when referring to both evolutionism and creationism.Young Earth Creationism.

Rincewind
10-11-2010, 06:51 PM
I know more about it than the average punter, having spent considerable time reading up on philosophy of science. Your view of science seems as quaint to me as mine obviously does to you.

I would say you may have read more than the average punter. I would disagree with the "know" claim. I believe a lot of what you have read is either mislead you or you accepted it as having greater importance than was warranted because of confirmation bias.

As a working scientist I find your impression of quaintness in my opinion of my profession rather quaint.


It was Boris (not me) who wanted this discussion restricted to practical (not theoretical) applications of science. So please stop trying to take the discussion off topic.

It is not off topic at all. Practical science doesn't become practical science without theory. By way of example, it doesn't matter how many rocks they find with a certain type of fossil, it is not until they correlate the information across the globe and fit it into the geological column and fossil record that they can start determining the age of the strata and hence the likelihood of it being ore carrying. To carry on my analogy from earlier, the butterfly collecting doesn't make any sense without a concept of races, species, and genera of butterflies. Science isn't just measurement. The practice of science doesn't happen without the theory.

Oepty
10-11-2010, 07:37 PM
So Barry, are you saying, science is not mere observation, or even the creation of things to observe in experiments, but the working out of what the observations tell us about how the universe works.
Scott

Rincewind
10-11-2010, 07:43 PM
So Barry, are you saying, science is not mere observation, or even the creation of things to observe in experiments, but the working out of what the observations tell us about how the universe works.

The part of science which leads to new knowledge is not the collection of measurements but the hypothesis formulation, testing and synthesis into a body of theory.

When Boris was talking about the practical aspects of the science versus creationism, he didn't mean the the practice of science (part of which is measurement) but the new knowledge which science has discovered that has practical application.

If you like, the question might be worded, "Why are there creationist 'scientists' but no creationist engineers?"

Oepty
10-11-2010, 07:56 PM
The part of science which leads to new knowledge is not the collection of measurements but the hypothesis formulation, testing and synthesis into a body of theory.

Okay, but a hypothesis has to be based on something? Surely observations lead to a hypothesis? Scientist don't just go on a total whim, that seems interesting lets test it?



When Boris was talking about the practical aspects of the science versus creationism, he didn't mean the the practice of science (part of which is measurement) but the new knowledge which science has discovered that has practical application.

I know exactly what Boris is getting at. Science has lead to technological breakthroughs from cars, computers, planes etc. What has using creation as basis for scientific reasearch lead to in a similar vein? It appears to be nothing. Maybe, though I think highly unlikely, because practical application isn't the aim and if it was the aim there would be practical applications. Rather I think it is because the approach is just a dud.



If you like, the question might be worded, "Why are there creationist 'scientists' but no creationist engineers?"

Scott

Rincewind
10-11-2010, 08:14 PM
Okay, but a hypothesis has to be based on something? Surely observations lead to a hypothesis? Scientist don't just go on a total whim, that seems interesting lets test it?

Hypothesis can come in many forms and some they are inspirational as the many stories you hear about "eureka" moments. But when you have an hypothesis you then look for measurements which may falsify it or (assuming you are talking about replacing or correcting existing theory) falsify other competing hypothesis or theories. In cases where you have the luxury of designing experiments this may be in the design of specialised experiment which will confirm one or the other, in other cases it may require the accumulation of new knowledge which cannot yet be measured.

A example was the testing of general relativity from careful measurement of the bending of light, these were new measurements conducted specifically to falsify General Relativity or Newtonian Gravity. General Relativity also explained an anomaly in the precession of the perihelion of Mercury thatwas known at the time as an unexplained phenomenon but that was not the in forethought of Einstein's motivation in formulating General Relativity.

Sinister
10-11-2010, 08:27 PM
this is off the current topic but this thread sort of covers the following load of manure:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/08/08/equation-for-world-peace-e-mcs
try to read it without laughing:lol:

Rincewind
10-11-2010, 08:44 PM
this is off the current topic but this thread sort of covers the following load of manure:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/08/08/equation-for-world-peace-e-mcs
try to read it without laughing:lol:

That is what happens when you let psychotherapists near a text book on physics. :lol:

Actually I can do better than that, I have an entire book by Amit Goswami, - which is what happens when you let a physicist near a text book on psychotherapy.

Edit: BTW, This is another guy who spent considerable time reading up on philosophy of science. :lol:

Desmond
10-11-2010, 10:45 PM
That is how, for example, measuring a particular quantity of C14 (practical science) becomes a belief about the age of an object (the observation is fitted into a paradigm and a particular theoretical framework).
Frosty is there some particular reason you single out C14 dating? Please tell me your not going to say diamonds. I gave you more credit than that.

Rincewind
10-11-2010, 10:49 PM
I gave you more credit than that.

So did I, but Frosty disabused me of that notion.

Desmond
10-11-2010, 11:22 PM
I know exactly what Boris is getting at. Science has lead to technological breakthroughs from cars, computers, planes etc. What has using creation as basis for scientific reasearch lead to in a similar vein? It appears to be nothing. That is one way to look at it, but actually I think of it slightly differently.

We cannot be experts or even knowledgable in everything. My own field is IT, and in the area I specialise, I am thoroughly knowledgable. Even within IT there are other specialisations of which I have decent knowledge, some passable, and some I know very little about. Most fields outside of IT probably fall into that last category too.

So I know that, while I have an interest in a few areas of science and read a bit about it, on the whole I really know stuff-all. We can't all be all-knowing and infallible in every field, so I leave that to God and Jono. ;)

When I see two conflicting opinions about something in a field I am not expert, I need to determine which of those is more likely to be true. Now there are a number of things I can do to make a judgement on that. One of those things is to look at the application of it. Which framework actually leads to stuff that works?

To me it is very telling that when a scientist rings a well-known creationist advocate and public figure like Kent Hovind, he actually cannot name a single application. The guy does this for a living. I mean seriously, with 10 mins to think about it, the best he can come up with is that the appendix is in the same spot on every human you cut open. I mean evolution theory would predict the same thing (you're the same as your parents bar a few small changes). And when I ask the same question of this board, which has a good number of YECs, no one can offer anything.

So in my view, it's not a smoking gun that YE creationism is false and evolution is true, but it sure is a cross in one box and a tick in the other.

Spiny Norman
11-11-2010, 06:14 AM
Frosty is there some particular reason you single out C14 dating? Please tell me your not going to say diamonds. I gave you more credit than that.
Scientists trying to date things sometimes do it by measuring C14 decay. Didn't have diamonds in mind.

OK, so you're restricting yourself to biological evolution and young earth creation ... and you're specifically excluding any consideration of origins from the discussion?

I can't think of a single example where either evolutionism or creationism "owns the turf" for a particular practical application of science.

Spiny Norman
11-11-2010, 07:22 AM
How about using evolution theory in the field of biomedical research for starters.
Getting back to your suggestion ... can you elaborate? ... are there specific examples of how evolutionary theory has led science directly to desirable practical outcomes in a way that creationists could not have done for some reason or other?

RW raised "common descent" some pages earlier. I presume this potential point of difference really means "common descent of all life from a single-celled ancestor" (as we are excluding origin-of-life beliefs from the equation). YECs typically believe in "common descent from originally created kinds" as per the biblical model.

So if there's a field of science where a practical outcome is that one kind of animal changes into another kind, that could be relevant. I'm not aware of any such field though. On the contrary, animal husbandry suggests there are distinct limits to breeding programs.

Spiny Norman
11-11-2010, 07:31 AM
Practical science doesn't become practical science without theory. By way of example, it doesn't matter how many rocks they find with a certain type of fossil, it is not until they correlate the information across the globe and fit it into the geological column and fossil record that they can start determining the age of the strata and hence the likelihood of it being ore carrying. To carry on my analogy from earlier, the butterfly collecting doesn't make any sense without a concept of races, species, and genera of butterflies. Science isn't just measurement. The practice of science doesn't happen without the theory.
True, in fact, trivially true ... and also quite irrelevant to the point I was making.

Boris is looking for practical application. I'm saying that if something is theory alone, then it doesn't qualify as practical application. People's beliefs about the age of certain rocks are not practical application.

Digging up rocks, crushing them, extracting the ore, and turning it into something useful ... that qualifies as a practical application.

Whether the rocks are believed to be 100M years old, or 6K years old, is irrelevant to the practical application of digging them up and turning them into ore.

Now if it could be shown that only a person who believed that they were 100M years old (or 6K years old) knew where to find the rocks, that would qualify as practical application of the belief about the age of the rocks.

But just looking at them, cross-correlating the observations, and then assigning an age to them ... that's not a practical application in my book ... that's theory-laden and abstract ... it might be helpful to someone in terms of confirming their notions about the age of the earth (either old or young) but it can't reasonably be touted as practical science.

morebeer
11-11-2010, 08:52 AM
Okay, but a hypothesis has to be based on something? Surely observations lead to a hypothesis? Scientist don't just go on a total whim, that seems interesting lets test it?Scott

Creativity can be a very important part of science. Scientific progress can also come from some unexpected places.

The German chemist August Kekulé said his work on the ring-like structure of benzeme was in part based on a daydream involving the ancient symbol Ouroboros - a snake eating its own tail.

Oepty
11-11-2010, 11:07 AM
That is one way to look at it, but actually I think of it slightly differently.

We cannot be experts or even knowledgable in everything. My own field is IT, and in the area I specialise, I am thoroughly knowledgable. Even within IT there are other specialisations of which I have decent knowledge, some passable, and some I know very little about. Most fields outside of IT probably fall into that last category too.

So I know that, while I have an interest in a few areas of science and read a bit about it, on the whole I really know stuff-all. We can't all be all-knowing and infallible in every field, so I leave that to God and Jono. ;)

When I see two conflicting opinions about something in a field I am not expert, I need to determine which of those is more likely to be true. Now there are a number of things I can do to make a judgement on that. One of those things is to look at the application of it. Which framework actually leads to stuff that works?

To me it is very telling that when a scientist rings a well-known creationist advocate and public figure like Kent Hovind, he actually cannot name a single application. The guy does this for a living. I mean seriously, with 10 mins to think about it, the best he can come up with is that the appendix is in the same spot on every human you cut open. I mean evolution theory would predict the same thing (you're the same as your parents bar a few small changes). And when I ask the same question of this board, which has a good number of YECs, no one can offer anything.

So in my view, it's not a smoking gun that YE creationism is false and evolution is true, but it sure is a cross in one box and a tick in the other.

You seem to be just doing what I said to a specific area, this is what I understood you to mean.
Scott

Oepty
11-11-2010, 11:10 AM
Creativity can be a very important part of science. Scientific progress can also come from some unexpected places.

The German chemist August Kekulé said his work on the ring-like structure of benzeme was in part based on a daydream involving the ancient symbol Ouroboros - a snake eating its own tail.

Had August Kekule ever worked with it before? If so then his idea was not just based on a whim.

Desmond
11-11-2010, 05:22 PM
OK, so you're restricting yourself to biological evolution and young earth creation ... and you're specifically excluding any consideration of origins from the discussion?:eh: I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. You asked me what I meant by the term evolution. I told you that when I use the term I mean biological evolution. Evolution is, after all, a theory of biology.

I place no restriction on you as to where you draw your proposed application from. If you have a practical application arising from 7-day creation that's fine.



I can't think of a single example where either evolutionism or creationism "owns the turf" for a particular practical application of science.Really? OK.

Desmond
11-11-2010, 05:30 PM
Getting back to your suggestion ... can you elaborate? ... are there specific examples of how evolutionary theory has led science directly to desirable practical outcomes in a way that creationists could not have done for some reason or other?

Perhaps in light of me clarifying what I meant about the two terms you'd like to address the point I already made:


if creationists did not dispute evolution then they would not be mounting the campaign to teach ID as an alternative to it.

antichrist
11-11-2010, 06:51 PM
In Indonesia there was the volcano spirit guy, well he prayed in front of the volcano to control it - then lo & behold the volcano buried him in lava.

Oepty
11-11-2010, 08:42 PM
In Indonesia there was the volcano spirit guy, well he prayed in front of the volcano to control it - then lo & behold the volcano buried him in lava.

What a failure

Rincewind
11-11-2010, 10:07 PM
True, in fact, trivially true ... and also quite irrelevant to the point I was making.

Not at all irrelevant since the dichotomy of theory and practice does not exist. Applications may come from observation alone but knowledge doesn't and the knowledge leads to more profound understanding and application.


Boris is looking for practical application. I'm saying that if something is theory alone, then it doesn't qualify as practical application. People's beliefs about the age of certain rocks are not practical application.

People don't have arbitrary belief in the age of rocks in the same way you have an arbitrary belief system based on bronze age middle eastern mythology. The age of the rocks discovered by geology are based on evidence and knowledge on the age of rocks does lead to practical applications.


Digging up rocks, crushing them, extracting the ore, and turning it into something useful ... that qualifies as a practical application.

Yes that is useful but it is not science, it is mining.


Whether the rocks are believed to be 100M years old, or 6K years old, is irrelevant to the practical application of digging them up and turning them into ore.

Agreed, never said it does.


Now if it could be shown that only a person who believed that they were 100M years old (or 6K years old) knew where to find the rocks, that would qualify as practical application of the belief about the age of the rocks.

Cool then I assert that that is true. But I again draw your attention to your sloppy language. Science has discovered that rocks are various ages and using this knowledge geologist are able to direct exploration in a far more targeted way than without that knowledge. he knowledge used makes no sense if you through out the baby by mindlessly accepting a 10,000yo earth based on some literal interpretation of genesis.


But just looking at them, cross-correlating the observations, and then assigning an age to them ... that's not a practical application in my book ... that's theory-laden and abstract ... it might be helpful to someone in terms of confirming their notions about the age of the earth (either old or young) but it can't reasonably be touted as practical science.

Then I would suggest you find out more about geology - particularly exploration geophysics, is which the age of the earth is not "pure theory" but an integral part of the practice of their science.

See for example Exploration Geophysics: An Introduction by Gadallah and Fisher, Springer, 2009. In Chapter one which says...


Many people think oil and gas are found in huge, cave-like caverns beneath the surface. This concept is completely wrong. In order to understand where oil and gas came from, how it is accumulated in place, and how to look for it, it is important to realize how very, very old the earth is and how many changes have taken place.

Who would have thought?

antichrist
11-11-2010, 11:19 PM
What a failure

Hundreds of years ago in the Philippines, a priest told everyone don't run that the church for protect you against the volcano, that church become their tomb and still now only the church's spiral is visible.

very good shot of it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayon_Volcano

Here tells the story
http://www.fabulousphilippines.com/mayon-eruption-1814.html

At 8am on February 1, 1814, began the most deadly recorded eruption of Mt Mayon, in which more than 1,200 people were killed.

After a number of seismic shocks, a thick column of stones, sand and ash shot high into the air. The sides of the mountain were hidden by veils of ash, smoke and vapour. A fiery stream of lava dashed down the side of the mountain and the sky darkened. Then stones began falling to earth killing many people. Even houses offered no protection as the stones were red hot and set buildings on fire.

After the eruption ceased, large numbers of dead and injured people lay everywhere. The whole town of Cagsawa was buried. Just the tops of buildings and coconut trees protruded from the debris. The formerly beautiful cultivated slopes of Mt Mayon were now just covered with sand and ash.

One particularly sad incident occured when the priest of the church in Cagsawa church ordered the bells to be rung to warn the local people of the eruption. Hundreds of people took refuge in the church, but unfortunately the lava stream and accompanying ash surrounded and covered the church, killing about 200 people inside.Today the blackened remains of the church tower and of the priest's house and convent house still remain to recall this poignant event. The survivors rebuilt their church and a new settlement nearby at Daraga.

AC
I have read in other accounts that the priest instructed them to stay in the church.

Folklore states that originally Kagsawa was derived from the word “KAG” meaning owner and “SAWA” meaning python. Kagsawa could also mean excesses or too much. The February 1, 1814 Mayon eruption was said to be a divine justice for the people’s overindulgence

So I do not recommend hiding in churches or praying to the Christian God.

Spiny Norman
12-11-2010, 06:21 AM
Perhaps in light of me clarifying what I meant about the two terms you'd like to address the point I already made:


if creationists did not dispute evolution then they would not be mounting the campaign to teach ID as an alternative to it.
Is there something surprising in that fact? If I turn it around like this:

"If evolutionists did not dispute intelligent design, then they would not be mounting the campaign to prevent ID being taught as an alternative to evolution"

do you find it at all remarkable? I don't. And I don't find your observation remarkable in the slightest. So what's the point you are trying to make by saying it?

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2010, 06:28 AM
RW raised "common descent" some pages earlier. I presume this potential point of difference really means "common descent of all life from a single-celled ancestor"
Yes, this the point at issue, not the deceitful bait-and-switch that things change over time, not disputed by any creationist.


(as we are excluding origin-of-life beliefs from the equation).
Of course, since chemical evolution is even more weakly supported than biological evolution aka bacteria to biologists.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2010, 06:30 AM
Frosty is there some particular reason you single out C14 dating? Please tell me your not going to say diamonds. I gave you more credit than that.
I will: Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend: Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend), which has a section refuting the crass evolutionary objections. C-14 is also found in coal.

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2010, 06:34 AM
For one thing if creationists did not dispute evolution then they would not be mounting the campaign to teach ID as an alternative to it.
Not me. I've long advocated an alternative to government schools instead.

Spiny Norman
12-11-2010, 06:35 AM
People don't have arbitrary belief in the age of rocks in the same way you have an arbitrary belief system based on bronze age middle eastern mythology. The age of the rocks discovered by geology are based on evidence and knowledge on the age of rocks does lead to practical applications.
Can you give an example where belief that the rocks are a particular age (lets say hundreds of millions of years old) leads to some kind of practical outcome ... and show how someone who believes that the rocks are a different age (lets say 6000 years) can't get the same practical outcome?


Yes that is useful but it is not science, it is mining.
Now you're just being ridiculous. I'm sure all the chemical engineers and mining engineers with Masters and PhDs in their field would be thrilled to hear you dismiss them as non-scientists. At any rate, the example I gave (mining) is a practical application of science (knowing how to extract ore from crushed rocks).


Science has discovered that rocks are various ages and using this knowledge geologist are able to direct exploration in a far more targeted way than without that knowledge. he knowledge used makes no sense if you through out the baby by mindlessly accepting a 10,000yo earth based on some literal interpretation of genesis.
Well this seems to be the whole point of the discussion ... and just asserting that this is true is a far cry from showing that it is true ... what Boris is interested in is some kind of demonstration ... and so am I.

Can you provide an example of how an old-earth geologist would direct his exploration in such a way to achieve a practical outcome and show how this exploration cannot be directed by a YEC geologist?

This is where the rubber hits the road. I'm interested to know whether there is more to this than mere assertion. I don't know a huge amount about YEC geologists, however what I do know has shown me that the YEC-component of their beliefs is to do with age of rocks ... not where the rocks are, not how they are layered relative to one another, and so on ... so I fail to see how a YEC geologist is at any disadvantage compared to an old-earth geologist.

Here's a possible suggestion for how YEC geology might influence a research project: a YEC would believe that vast quantities of oil and gas can be produced rapidly ... an old-earth geologist would not.

But both could do research to test that theory ... both could contrive laboratory experiments to see whether coal can be produced under extreme conditions of heat and pressure ... both would be justified scientifically in performing such experiments. The YEC would be justified on the basis of showing that his proposed process is possible; the old-earther would be justified on the basis of falsifying a competing theory.

Rincewind
12-11-2010, 08:30 AM
Well this seems to be the whole point of the discussion ... and just asserting that this is true is a far cry from showing that it is true ... what Boris is interested in is some kind of demonstration ... and so am I.

Ummmm.... Did you not see the quote above? I am not just making the assertion. It is what is stated in textbooks.


In order to understand where oil and gas came from, how it is accumulated in place, and how to look for it, it is important to realize how very, very old the earth is and how many changes have taken place.

You are the one with only the bare assertion of a layman.


Can you provide an example of how an old-earth geologist would direct his exploration in such a way to achieve a practical outcome and show how this exploration cannot be directed by a YEC geologist?

There are textbooks full of that information in libraries. All the geologists working in exploration are using methods developed using the undisputed geological fact of the 4.5+ billion year old earth. I know of none working in geophysics exploration whose work is "informed" by a young earth "geology".


This is where the rubber hits the road. I'm interested to know whether there is more to this than mere assertion. I don't know a huge amount about YEC geologists, however what I do know has shown me that the YEC-component of their beliefs is to do with age of rocks ... not where the rocks are, not how they are layered relative to one another, and so on ... so I fail to see how a YEC geologist is at any disadvantage compared to an old-earth geologist.

The only YEC geologist I know anything about forgets all about his YEC "beliefs" when writing geological reports.


But both could do research to test that theory ... both could contrive laboratory experiments to see whether coal can be produced under extreme conditions of heat and pressure ... both would be justified scientifically in performing such experiments. The YEC would be justified on the basis of showing that his proposed process is possible; the old-earther would be justified on the basis of falsifying a competing theory.

That is true and if such research showed young earth creationist does account for petroleum deposits then it would be published the authors would become famous and be highly sort out by minerals companies.

The fact that that has never happened is telling.

Desmond
12-11-2010, 08:39 AM
Is there something surprising in that fact? If I turn it around like this:

"If evolutionists did not dispute intelligent design, then they would not be mounting the campaign to prevent ID being taught as an alternative to evolution"

do you find it at all remarkable? I don't. And I don't find your observation remarkable in the slightest. So what's the point you are trying to make by saying it?You said that YECs agree with evolution and do not dispute it. If they agreed with the theory then they would not be proposing to teach an alternative to it. I agree that this is a rather obvious thing and unremarkable, which is all the more reason why what you said was so ... ununsual.

Desmond
12-11-2010, 08:47 AM
I will: Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend: Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend), which has a section refuting the crass evolutionary objections. C-14 is also found in coal.
So let me get this straight. According to you, diamonds get their carbon from out of the air during photosynthesis , or from eating plant matter, or ...?

Rincewind
12-11-2010, 08:50 AM
I will: Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend: Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years (http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend), which has a section refuting the crass evolutionary objections. C-14 is also found in coal.

Funny that the new section doesn't mention what may be the most likely explanation. Simple sample contamination.

Also even if there were actual ancient C14 samples in the diamonds, the levels are small and certainly don't give any support for a flood geology where nearly everything is the same age and would expect similar levels of C14 is everything. So the throw-away assertion at the end of the article "The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records." Is just wishful thinking on the part of the author.

Next...

Spiny Norman
12-11-2010, 04:36 PM
You said that YECs agree with evolution and do not dispute it.
YECs typically accept that the process of random mutation (RM) plus natural selection (NS), which is the driving force of Darwinian evolution, affects living creatures and produce can new species. If you equate RM+NS with evolution, then YECs are also evolutionists.

YECs typically don't accept that RM+NS is capable of achieving everything evolutionists claim it does ... namely, producing brand new kinds of creatures (i.e. that it is capable of driving life from an original single-celled organism to the multiplicity of life observed in the world today).

So YECs accept what is observed in the world today; namely, that new species can arise through processes like reproductive isolation of small groups of animals, and so on. What they don't accept is what is claimed by old-earth evolutionists (but not observed), namely, that one kind of creature can turn into another kind of creature altogether given enough time.

Spiny Norman
12-11-2010, 04:45 PM
... if such research showed young earth creationist does account for petroleum deposits then it would be published the authors would become famous and be highly sort out by minerals companies.
The fact that that has never happened is telling.

According to that creationist geologist (at least, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same guy):


"Argonne National Laboratories have reported that lignin (the major component of wood), water and acidic clay heated in a sealed container to only 150°C produced brown coal in just two to eight months."

Ref: Hayatsu, R., McBeth, R.L., Scott, R.G., Botto, R.E. and Winans, R.E., Artificial coalification study: Preparation and characterization of synthetic macerals, Organic Geochemistry 6:463–471, 1984.

Gee whiz, who would have thunk it ... real scientists, published in a real peer-reviewed journal no less, show that formation of coal is possible in less than 1 year given ideal conditions.

Wonder if they're rich and famous now...

Production of artificial coal. Practical application of science. Why isn't this a candidate for Boris' challenge? Because it doesn't make a whit of difference whether the scientist(s) doing the experiment is evolutionist or creationist. Either one can do it. Its a useful confirmation for creationists (their theory has not been falsified by this test). Its uncomfortable for evolutionists, but it doesn't disprove anything so why worry about it?

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2010, 04:48 PM
Funny that the new section doesn't mention what may be the most likely explanation. Simple sample contamination.
Because that's the first thing the labs would test for, and is implausible for a super-hard mineral like diamond. The δ13CPDB test is also standard, i.e. the measured difference of the ratio of 13C/12C (both stable isotopes) in the sample compared to the PDB (Pee Dee Belemnite) standard—a fossil belemnite from the Cretaceous Pee Dee Formation in South Carolina, USA.


Also even if there were actual ancient C14 samples in the diamonds, the levels are small and certainly don't give any support for a flood geology where nearly everything is the same age and would expect similar levels of C14 is everything.
Why? Depends on uptake, for example.


So the throw-away assertion at the end of the article "The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world, as the Bible records." Is just wishful thinking on the part of the author.
As usual, our blustering atheopath doesn't know what he's talking about. Any C-14 is strong evidence that the materials can't have been around for millions of years.

Desmond
12-11-2010, 04:54 PM
YECs typically accept that the process of random mutation (RM) plus natural selection (NS), which is the driving force of Darwinian evolution, affects living creatures and produce can new species. If you equate RM+NS with evolution, then YECs are also evolutionists.

YECs typically don't accept that RM+NS is capable of achieving everything evolutionists claim it does ... namely, producing brand new kinds of creatures (i.e. that it is capable of driving life from an original single-celled organism to the multiplicity of life observed in the world today).

So YECs accept what is observed in the world today; namely, that new species can arise through processes like reproductive isolation of small groups of animals, and so on. What they don't accept is what is claimed by old-earth evolutionists (but not observed), namely, that one kind of creature can turn into another kind of creature altogether given enough time.
Yet it is the one mechanism. There is not one mechanism for evolution within a "kind" and another for evolution into a new "kind". The difference is that of scale.

By the way is there documentation of the different "kinds" available somewhere?

Capablanca-Fan
12-11-2010, 05:03 PM
So let me get this straight. According to you, diamonds get their carbon from out of the air during photosynthesis , or from eating plant matter, or ...?
Irrelevant. No matter the source, the C14 could not last a million years.

Desmond
12-11-2010, 05:26 PM
Irrelevant. No matter the source, the C14 could not last a million years.Oh no, it is quite relevant. C14 dating is typically used to determine the age of organic matter, so I am just wondering if you consider diamonds to be a plant or an animal.

Rincewind
12-11-2010, 06:01 PM
According to that creationist geologist (at least, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same guy):

No I'm thinking of a different one.


Gee whiz, who would have thunk it ... real scientists, published in a real peer-reviewed journal no less, show that formation of coal is possible in less than 1 year given ideal conditions.

Wonder if they're rich and famous now...

It is a bit of a bait and switch to assert "vast quantities of oil and gas" and then claim a slam dunk with relatively small quantity of brown coal. :lol: Not the same scale at all.

Rincewind
12-11-2010, 06:08 PM
Because that's the first thing the labs would test for, and is implausible for a super-hard mineral like diamond.

Labs can test for certain levels of contamination (for example, by total background controls and taking readings from different sites no the test specimen to control for localise sample contamination). However the labs themselves cannot effectively control for all in situ specimen contamination.

Although everyone gets the point that there should be zero C14 in the samples, the levels records are very low and not at all inconsistent with minor contamination of the sample with modern C14. There are also several plausible sources for the contamination. So rather than some very minor C14 measurements causing modern science dating to come crashing down like some deck of cards, it looks like it is another case of GIGO "research".

Rincewind
12-11-2010, 06:16 PM
See the link article

RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm)


Radioisotope evidence presents significant problems for the young earth position. Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon” explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry. The RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ. RATE’s processed diamond samples were probably contaminated in the sample chemistry. The unprocessed diamond samples probably reflect instrument background. Coal and diamond samples have been measured by others down to instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon.


The author, Kirk Bertsche, did his PhD in Physics on AMS, supervised by Prof. Richard A. Muller, the guy who invented radiocarbon AMS. Kirk is also a Christian and has an MA in Exegetical Theology from Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon.

Desmond
12-11-2010, 06:52 PM
lplcRdNDcps

QbvMB57evy4

Spiny Norman
13-11-2010, 05:28 AM
Not the same scale at all.
Doesn't have to be in order to suffice as a proof of concept. You're just being silly now if you're claiming that experiments have to be on the same scale as the processes they seek to explain in order to be valid.

Desmond
13-11-2010, 06:15 AM
Doesn't have to be in order to suffice as a proof of concept. You're just being silly now if you're claiming that experiments have to be on the same scale as the processes they seek to explain in order to be valid.Which would appear to be exactly what you are claiming if you claim that evolution works within a "kind" but not between "kinds".

antichrist
13-11-2010, 08:53 AM
Doesn't have to be in order to suffice as a proof of concept. You're just being silly now if you're claiming that experiments have to be on the same scale as the processes they seek to explain in order to be valid.

I agree entirely, if Jesus could just feed 15 people with loaves and fishes it would be just as valid as if he fed 6 billion people, and if those 15 were greedy guts it would be more of a miracle.

And considering it had to be kosher food that was a real feat - the angels in heaven slapping it up at that time could not have been having their mens coz they would have been ordered out of the kitchen.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2010, 09:35 AM
Which would appear to be exactly what you are claiming if you claim that evolution works within a "kind" but not between "kinds".
That's not correct. You (with RW and AC) insist that evolution between "kinds" is "proven beyond reasonable doubt". You with Rincy also label PhD scientists who merely express doubts and call for careful examination as idiots.
At the same time you are demanding that anybody who doubts "evolution between kinds" prove it to be untrue "beyond reasonable doubts".

Rincewind
13-11-2010, 11:02 AM
Doesn't have to be in order to suffice as a proof of concept. You're just being silly now if you're claiming that experiments have to be on the same scale as the processes they seek to explain in order to be valid.

Look Spiny, it proves nothing like all the oil and gas we have exploited so far, let alone that remaining in the ground all developed in the last 6,000 years. We can also make diamonds in a laboratory in half an hour, that does not prove natural diamonds were all created in half an hour and therefore the world was created Wednesday last week.

What you need to show is a creationist geologist, out there in the field, using his creationist "science" finding petroleum and gas reserves with anything like the success of the 99% of geologists who use real science.

Rincewind
13-11-2010, 11:13 AM
That's not correct. You (with RW and AC) insist that evolution between "kinds" is "proven beyond reasonable doubt". You with Rincy also label PhD scientists who merely express doubts and call for careful examination as idiots.

You are misrepresenting me here Igor. Kinds is a undefined and non-scientific word and until creationist ministers like Jono can define it scientifically then such an assertion would not be able to be made as the fundies would just say, ohhhh, THAT'S not a "kind". We would simple have another god of the gaps between kinds. Certainly the evidence of common descent of all life on earth is scientifically compelling and speciation as defined by biology can be reproduced in the laboratory and the evolution between species including transitional species is abundant in the fossil record.

Regarding the idiots who put their name on that website. They are idiots not for their skepticism but for either allowing their religious beliefs to cloud a scientific assessment (assuming they realised the website is religiously motivated) or else they are idiots for not realising they were being manipulated by a fundamental religious organisation.


At the same time you are demanding that anybody who doubts "evolution between kinds" prove it to be untrue "beyond reasonable doubts".

I certainly do not* demand that. What I am saying (and Boris too I believe) is that if an alternative coherent theory does exist, where is a demonstration of its practical benefits. By way of counterexample I have be pointing to exploration geophysics as an example of a discipline with great practical benefits and which relies on conventional age of the earth theory.

This is not a proof or disproof of the theory, per se, it is just a discussion on efficacy.

* Edit: Forgot the "not" in the first version :doh:

Desmond
13-11-2010, 12:56 PM
You are misrepresenting me here Igor. Kinds is a undefined and non-scientific word and until creationist ministers like Jono can define it scientifically then such an assertion would not be able to be made as the fundies would just say, ohhhh, THAT'S not a "kind". We would simple have another god of the gaps between kinds. Exactly. I simply don't know how the YE creationist can make a claim that evolution does not cross the "kinds" boundary, without being able to identify where that boundary is!


I certainly do demand that. What I am saying (and Boris too I believe) is that if an alternative coherent theory does exist, where is a demonstration of its practical benefits. Yup

Spiny Norman
13-11-2010, 03:29 PM
What you need to show is a creationist geologist, out there in the field, using his creationist "science" finding petroleum and gas reserves with anything like the success of the 99% of geologists who use real science.
Actually I don't need to show anything of the sort, since I don't believe that the distinguishing factors which make one a YEC geologist instead of an old earth geologist are relevant factors in the search for oil, gas or coal reserves.

What I think are relevant factors are knowledge of the various types of strata and how they present, knowlege of how to test for this underground (e.g. my using explosions or whatever build a picture of what's down there), knowledge of where oil/gas/coal have previous been found and what the distinguishing geological factors are in those cases, and so on.

I don't see how one's beliefs about ages of strata are relevant. If they were relevant, then you have the following problems:

(a) scientists used to believe that the earth was younger; therefore they could not have found oil/gas/coal in past centuries
(b) there is no guarantee that current beliefs about the age of the earth might not change dramatically in the future (because such beliefs are tentative); therefore either:
(b1) scientists are not able to find oil/gas/coal now but may be able to in the future when they hold the correct beliefs about the age of the earth (obviously false); or
(b2) scientists can find oil/gas/coal now and will be able to find it in the future when their beliefs about the age of the earth change because the ability to find oil/gas/coal is not dependent on beliefs about the age of the earth

If you believe that beliefs about the ages of rocks are truly relevant to the ability to find oil/gas/coal today, then please explain how it could be that scientists managed to find it in the past when they held different beliefs, and how they will manage to find it in the future when they are likely to hold different beliefs.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2010, 04:50 PM
Regarding the idiots who put their name on that website. They are idiots not for their skepticism but for either allowing their religious beliefs to cloud a scientific assessment (assuming they realised the website is religiously motivated) or else they are idiots for not realising they were being manipulated by a fundamental religious organisation.
You are effectively saying that they are idiots not for their scepticism, but for expressing it openly.


I certainly do not* demand that. What I am saying (and Boris too I believe) is that if an alternative coherent theory does exist, where is a demonstration of its practical benefits. By way of counterexample I have be pointing to exploration geophysics as an example of a discipline with great practical benefits and which relies on conventional age of the earth theory.
Boris (and you) demanded the demonstration of practical benefits of creationism. I can't comment on creationism due to lack of knowledge, but I understand that they question certain parts of evolution theory.
For that demand (of efficacy) to be relevant you need to show first the practical benefits of those disputed parts of evolution theory.
Boris drifted from evolution to geology. Does it mean you and Boris cannot show practical benefits of disputed part of evolution theory?

Rincewind
13-11-2010, 05:10 PM
Actually I don't need to show anything of the sort, since I don't believe that the distinguishing factors which make one a YEC geologist instead of an old earth geologist are relevant factors in the search for oil, gas or coal reserves.

No you don't need to. However, modern geology has huge practical benefits and knowledge of plate tectonics and the very, very old age of the earth are integral parts of that knowledge which regularly puts petrol in your car for $1.20/litre. If there was anything to the alternative "theories" then mineral companies would be using these "geologists" for their exploration effort. he fact that there is not a market for such "geologists" is a problem with the position that the age of the earth is just a irrelevant belief.


What I think are relevant factors are knowledge of the various types of strata and how they present, knowlege of how to test for this underground (e.g. my using explosions or whatever build a picture of what's down there), knowledge of where oil/gas/coal have previous been found and what the distinguishing geological factors are in those cases, and so on.

Says the non-geologists. Do you have any reference in the geology literature which says that the age of the earth has no bearing?

I have a quote from an undergraduate textbook which clearly says otherwise...


In order to understand where oil and gas came from, how it is accumulated in place, and how to look for it, it is important to realize how very, very old the earth is and how many changes have taken place.

- Exploration Geophysics: An Introduction by Gadallah and Fisher, Springer, 2009


I don't see how one's beliefs about ages of strata are relevant. If they were relevant, then you have the following problems:

(a) scientists used to believe that the earth was younger; therefore they could not have found oil/gas/coal in past centuries

That is a very silly thing to say, even for you. Of course you can find oil and gas without using science. Dig enough holes and hey presto. Where saying modern science makes the enterprise much more effective.

Other mitigating factors are... some oil was on the surface or leaked onto the surface so that where to drill was more obvious. Secondly, most of the underground exploration has happened in the last 150 years when the ancient age of the earth was well established as a scientific fact and finally the VAST majority of more difficult exploration has occurred post WWII when plate tectonics was a well established scientific fact.


(b) there is no guarantee that current beliefs about the age of the earth might not change dramatically in the future (because such beliefs are tentative); therefore either:

That is true but they are unlikely to change substantially. Modern geology's idea about the age of the earth have not substantially changed for more than a century and plate tectonics has not change substantially in more than 50 years. These are not tentative theories but well established theories.


(b1) scientists are not able to find oil/gas/coal now but may be able to in the future when they hold the correct beliefs about the age of the earth (obviously false); or
(b2) scientists can find oil/gas/coal now and will be able to find it in the future when their beliefs about the age of the earth change because the ability to find oil/gas/coal is not dependent on beliefs about the age of the earth

You continue to plod along with this false dichotomy. It is not a case that knowledge about the earth is an on or off state. We continue to learn more things all the time. Also petroleum exploration is not can/can't do proposition. As we learn more we continue to improve our ability to perform exploration. The "research" undertaken by creationist "geologists" on the other hand do not lead to improvements in exploration since their whole "theory" is incoherent and bogus. If it wasn't then the mineral companies would be employing them to direct their exploration.


If you believe that beliefs about the ages of rocks are truly relevant to the ability to find oil/gas/coal today, then please explain how it could be that scientists managed to find it in the past when they held different beliefs, and how they will manage to find it in the future when they are likely to hold different beliefs.

All explained above. You are imagining a false dichotomy where exploration is either 100% possible or 100% impossible depending on whether you know the age of the earth with 100% certainty or not. However, these absolutes only exist in your scriptures.

As science advances knowledge the effectiveness of exploration increases. We do it better than we did it 100 years ago and doubtless as learn more about the earth that will lead to further benefits which will help with future exploration.

Rincewind
13-11-2010, 05:20 PM
You are effectively saying that they are idiots not for their scepticism, but for expressing it openly.

Not at all, I'm all for open and frank discussion. What I am saying either they are idiots for using religion to decide matter of science or by allowing their skepticism to be hijacked by fundamentalists who are endeavouring to use religion to decide matters of science.

If there really was a secular skeptical movement that wished to voice an unorthodox opinion on any scientific theory based on skeptical reasoning (rather than religious conviction) then I would not consider the members of that movement to be idiotic. However, they may still be idiots, but depending on the discipline in question I may not be in a position to tell.


Boris (and you) demanded the demonstration of practical benefits of creationism. I can't comment on creationism due to lack of knowledge, but I understand that they question certain parts of evolution theory.
For that demand (of efficacy) to be relevant you need to show first the practical benefits of those disputed parts of evolution theory.
Boris drifted from evolution to geology. Does it mean you and Boris cannot show practical benefits of disputed part of evolution theory?

What we are concentrating on here is young earth creationism because it makes strong geological claims hence the concentration on exploration geophysics. If no one was interested in defending the position that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old then we could have a different discussion.

Rincewind
13-11-2010, 06:04 PM
Some readers of this thread may find the following story interesting...

The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm)


Eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all 8 of the graduates from ICR's school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?"

That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either.

The author, Glenn Morton, is a physicist was working in geophysics. He is still a Christian but no longer a young earth creationist.

Spiny Norman
13-11-2010, 06:28 PM
I have a quote from an undergraduate textbook which clearly says otherwise...


In order to understand where oil and gas came from, how it is accumulated in place, and how to look for it, it is important to realize how very, very old the earth is and how many changes have taken place.

- Exploration Geophysics: An Introduction by Gadallah and Fisher, Springer, 2009
Since you seem to have access to the book, perhaps it can explain WHY "it is important to realize how very, very old the earth is" in order to "look for it [oil and gas]".

If it doesn't explain WHY, then its an unsupported assertion. I would settle for you (or anyone really) explaining why, rather than just quoting the book. I'd really like to know what the connection is between believing the earth to be very, very old (instead of young) and knowing how to look for oil and gas.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-11-2010, 06:29 PM
Not at all, I'm all for open and frank discussion. What I am saying either they are idiots for using religion to decide matter of science or by allowing their skepticism to be hijacked by fundamentalists who are endeavouring to use religion to decide matters of science.
What is the basis for your claim that the signatories "use religion to decide matter of science"? The statement itself contains no reference to religion at all. Organiser of declaration explicitly rule out religion and alternative theories.



What we are concentrating on here is young earth creationism because it makes strong geological claims hence the concentration on exploration geophysics. If no one was interested in defending the position that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old then we could have a different discussion.
My question wasn't about YEC, so I'll ask again:
What are the practical benefits of disputedpart of evolution theory?

Rincewind
13-11-2010, 07:03 PM
If it doesn't explain WHY, then its an unsupported assertion. I would settle for you (or anyone really) explaining why, rather than just quoting the book. I'd really like to know what the connection is between believing the earth to be very, very old (instead of young) and knowing how to look for oil and gas.

It is not an unsupported assertion. It is a quote from a secondary source that you can look up and check. The authors are specialists and the publisher is a reputable publisher of scientific journals and books.

To know the reason you will need to do some research on exploration geophysics. I'm certainly not going to quote the book to you paragraph by paragraph.

If you want a counterargument what you might need to find is a reputable book which says something like "the ancient geological history of the earth has no bearing on exploration geophysics". No doubt you can find a creationist or two who will try that one on. Hence the need for some repute.

Rincewind
13-11-2010, 07:10 PM
What is the basis for your claim that the signatories "use religion to decide matter of science"? The statement itself contains no reference to religion at all. Organiser of declaration explicitly rule out religion and alternative theories.

I suggest you might want to start a new thread on that topic. By your own admission you don't know much about creationism. So do some research on the pages that you cut and paste into arguments here (before you do the cut and paste) and you will find I will not have to correct you so often.


My question wasn't about YEC, so I'll ask again:
What are the practical benefits of disputedpart of evolution theory?

Your assertion was that Boris sidetracked the discussion from evolution to geology. The reason for your confusion was you did not realise that young earth creationism (who Jono and Spiny seem to be committed to) makes strong geological claims which fly in the face of the evidence and that motived Boris's question on efficacy.

If you want to discuss the practical benefits of biology, I suggest you start a new thread. Specify exactly which part of biology you disagree with and why, and what your alternative hypotheses are. We will go from there but until I know which parts of biology you dispute, it is pretty hard to answer your question.

Desmond
13-11-2010, 07:23 PM
Exactly. I simply don't know how the YE creationist can make a claim that evolution does not cross the "kinds" boundary, without being able to identify where that boundary is! I take it from the lack of answer that the documentation of "kinds" is a bit elusive. Perhaps Jono can help Spiny et al.

Spiny Norman
14-11-2010, 06:30 AM
It is not an unsupported assertion. It is a quote from a secondary source that you can look up and check. The authors are specialists and the publisher is a reputable publisher of scientific journals and books.
As presented by you, so far, it is unsupported. Perhaps the book makes the connection between beliefs about ages of rocks and ability to find gas/oil. If it does, then the claim is not unsupported. Perhaps the authors thought the claim so obvious that it didn't need to be supported.


To know the reason you will need to do some research on exploration geophysics. I'm certainly not going to quote the book to you paragraph by paragraph.
Fair enough. As I'm not particularly interested in the subject, we'll move on.


If you want a counterargument what you might need to find is a reputable book which says something like "the ancient geological history of the earth has no bearing on exploration geophysics". No doubt you can find a creationist or two who will try that one on. Hence the need for some repute.
Don't misrepresent my p.o.v. ... the geological history of the earth has a big bearing on exploration geophysics ... whether it being ancient (billions of years) or not (thousands of years) may or may not be relevant ... I happen to think its not, and nobody has as yet shown why it is relevant, but only that some people say that it is relevant without showing the supporting arguments.

antichrist
14-11-2010, 06:44 AM
Spiny
Don't misrepresent my p.o.v. ... the geological history of the earth has a big bearing on exploration geophysics ... whether it being ancient (billions of years) or not (thousands of years) may or may not be relevant ... I happen to think its not, and nobody has as yet shown why it is relevant, but only that some people say that it is relevant without showing the supporting arguments

AC
Spiny, there are some parts of the earth created by God, the young parts only 10,000 years old that cant contain oil as too young, and there are older parts created by evolution of the universe that are billions of years old that is where the oil is "created" and stored. You will notice that there is not oil in the Holy Land, that is coz only 10000 or less years old. If you go to where the apes come from, Africa, you will find gold, diamonds and oil etc

Desmond
14-11-2010, 08:00 AM
As presented by you, so far, it is unsupported. Perhaps the book makes the connection between beliefs about ages of rocks and ability to find gas/oil. If it does, then the claim is not unsupported. Perhaps the authors thought the claim so obvious that it didn't need to be supported.


Fair enough. As I'm not particularly interested in the subject, we'll move on.


Don't misrepresent my p.o.v. ... the geological history of the earth has a big bearing on exploration geophysics ... whether it being ancient (billions of years) or not (thousands of years) may or may not be relevant ... I happen to think its not, and nobody has as yet shown why it is relevant, but only that some people say that it is relevant without showing the supporting arguments.The book RW cited is on google books if you're interested.

Spiny Norman
14-11-2010, 09:21 AM
Fine ... lets look at it together:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=OiMaAO1H1pUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Exploration+Geophysics&hl=en&ei=ARrfTPaANILKvQPGkeXzDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I've just read the introduction that RW finds so compelling, so see whether the assertion:

"In order to ... look for it [oil and gas], it is important to realize how very, very old the earth is ..."

(ref: bottom of page 2)

is supported with any evidence. Can't see it. Please explicitly point it out so that I can understand why the age of the rocks (as opposed to an understanding of where the strata lie in relation to each other) is relevant.

The oil and gas search methods mentioned in the introduction are:
-- surface geology surveys (just "looking around" on the surface)
-- magnetic exploration (measuring anomalies in the earth's magnetic field)
-- seismic exploration (setting off explosions and measuring the results)

(ref: pages 4 & 5)

Please explain how the beliefs about the ages of rock strata (as opposed to an understanding of where the strata lie in relation to each other) is relevant to the methods mentioned.

Guys, I would really, really like to understand this. But you have to do more than quote mine and wave your hands with appeals to authority to make your argument stick. Someone needs to explain the science behind these claims sooner or later.

Desmond
14-11-2010, 09:37 AM
Spiny if you truly can't see how completely incompatible a 6,000 year old Earth is with so many things in that introductory chapter, then I doubt I will be able to spell it out for you.

Rincewind
14-11-2010, 10:24 AM
Don't misrepresent my p.o.v. ... the geological history of the earth has a big bearing on exploration geophysics ... whether it being ancient (billions of years) or not (thousands of years) may or may not be relevant ... I happen to think its not, and nobody has as yet shown why it is relevant, but only that some people say that it is relevant without showing the supporting arguments.

To understand the reasons unfortunately need to learn some geophysics. If you don't want to learn some geophysics then it is a little hard.

You claim that I am quote mining and using appeals to authority. What I am doing is actually doing a brief review of the literature for salient quotes from experts and presenting them to you. This is neither quote mining (which alludes to quoting out of context) or a fallacious appeal to authority (which is when an authority on one topic is presented as an authority on all topics). I merely presented you with an expert (in exploration geophysics) opinion that the ancient age of the earth was relevant to their field of speciality.

Of course you are free to believe otherwise (especially on a Sunday) but then again, you know jack about exploration geophysics.

Rincewind
14-11-2010, 10:34 AM
Someone needs to explain the science behind these claims sooner or later.

Knock yourself out. When you have made some effort to try to look at them (rather than just dismissing them out of hand because they MUST be wrong) let me know.

BTW did you read this story?

The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm)

Spiny Norman
14-11-2010, 10:52 AM
Knock yourself out. When you have made some effort to try to look at them (rather than just dismissing them out of hand because they MUST be wrong) let me know.
You seem to be unable to provide any kind of sensible explanation as to WHY knowledge of the age of rocks is essential, as opposed to knowledge of how the various strata are located relative to one another.

I'm therefore rapidly reaching the conclusion that you are bluffing and furiously hand-waving. If there's evidence that knowledge of the age of the rocks within an old-earth paradigm is important, please present it, so that we can all consider the arguments.

Here's a scenario for you to consider with a question that should be simple for you or Boris to answer ...

--------------

Lets say for the purpose of this scenario that oil can only be found between Permian and Triassic rocks, roughly 250M years old if you are an old-earther.

Lets further say that a YEC believes that the Permian/Triassic boundary is just 2,500 years ago ... that's a factor of 100,000 in difference ... a massive misunderstanding from your p.o.v.

EXPLAIN:
-- how the old-earther knows that the rocks he is looking at are 250M years old (and not 2,500 years old), given that rocks don't have dates engraved on them
-- why the YEC would be unable to find the oil, given that he can observe and measure exactly the same things that the old-earther can, note the differences, assign them to Permian and Triassic categories based on their characteristics and how the strata are laid in relation to one another, and then conclude that there might be oil there

Desmond
14-11-2010, 11:34 AM
-- how the old-earther knows that the rocks he is looking at are 250M years old (and not 2,500 years old), given that rocks don't have dates engraved on themCheck out the first youtube I posted a day or two ago, here (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=293280&postcount=368).


By the way how is that list of "kinds" coming along?

Spiny Norman
14-11-2010, 12:04 PM
You're missing the point Boris. Think it through carefully ...

Desmond
14-11-2010, 12:09 PM
You're missing the point Boris. Think it through carefully ...
On which point? Age or "kinds"?

Spiny Norman
14-11-2010, 04:48 PM
Age ... since things don't come with age labels on them, we use a variety of observational data combined with the theoretical in order to calculate an age ... and the challenge is to explain why it is that an old-earther can supposedly use this observational data to derive an age and then use the number calculated to find oil/gas/coal/whatever, and yet the YEC is supposed to be unable to do this anywhere near as effectively because, even though he has access to the same observational data, he uses different calculations to arrive at a different calculated number

So the difference in the numbers (age) is supposed to be a critical factor, at least according to the quote RW gave from that book. I'd like an explanation of why the difference in the numbers changes the effectiveness of the search for oil/gas/coal/whatever, even though the observational data is identical.

Desmond
14-11-2010, 06:00 PM
Age ... since things don't come with age labels on them, we use a variety of observational data combined with the theoretical in order to calculate an age ... and the challenge is to explain why it is that an old-earther can supposedly use this observational data to derive an age and then use the number calculated to find oil/gas/coal/whatever, Is anyone claiming that that is the case?

antichrist
14-11-2010, 06:46 PM
Frosty, I dont believe that you believe the rubbish you are posting. You are just trying to shore up a contrived position in public.

You only have to follow Darwin's footsteps and examine where there have been earthquakes, and see the different layers of creatures that are represented in each layer of earth or strata. All that dirt had to be created from foilage etc - so millions or billions of years was needed. Even 18C scientists realised that. That was before many of the micro sciences existed.

So dont be like the 3 monkeys - get your finger out of your backside and stop making a fool of yourself in front of the whole chess world.

Rincewind
14-11-2010, 08:01 PM
You seem to be unable to provide any kind of sensible explanation as to WHY knowledge of the age of rocks is essential, as opposed to knowledge of how the various strata are located relative to one another.

I'm therefore rapidly reaching the conclusion that you are bluffing and furiously hand-waving. If there's evidence that knowledge of the age of the rocks within an old-earth paradigm is important, please present it, so that we can all consider the arguments.

I will repeat that Frosty, a non-scientist without the knowledge or inclination to learn any exploration geophysics thinks that is the case. Despite being cited discipline experts who say otherwise. I do find your conviction to a religious position quite incredible. However not as great as your faith in in you own uninformed position.


EXPLAIN:
-- how the old-earther knows that the rocks he is looking at are 250M years old (and not 2,500 years old), given that rocks don't have dates engraved on them

Rock dating is not difficult and there are a number of ways including relative dating from layering, absolute dating from things like radiometrics.


-- why the YEC would be unable to find the oil, given that he can observe and measure exactly the same things that the old-earther can, note the differences, assign them to Permian and Triassic categories based on their characteristics and how the strata are laid in relation to one another, and then conclude that there might be oil there

The point with the young earther is that he would assume pretty much that all the rocks are the same age. All the sediment being laid down in the Nochian flood. He would have no reason to think that oil should be anywhere in particular since all sediments are effectively the one age, give or take a year.

Rincewind
14-11-2010, 08:02 PM
So the difference in the numbers (age) is supposed to be a critical factor, at least according to the quote RW gave from that book. I'd like an explanation of why the difference in the numbers changes the effectiveness of the search for oil/gas/coal/whatever, even though the observational data is identical.

One reason is if all the rocks are the same age then oil can be anywhere. It all happened at the one point in time. (6,000 years ago give or take a year)

BTW did you read this story?

The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm)

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2010, 09:04 PM
I will repeat that Frosty, a non-scientist without the knowledge or inclination to learn any exploration geophysics thinks that is the case. Despite being cited discipline experts who say otherwise. I do find your conviction to a religious position quite incredible. However not as great as your faith in in you own uninformed position.

Perhaps one might want to provide an explanation or, better still, a practical example of the possible benefits of either old-earth or common ancestor theory.
So far I only saw completely iirelevant attempts to shift a debate.
Does it matter what Spiny's religion position is? Quoting an expert who says "it's important" is hardly an intelligent argument without explaining why it's important.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2010, 09:05 PM
By the way how is that list of "kinds" coming along?
Can you demonstrate practical benefits of common ancestry theory?

Rincewind
14-11-2010, 10:13 PM
Perhaps one might want to provide an explanation or, better still, a practical example of the possible benefits of either old-earth or common ancestor theory.

I replied to you before what you need to do before we can have that debate. If you keep asking I will keep repeating

If you want to discuss the practical benefits of biology, I suggest you start a new thread. Specify exactly which part of biology you disagree with and why, and what your alternative hypotheses are. We will go from there but until I know which parts of biology you dispute, it is pretty hard to answer your question.


So far I only saw completely iirelevant attempts to shift a debate.

Well then you are just seeing what you want to see. Boris, Frosty and I have been happily discussing geology because the geological claims of young earthers are simply (and literally) incredible. There has been no shifting of the debate from geology. Since Boris originally posted the question. You have claimed on at least two occasions since then that there has been. I explained once why you were mistaken and now you have repeated the bogus "debate shifting" claim. I can only conclude you don't read my replies or you are stupid.


Does it matter what Spiny's religion position is? Quoting an expert who says "it's important" is hardly an intelligent argument without explaining why it's important.

Spiny's religion is important because he believes the world is less than 10,000 years old DUE TO HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF. The scientific view of the world is not synthesised from a literal acceptance of any book. It looks at the data and develops a coherent body of theory. The data shows us that

- the world is billions of years old
- the geological strata were laid down mostly gradually over those billions of years
- life of earth began with less complex life and gradually evolved into the diversity of life (both simple and complex) existing today

Scientists know these to be fact things because the data supports them.

A 10,000 year old earth, six-day creation, no death before "the fall", world-wide flood, etc are not scientific facts because the data does not support them. Frosty only believes them because he has a a priori faith in one set of scriptures above all others and above experimental data.
___

Regarding the intelligent argument stakes. Quoting some professional exploration geophysicists who have written a book on geophysics which says that the age of the earth is an important factor in understanding and finding oil reserves is a valid review of the literature. Compared to Frosty saying "I simply don't believe it" it is a knock down argument.

If you want to find out something about exploration geophysics then get the book and do some reading. Although I hope you might want to read more than a page or two before you decide that the claim (of two experts in exploration geophysics) is bogus.

Oepty
14-11-2010, 10:40 PM
Spiny's religion is important because he believes the world is less than 10,000 years old DUE TO HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF. The scientific view of the world is not synthesised from a literal acceptance of any book.


Well it should take into account what God says, it is sciences biggest failure that it doesn't.



It looks at the data and develops a coherent body of theory. The data shows us that

- the world is billions of years old
- the geological strata were laid down mostly gradually over those billions of years
- life of earth began with less complex life and gradually evolved into the diversity of life (both simple and complex) existing today

Scientists know these to be fact things because the data supports them.


The data is either wrong or the interpretation is wrong. I will trust God over scientists any day. Science and religion have nothing in common and trying to judge religion by science is just stupid. Anything man knows is only known because God has allowed us to know it. Anything in the earth that can benefit us, such as oil, coal etc is there because God put it there. It doesn't need billions of years to form if God put it there.
Scott

antichrist
14-11-2010, 11:31 PM
Well it should take into account what God says, it is sciences biggest failure that it doesn't.



The data is either wrong or the interpretation is wrong. I will trust God over scientists any day. Science and religion have nothing in common and trying to judge religion by science is just stupid. Anything man knows is only known because God has allowed us to know it. Anything in the earth that can benefit us, such as oil, coal etc is there because God put it there. It doesn't need billions of years to form if God put it there.
Scott

And Scott, from what university are your degrees for geology etc from? You shoud include the approp letters after your name. You could redesign all uni courses and save us billions of dollars - just all from God, end of story.

I am sorry to say that you are a stupid and hopeless idiot, the type who would believe forever that stars were holes in the floor of heaven how I was taught.

You ningnong - light from stars millions of light years away has reached us, that means that the universe is millions of years old. It is that simple.

Stick to your day job.


As well oil and coal are not necessarily benefits - they are wrecking our world as well as making us fat and lazy.

Ian Murray
14-11-2010, 11:54 PM
Muslims have no problem accepting the big-bang theory and evolution, in accordance with the Quran, the Word of God:


21:30 Did those who reject not see that the
heavens and the earth were one mass
and We tore them apart? That We
made from the water everything that
lives. Will they not acknowledge?
21:31 We made on the earth stabilizers so
that it would not tumble with you, and
We made in it wide paths that they
may be guided.
21:32 We made the sky a protective ceiling.
Yet they are turning away from Our
signs!*
21:33 He is the One who created the night
and the day, and the sun and the moon,
each swimming in an orbit.

15:28 Your Lord said to the angels: "I am
creating a human from hardened clay of
aged mud."
15:29 "So when I perfect him, and blow of My
Spirit in him, you shall fall prostrate to
him."

24:45 God created every moving creature from
water. So some of them move on their
bellies, and some walk on two legs, and
some walk on four. God creates
whatever He wills. God is capable of all
things.

32:7 The One who perfected everything He
created and He began the creation of the
human from clay.
32:8 Then He made his offspring from a
structure derived from an insignificant
liquid.
32:9 Then He evolved him, and blew into him
from His Spirit. He made for you the
hearing, the eyesight, and the hearts;
rarely are you thankful.


Same God, different book.

antichrist
15-11-2010, 12:26 AM
Is this saying that God did not make them from nothing, that the ingredients were already there?

Spiny Norman
15-11-2010, 05:57 AM
The point with the young earther is that he would assume pretty much that all the rocks are the same age. All the sediment being laid down in the Nochian flood. He would have no reason to think that oil should be anywhere in particular since all sediments are effectively the one age, give or take a year.


Rock dating is not difficult and there are a number of ways including relative dating from layering, absolute dating from things like radiometrics.

But see, you're also missing the point. Even if most all (but not all) the rocks were laid down in a single event, it doesn't matter to this YEC geologist that they are all the same age ... all that matters is that he can distinguish between the layers ... and he can use the same techniques for distinguishing between them that your old-earth geologist can use.

That was my point. The practical science, the techniques used, are the same (measuring radioactivity, observing different types of strata, and so on). Only the conclusion, the age of the rock, is different because they are using a different model to reach their conclusions.

Here's an example of a YEC geologist discussing a particular geological formation:
http://creation.com/paleosols-digging-deeper-buries-challenge-to-flood-geology

Note that he discusses them both within the old earth paradigm and within his own model. So his beliefs about the actual age of the rocks (6K years or less) don't stop him assessing the formations and observing their various features. That's why it seems silly to say that old-earth beliefs are necessary in order to find oil/gas/coal.

I'm still waiting for some kind of demonstration of why that would be the case. Even just a general outline of an argument would help.

Spiny Norman
15-11-2010, 05:58 AM
Is anyone claiming that that is the case?
I thought you read RW's quote?

Ian Murray
15-11-2010, 07:41 AM
Is this saying that God did not make them from nothing, that the ingredients were already there?

2:117 Initiator of heavens and earth, when He
decrees a command, He merely says to
it, "Be," and it is.
i.e. created from nothing

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2010, 08:37 AM
I replied to you before what you need to do before we can have that debate. If you keep asking I will keep repeating

If you want to discuss the practical benefits of biology, I suggest you start a new thread. Specify exactly which part of biology you disagree with and why, and what your alternative hypotheses are. We will go from there but until I know which parts of biology you dispute, it is pretty hard to answer your question.

OK, We'll get back to it when you specify practical benefits of common ancestry theory.


I can only conclude you don't read my replies or you are stupid.
You inability to have civilised discussion is well known, no need to remind about it.



Spiny's religion is important because he believes the world is less than 10,000 years old DUE TO HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF. The scientific view of the world is not synthesised from a literal acceptance of any book. It looks at the data and develops a coherent body of theory. The data shows us that

- the world is billions of years old
- the geological strata were laid down mostly gradually over those billions of years
- life of earth began with less complex life and gradually evolved into the diversity of life (both simple and complex) existing today

Scientists know these to be fact things because the data supports them.

The religious view of Spiny are irrelevant to the validity of his scientific view. Don't debate science by addressing religion, it's at least unscientific.

The discussion was about practical benefits, brought up, IIRC, by Boris (and supported by you and AC). We are still waiting for you or Boris to demonstrate any.


A 10,000 year old earth, six-day creation, no death before "the fall", world-wide flood, etc are not scientific facts because the data does not support them. Frosty only believes them because he has a a priori faith in one set of scriptures above all others and above experimental data.

It is completely irrelevant to the discussion of practical benefits of old earth vs young earth debate.



If you want to find out something about exploration geophysics then get the book and do some reading. Although I hope you might want to read more than a page or two before you decide that the claim (of two experts in exploration geophysics) is bogus.
I can only assume from above that you've read and understood the book.
Does it explains WHY "old earth" is important to geology?
Does it give any practical example how it benefits exploration?

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 08:38 AM
Well it should take into account what God says, it is sciences biggest failure that it doesn't.

I would say that by looking for only naturalist causes has been sciences greatest successes. The fact that we have been able to double life expectancies get people onto the Moon, landers and rovers onto Mars, feed 6+ billion people, etc all from a purely natural description of the universe is pretty cool.


The data is either wrong or the interpretation is wrong. I will trust God over scientists any day. Science and religion have nothing in common and trying to judge religion by science is just stupid. Anything man knows is only known because God has allowed us to know it. Anything in the earth that can benefit us, such as oil, coal etc is there because God put it there. It doesn't need billions of years to form if God put it there.

If you are going to appeal to the "god put it there" argument then you just don't get anywhere. It is a recipe for stagnation. You don't get to the moon because you would still be using the Ptolemy model with crystal spheres with the earth at the centre (where God put it). You don't get to Mars. You don't investigate to find to cause of anything because the answer to any question you don't understand is "God put it there".

Scientific knowledge if far from complete but it doesn't get anywhere by accepting supernatural explanation. The reason is that if we accept "God put it there" then why be curious?

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 08:40 AM
I thought you read RW's quote?

Did you?

BTW did you read this story?

The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm)

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2010, 08:44 AM
Muslims have no problem accepting the big-bang theory and evolution, in accordance with the Quran, the Word of God:

I don't see how either big-bang theory or indisputable well proven parts of evolution theory (mutation, natural selection, etc.) contradict any major religion.

Personally I don't have problem with any religion or atheists who do not try to impose their views on the rest of us. It's alright for atheist to doubt God existence or different religion to interpret God differently.

However, I don't have much sympathy for grand standing and vicious attack on those daring to disagree. On this forum they happened to be atheists.

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 08:51 AM
OK, We'll get back to it when you specify practical benefits of common ancestry theory.

You seem to have a problem understanding normal flow of time. I cannot address the practical benefits of common descent until I understand exactly which parts of common descent you disagree with and why and what your alternative hypotheses are. So I will keep repeating until it sinks into you tiny skull...

If you want to discuss the practical benefits of biology, I suggest you start a new thread. Specify exactly which part of biology you disagree with and why, and what your alternative hypotheses are. We will go from there but until I know which parts of biology you dispute, it is pretty hard to answer your question.


You inability to have civilised discussion is well known, no need to remind about it.

Civilised discussion with intelligent people is easy. It is stupid people I have difficulty relating to.


The religious view of Spiny are irrelevant to the validity of his scientific view. Don't debate science by addressing religion, it's at least unscientific.

The discussion was about practical benefits, brought up, IIRC, by Boris (and supported by you and AC). We are still waiting for you or Boris to demonstrate any.

The thing is at the moment to discussion is based on opinions.

On one hand we have the opinion of two experts in exploration geophysics who say the age of the earth is an important factor.

On the other side we have Frosty who says he can't see it. AFAIK Frosty has no training in science let alone exploration geophysics. He simply disagrees with the opinions of the experts and the reason for this disagreement is that it is at odds with his religiously held conviction. If you can't see how that is relevent then more fool you.


It is completely irrelevant to the discussion of practical benefits of old earth vs young earth debate.

That depends on the nature of the discussion. As I said, at the moment we have two opinions. One of two experts in the field, the other is Frosty a fundamentalist christian who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis.


I can only assume from above that you've read and understood the book.
Does it explains WHY "old earth" is important to geology?
Does it give any practical example how it benefits exploration?

I haven't read the book. As I said, I furnished the quote as an expert opinion. It is relevant as they are experts in the field and as far as I can tell I have not quoted them out of context. (Hence Spiny's scurrilous accusation of Quote Mining is completely unfounded, unsubstantiated and so far he has not apologised for it).

I am not and will never be an expert in exploration geophysics. I might do some reading in the future if I need to. However, at present there is no need. Expert testimony is on my side and Spiny has nothing but his religious convictions.

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 08:58 AM
However, I don't have much sympathy for grand standing and vicious attack on those daring to disagree. On this forum they happened to be atheists.

As I said before, the notion of a God is not a problem. Those who think religious considerations are above science, particularly those who try to pervert science in an attempt to push their religion are the problem.

Also people misrepresenting the facts related to science is something else which I feel I must disagree with.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2010, 09:04 AM
Civilised discussion with intelligent people is easy. It is stupid people I have difficulty relating to.
Good to hear. Now you would appreciate how difficult would be for anyone to discuss anything with you.



The thing is at the moment to discussion is based on opinions.

On one hand we have the opinion of two experts in exploration geophysics who say the age of the earth is an important factor.
So you hide behind a single quote without trying to substantiate the claim.
Quote is alright in the line of the argument, but it is not a substitute for the argument.

Can Boris do any better?

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2010, 09:07 AM
As I said before, the notion of a God is not a problem. Those who think religious considerations are above science, particularly those who try to pervert science in an attempt to push their religion are the problem.


So far the main perversion of science I noticed is the attempt to shut the debate and to claim that Darwin theory is "proven beyond reasonable doubts".
Branding of PhDs who merely express scepticism and ask for evidences and examination falls into the same category.

Desmond
15-11-2010, 09:16 AM
I thought you read RW's quote?
Yes I did, but from your paraphrasing I think you missed the point.

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 09:37 AM
Good to hear. Now you would appreciate how difficult would be for anyone to discuss anything with you.

Awww aren't you precious. :lol:


So you hide behind a single quote without trying to substantiate the claim.

I'm not hiding behind, in front of or beside anything. I simply provided evidence that in the opinion of two experts in exploration geophysics, the age of the earth is important.

So far we have exactly the same level of resonse from Frosty except that in that case it is just the opinion of a non expert fundamentalist.


Quote is alright in the line of the argument, but it is not a substitute for the argument.

The discussion isn't over but I don't see why the onus is on me to provide anything more when the opposition is wanting.

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 09:52 AM
So far the main perversion of science I noticed is the attempt to shut the debate and to claim that Darwin theory is "proven beyond reasonable doubts".

No, that is indeed the scientific position. There is no other scientifically credible alternative position. Science does not know everything but from a scientific viewpoint, the origin of species by natural selection is a proven fact. The common descent of all life, including human life, is a proven fact. A billion of year old earth is a proven fact. Here I use the term "proven fact" in the scientific sense in that we know it with a vanishingly small chance of being completely wrong.


Branding of PhDs who merely express scepticism and ask for evidences and examination falls into the same category.

The websites you quoted were funded by the Discovery Institute which is a fundamentalist Christian organisation with the stated objective of promoting Intelligent Design (their religion) as science and to get it included in science curricula in schools. That is the level of perversion we are talking about. For more information on the Discovery Institute just google "The Wedge Strategy".

Earlier you gave the full weight of your support to school boards over big government educational departments. You might be interested to read about the Kitzmiller v Dover court case where two members of the Dover School Board tried to get Intelligent Design into the science classroom and in the process purgored themselves on the witness stand to try and cover up the level of their complicity and the religious motivations.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2010, 10:26 AM
No, that is indeed the scientific position. There is no other scientifically credible alternative position. Science does not know everything but from a scientific viewpoint, the origin of species by natural selection is a proven fact. The common descent of all life, including human life, is a proven fact. A billion of year old earth is a proven fact. Here I use the term "proven fact" in the scientific sense in that we know it with a vanishingly small chance of being completely wrong.

Screaming something is "proven fact", or invoking reference to authority is not the same as proving it.
However, it goes far beyond it. You might think it's proven, you might present good argument and have a very good point (which, btw, you never do). It does not, however, justify vicious (and hollow) attacks on those who disagree. Address the real arguments instead of trying to mount some dubious smear campaign.



The websites you quoted were funded by the Discovery Institute which is a fundamentalist Christian organisation with the stated objective of promoting Intelligent Design (their religion) as science and to get it included in science curricula in schools. That is the level of perversion we are talking about. For more information on the Discovery Institute just google "The Wedge Strategy".
Again, instead of trying to smear your opponents try to address a real issue.


Earlier you gave the full weight of your support to school boards over big government educational departments. You might be interested to read about the Kitzmiller v Dover court case where two members of the Dover School Board tried to get Intelligent Design into the science classroom and in the process purgored themselves on the witness stand to try and cover up the level of their complicity and the religious motivations.
There is no perfect system. Even if your reporting of the case is correct and not a simple spin (which, given your bias and overall record, cannot be assumed), it does not mean that by and large government department do better in selecting the curriculum. They didn't try to put Al Gore science fiction on the curriculum, don't they?

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 10:45 AM
Screaming something is "proven fact", or invoking reference to authority is not the same as proving it.

No but I never said that *I* proved it. I was stating the position of scientists and scientific academies worldwide who ARE authorities on the disciplines we are talking about.


However, it goes far beyond it. You might think it's proven, you might present good argument and have a very good point (which, btw, you never do). It does not, however, justify vicious (and hollow) attacks on those who disagree. Address the real arguments instead of trying to mount some dubious smear campaign.

I have presented a number of arguments but generally the alternative hypotheses (giant lizards, etc) are generally so completely improbable that they collapse under the weight of their own stupidity,


Again, instead of trying to smear your opponents try to address a real issue.

It would be a smear campaign if it was untrue or irrelevant. However when a religiously motivated organisation (fact) is trying to to pass of their ID religion (fact) and get it into scientific classrooms (fact). Then the perversion of science is factual, relevant and it is in the public interest to know about it.


There is no perfect system. Even if your reporting of the case is correct and not a simple spin (which, given your bias and overall record, cannot be assumed), it does not mean that by and large government department do better in selecting the curriculum. They didn't try to put Al Gore science fiction on the curriculum, don't they?

You have no facts and yet you smear me (without substantiation). Ironically that is what you accused me of above, although I am easily able to answer your criticism. Secondly you again try to deflect the debate into a completely issue (global warming). Wait a minute, isn't that another tactic you have accused my and Boris of on at least two recent occasions (again you were shown to be mistaken).

I find it palpably ironic that Igor, the great accuser of smear campaigns and deflection, is in fact the only person in this thread actively doing anything which can accurately termed a smear campaign and deflection. (Although Spiny's accusation of quote mining counts as a smear, it was hardly a campaign).

You are a hypocrite and by your own measure of decency a complete disgrace.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2010, 12:55 PM
You have no facts and yet you smear me (without substantiation). Ironically that is what you accused me of above, although I am easily able to answer your criticism. Secondly you again try to deflect the debate into a completely issue (global warming).
I didn't smear you because it was neither untrue nor irrelevant. Your track record give me the reason to say that you claims cannot be taken at face value and have to be verified.

You are a hypocrite and by your own measure of decency a complete disgrace.
Pot calling the kettle black:doh: :doh:


Back to the subject. I am still waiting for you or Boris to demonstrate practical benefits of either common ancestry theory or old-earth paradigm.
Come back when you can show some.

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 01:05 PM
I didn't smear you because it was neither untrue nor irrelevant. Your track record give me the reason to say that you claims cannot be taken at face value and have to be verified.

More muck and zero substantiation. If you keep making claims and I keep calling on you to show some evidence and you keep repeating the same claim with again no evidence. How are you getting any closer to making your claim?

Come back when you have some evidence of your claim or else continue to be the laughing stock of the thread.


Pot calling the kettle black:doh: :doh:

Well it is interesting to see that (unlike me) you don't deny the claim. You accept the mantles of Hypocrite, Smearer and Deflector par excellence. Your defense being that if I and doing it then you are permitted to. The only problem is I deny your claims and you have failed to substantiate them in any way, shape or form.

I believe you are up a certain creek without a means of locomotion.


Back to the subject. I am still waiting for you or Boris to demonstrate practical benefits of either common ancestry theory or old-earth paradigm.
Come back when you can show some.

Iggy baby. We have gone through this a number of times already. We can't answer you questions until we know the parts of (what you alone* call) "common ancentry theory" you dispute. Therefore I will repeat this one more time... for the dummies.

If you want to discuss the practical benefits of biology, I suggest you start a new thread. Specify exactly which part of biology you disagree with and why, and what your alternative hypotheses are. We will go from there but until I know which parts of biology you dispute, it is pretty hard to answer your question.

However given the disingenuous behaviour you have displayed so far, I do not guarantee that I will respond to your cry for attention and a free biology lesson.

__
* Edit: I've since discovered a lot of religious nutjobscreationists also use the term.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2010, 02:24 PM
Well it is interesting to see that (unlike me) you don't deny the claim. You accept the mantles of Hypocrite, Smearer and Deflector par excellence. Your defense being that if I and doing it then you are permitted to. The only problem is I deny your claims and you have failed to substantiate them in any way, shape or form.

This part requires a little explanation. I thought it would be obvious that I use alternative meaning of the expression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black#Alternative_interpret ation) Apparently there was one forum dweller who failed to pick it up.
I am not going to comment on the rest of the post which is nothing but a rude outburst with zero substance. Come back when you have something meaningful to say.

Meanwhile I wait until someone comes to RW rescue.

Spiny Norman
15-11-2010, 04:47 PM
On one hand we have the opinion of two experts in exploration geophysics who say the age of the earth is an important factor.

On the other side we have Frosty who says he can't see it. AFAIK Frosty has no training in science let alone exploration geophysics. He simply disagrees with the opinions of the experts and the reason for this disagreement is that it is at odds with his religiously held conviction.
False, sorry, you're just seeing what you want to see and ignoring what I have actually said.

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that they make an assertion and then don't support that assertion with either an argument or with evidence (based on the parts of the book which are online, which includes the Introduction which you quoted, the first chapter, and the TOC).

Maybe they thought it so obvious that they declined to support their view with an argument or evidence? Maybe its in a part of the book which is not available online? But as things stand, the bit about age being important (as opposed to other factors) is an unsupported assertion.

I'm asking for someone, anyone, to point me towards either that argument or that evidence ... namely, that the beliefs about ages of rocks is relevant, as opposed to the other factors which were supported (such as being able to identify strata, measuring the earth's magnetic field, radioactivity) ... all those factors I accept, as they fall in to the category of practical science, things which can be measured or observed directly, unlike age which is a conclusion based on a scientific model.

Spiny Norman
15-11-2010, 04:53 PM
BTW did you read this story?
The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm)
Yes.


... Spiny's scurrilous accusation of Quote Mining is completely unfounded, unsubstantiated and so far he has not apologised for it.
Hmmm. My understanding of the meaning of quote mining was a little off. I didn't mean that you were lifting it out of context ... just that you had apparently lifted it without seeing whether the quote, in its full context, supported your p.o.v. (which as you know, I contest).

So I apologise unreservedly for using the term quote-mining incorrectly.

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 05:42 PM
I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that they make an assertion and then don't support that assertion with either an argument or with evidence (based on the parts of the book which are online, which includes the Introduction which you quoted, the first chapter, and the TOC).

OK So without having read the book (just the introduction) you assume the assertion is unsupported. I would suggest that looking at the book might be useful. Of course it might not as it may assume more knowledge in geology than either of us has, however it might be worth the look.

Secondly I didn't say they substantiated the statement, just that it was the opinion of exploration geophysics experts. Of course they are not going to answer your specific question. However a little reading and an open mind might provide the answer.

Still on your side of the ledger we have zero.


Maybe they thought it so obvious that they declined to support their view with an argument or evidence? Maybe its in a part of the book which is not available online? But as things stand, the bit about age being important (as opposed to other factors) is an unsupported assertion.

Of experts. And perhaps it is supported you just don't have the book and can't be arsed to get it.


I'm asking for someone, anyone, to point me towards either that argument or that evidence ... namely, that the beliefs about ages of rocks is relevant, as opposed to the other factors which were supported (such as being able to identify strata, measuring the earth's magnetic field, radioactivity) ... all those factors I accept, as they fall in to the category of practical science, things which can be measured or observed directly, unlike age which is a conclusion based on a scientific model.

As previously stated I'm not a geophysicist not have I read the book. However the opinion of two experts is exploration geophysics gives me some pause for thought that perhaps there is something to this geology caper.

Secondly your argument about the young earth geologist and the old age geologist making the same measurement and coming to the same conclusion is very simplistic. Using your argument a young earth geologist could do radiometric dating of rocks, for example. But if they already knew all the rocks were 6,000 years old (give or take a year) why would they bother? And how would they use the data? It seems to me you want to have the cake and eat it too. Tantamount to saying "well I don't believe this old age mumbo-jumbo but I'll happily collect all this fallacious data and use it to find oil."

Also in your example you focus on one way to find oil, that is correlation. That is, if this sort of strata had oil in it elsewhere then chances are it will have it again. To a certain extent that is probably valid. However as an outsider I can well imagine that a more complete picture of the providence of oil field will lead to a greater success in the discovery enterprise. For example, oil often migrates underground and the place were oil is drilled for in not always the place where it was formed. Other geological events in the history of the earth, the raising and lowering of strata, the movement of tectonic plates and other geological events occurring over geological ages (not just 1 year of worldwide flood) come into play and a deeper understanding of these factor may lead to improved success rates (over using just simple correlation) in finding oil.

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 05:46 PM
Yes.

While I would not classify the author as an expert in the league of the authors of that book (although he may well be) it is an interesting story nonetheless. of particular relevance to this discussion is that he worked in exploration geophysics and tried to accommodate the data he was working with in that job with his young earth beliefs, eventually deciding to let go of his young earth beliefs.

Sounds like using the same measurements as old earthers and just assigning different numbers wasn't so easy in that case.


Hmmm. My understanding of the meaning of quote mining was a little off. I didn't mean that you were lifting it out of context ... just that you had apparently lifted it without seeing whether the quote, in its full context, supported your p.o.v. (which as you know, I contest).

So I apologise unreservedly for using the term quote-mining incorrectly.

Thank you. Apology unreservedly accepted.

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 05:56 PM
This part requires a little explanation. I thought it would be obvious that I use alternative meaning of the expression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black#Alternative_interpret ation) Apparently there was one forum dweller who failed to pick it up.

Sounds like revisionist nonsense to me.


I am not going to comment on the rest of the post which is nothing but a rude outburst with zero substance. Come back when you have something meaningful to say.

Not like you to be stuck for words. I've thrown down the gauntlet on three separate occasions so far on the "common descent theory" debate. Any time you want to get started just let me know. To remind you...

If you want to discuss the practical benefits of biology, I suggest you start a new thread. Specify exactly which part of biology you disagree with and why, and what your alternative hypotheses are. We will go from there but until I know which parts of biology you dispute, it is pretty hard to answer your question.

Not being prepared to do your bit on this discussion is part of the disingenuous behaviour to which I allude. In fact I note you have never stated any of your beliefs in this thread. It is always "oh this is a interesting hypothesis" or "what do you think of creationists claims that..." etc.

Scott, Frosty and Jono might be mistaken (in my view) but at least they are genuine.


Meanwhile I wait until someone comes to RW rescue.

Just when I though you could get more pretenious.

Ohh yeah. Some one help me please! Igor is just sooooo scary. :lol:

Just promise me you don't have some over-grown lizard you are going to let loose on me. :lol:

Oepty
15-11-2010, 08:04 PM
I would say that by looking for only naturalist causes has been sciences greatest successes. The fact that we have been able to double life expectancies get people onto the Moon, landers and rovers onto Mars, feed 6+ billion people, etc all from a purely natural description of the universe is pretty cool.

Mankind has only been successful in these things because of what has allowed mankind to do. Finding these things is only because of God.




If you are going to appeal to the "god put it there" argument then you just don't get anywhere. It is a recipe for stagnation. You don't get to the moon because you would still be using the Ptolemy model with crystal spheres with the earth at the centre (where God put it). You don't get to Mars. You don't investigate to find to cause of anything because the answer to any question you don't understand is "God put it there".

Scientific knowledge if far from complete but it doesn't get anywhere by accepting supernatural explanation. The reason is that if we accept "God put it there" then why be curious?

Why be curious? I don't have an answer, I cannot see any reason. I don't see how going to the moon has done anything important in relation to ensuring my future, living forever. I don't see why going to Mars is any different. A foolish waste of time really. I long for a simple life, not one with cars and technology that it seems we need, or at least it is easy to be fooled to think we need. The Bible talks about every man living under his fig tree. I long for this life, a life of perfect service to God, a life without the mistakes, the stupidity that marrs my life. That is my hope, a very real hope. So I see no reason to be curious of going to the moon or mars, it is just a waste of time. You might view such a world as stagnation, but I view it as ideallic. Bring on living off the land, but in world where it never fails.
Scott

Desmond
15-11-2010, 08:39 PM
False, sorry, you're just seeing what you want to see and ignoring what I have actually said.

I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that they make an assertion and then don't support that assertion with either an argument or with evidence (based on the parts of the book which are online, which includes the Introduction which you quoted, the first chapter, and the TOC).

Maybe they thought it so obvious that they declined to support their view with an argument or evidence? Maybe its in a part of the book which is not available online? But as things stand, the bit about age being important (as opposed to other factors) is an unsupported assertion.

I'm asking for someone, anyone, to point me towards either that argument or that evidence ... namely, that the beliefs about ages of rocks is relevant, as opposed to the other factors which were supported (such as being able to identify strata, measuring the earth's magnetic field, radioactivity) ... all those factors I accept, as they fall in to the category of practical science, things which can be measured or observed directly, unlike age which is a conclusion based on a scientific model.Look Frosty it is not just about following in the footsteps of the real scientists. It is about actual applications actually arising from creationism. So what you need to do is to nominate a particular position which creationism holds that is incompatible with science and show how it works in a practical context. For instance if a YE view of how the layers of rocks got formed is that it was all sediment from teh flood and all the animals and plants died pretty much where they stood, then you could theorise that basically you have pretty much the same chances of finding oil whever you drill. Or if that position doesn't work for you, pick another one. There are websites and websites full of all the differences between creationism and science, surely in all that there is a single application we can pinpoint where creationists discovered something because of their world view that "old-earthers" as you call them would not have. You're not just saying that they got it wrong, you're saying they got it really really really wrong. We're talking the difference between the width of a backyard and the width of Australia different. Armed with such a massive advantage in truth surely you can come up with something.

Re RW's link about the transformation of the YEC geologist, this seems to me to have been the rule, rather than an isolated exception. It seems to be the experience of the majority of scientists from yester-century. Consider, you have all the scientists of the day believing in a young earth. Just ask Jono and he'll tell you all about how these brilliant historical figures were young earthers way back when. And then they started to dig. They started to measure. They started to explore. They started to grow things in new ways. And over time with increasing data from a wide range of disciplines they started to realise that this framework of the young age of the earth that they had did not fit with the evidence. They did not start with an a priori belief that the world was billions of years old, in fact the opposite. They started with an a priori belief in a young earth and the evidence convinced them otherwise. Now I do not claim to be a scientist and I'll never know or understand all of that stuff, but you know what, I have respect for the experts in a given field. So when a biologist who is respected by other biologists says that "nothing in biology makes sense expect in the light of evolution" or when geologists say similar about a geological exploration and a 4.5 byo earth, it does carry some weight. When the major religions of the world whose belief system once was the 6kyo earth buckle under the weight of the evidence and change their beliefs, it does mean something. But you know what, if I did know all the why's and wherefore's I'd explain it to you. But if you ever need to know why 8Gb is faster than 10Gb, I'll be your man. ;)



Why be curious? I don't have an answer, I cannot see any reason. I don't see how going to the moon has done anything important in relation to ensuring my future, living forever. I don't see why going to Mars is any different. A foolish waste of time really. I long for a simple life, not one with cars and technology that it seems we need, or at least it is easy to be fooled to think we need. The Bible talks about every man living under his fig tree. I long for this life, a life of perfect service to God, a life without the mistakes, the stupidity that marrs my life. That is my hope, a very real hope. So I see no reason to be curious of going to the moon or mars, it is just a waste of time. You might view such a world as stagnation, but I view it as ideallic. Bring on living off the land, but in world where it never fails.If ever I want a world where mothers die in childbirth and children get struck down with life long afflictions more often, I'll be sure to check in on you in your little paradise.

Oepty
15-11-2010, 08:50 PM
If ever I want a world where mothers die in childbirth and children get struck down with life long afflictions more often, I'll be sure to check in on you in your little paradise.

Boris. Where did I say anything about mothers dying in childbirth or sick children? If you really think I was talking about anything to do with things like that then you really have no idea how to read. I was talking about going to the moon and mars you fool, and a future that I believe will happen where NOTHING like what you suggest will happen. I was NOT talking about medical advances, please do not suggest I was.
Scott

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 08:55 PM
Mankind has only been successful in these things because of what has allowed mankind to do. Finding these things is only because of God.

Hey Scott. If that works for you that is great. I'm glad to say it doesn't work for me. I want to know why the universe and the stuff in it does the incredible things that it does. What the surface of the moon is like, and Mars. What is going on beneath the icy crust of Europa, etc. I want to get out there and let's have a look.

We have been able to answer many big questions in the last 100 years. We've discovered plate tectonics and know pretty much how the continents come to be the way and shape they are. Molecular biology has given use the means to map the entire genome of organisms, including ourselves. We've sent people to the Moon and probes to many other planets and satellites in our solar system and we have also sent some stuff off into space beyond the reaches of our solar system.

Amazing progress for 100 years. You put it down to God, I put it down primarily to human curiosity and the scientific method. If you're right, I'll find out when I die. If I'm right, you'll never know.

Desmond
15-11-2010, 08:56 PM
Boris. Where did I say anything about mothers dying in childbirth or sick children? If you really think I was talking about anything to do with things like that then you really have no idea how to read. I was talking about going to the moon and mars you fool, and a future that I believe will happen where NOTHING like what you suggest will happen. I was NOT talking about medical advances, please do not suggest I was.
Scott
Yes no doubt living off the land underneath the shade of a fig tree is a great way to advance medicine. No doubt if we all did that we'd cure every disease real sooon.

And no doubt having access to electricity and artificial lighting, sanitisation, heating and medication has nothing to do with mother's safety in childbirth. Nothing at all.

Oepty
15-11-2010, 08:57 PM
Hey Scott. If that works for you that is great. I'm glad to say it doesn't work for me. I want to know why the universe and the stuff in it does the incredible things that it does. What the surface of the moon is like, and Mars. What is going on beneath the icy crust of Europa, etc. I want to get out there and let's have a look.

We have been able to answer many big questions in the last 100 years. We've discovered plate tectonics and know pretty much how the continents come to be the way and shape they are. Molecular biology has given use the means to map the entire genome of organisms, including ourselves. We've sent people to the Moon and probes to many other planets and satellites in our solar system and we have also sent some stuff off into space beyond the reaches of our solar system.

Amazing progress for 100 years. You put it down to God, I put it down primarily to human curiosity and the scientific method. If you're right, I'll find out when I die. If I'm right, you'll never know.

I doubt you will find out anything after you die. The dead know nothing.
Scott

EDIT: In the future that I hope for I believe all that you talk about wanting to know will be revealed completely. No need to know it now.

Oepty
15-11-2010, 09:00 PM
Yes no doubt living off the land underneath the shade of a fig tree is a great way to advance medicine. No doubt if we all did that we'd cure every disease real sooon.

And no doubt having access to electricity and artificial lighting, sanitisation, heating and medication has nothing to do with mother's safety in childbirth. Nothing at all.

I was talking about the future, the Kingdom of God when there will be no more suffering, no more dieing, when everyone will live for ever. The worlds only hope for a future.
Scott

Rincewind
15-11-2010, 09:06 PM
I doubt you will find out anything after you die. The dead know nothing.

Cool, then we're even.

Desmond
15-11-2010, 09:08 PM
I was talking about the future, the Kingdom of God when there will be no more suffering, no more dieing, when everyone will live for ever. The worlds only hope for a future.
ScottOK, my mistake. I still think that my response was a fairly compelling answer to the "why be curious" question. Even if you believe this existence is just a blip on the way to watching out for falling figs, why not make it a better blip.

Oepty
15-11-2010, 09:19 PM
Boris, sorry for calling you a fool before, that was not fair, I was too vague in what I wrote. Get back to your question later, most probably although not for a couple of days. At SA chess centre tommorrow night learning more on running SACA tournaments.
Scott

Desmond
15-11-2010, 09:44 PM
Boris, sorry for calling you a fool before, that was not fair, I was too vague in what I wrote. Get back to your question later, most probably although not for a couple of days. At SA chess centre tommorrow night learning more on running SACA tournaments.
Scott
No problem, Scott.

antichrist
16-11-2010, 02:41 AM
Boris. Where did I say anything about mothers dying in childbirth or sick children? If you really think I was talking about anything to do with things like that then you really have no idea how to read. I was talking about going to the moon and mars you fool, and a future that I believe will happen where NOTHING like what you suggest will happen. I was NOT talking about medical advances, please do not suggest I was.
Scott

But even if you were not talking medical advances during childbirth you are still guilty - because it says in the Bible that childbirth pains are inflicted by God as punishment for Adam & Steve gulping down a Granny Smith. So all gynacologists are breaking the word of God by helping in childbirth.

The Catholic Church is still against IVF so God's children do practise the Bible. Why don't you?

antichrist
16-11-2010, 02:56 AM
Mankind has only been successful in these things because of what has allowed mankind to do. Finding these things is only because of God.




Why be curious? I don't have an answer, I cannot see any reason. I don't see how going to the moon has done anything important in relation to ensuring my future, living forever. I don't see why going to Mars is any different. A foolish waste of time really. I long for a simple life, not one with cars and technology that it seems we need, or at least it is easy to be fooled to think we need. The Bible talks about every man living under his fig tree. I long for this life, a life of perfect service to God, a life without the mistakes, the stupidity that marrs my life. That is my hope, a very real hope. So I see no reason to be curious of going to the moon or mars, it is just a waste of time. You might view such a world as stagnation, but I view it as ideallic. Bring on living off the land, but in world where it never fails.
Scott

Now Scott, the moon has very much relevance to your future and living forever. We can only live forever through our children, but we can only have children because of women's monthlies (moonthlies), indeed Catholic birth control is based on women monthlies. Many cycles of nature are based on the moon, tides, what fish do etc etc. So the moon really interferes in people's and creatures lives.

Now about living under that fig tree. I would not recommend this at all, esp in Australia because fig trees have very few leaves and you would not get much protection from scorching sun. And figs don't stay in season very long anyway, they all ripen at once, I know because I used to grow them. Along with walnuts,olives and grapes that are proabably also mentioned in the Bible. Grape vines would be my favourite to live under in summer time - we used to, on banana chairs and just reach up and grab grapes and gulp them. Isabella variety coz their leaves are the best for grape vine rolls.

And only today I was advising some Jewish yoghurt makers, failurerers they were actually, coz with all of today's technology - thermometres etc, they still "lost" yoghurt, tons of it. I taught them the traditional fail-safe method with no technology.

Now if you want the traditional method of getting rid of tape worms just mention and I would be happy to amuse the board.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2010, 06:37 AM
But even if you were not talking medical advances during childbirth you are still guilty - because it says in the Bible that childbirth pains are inflicted by God as punishment for Adam & Steve gulping down a Granny Smith. So all gynacologists are breaking the word of God by helping in childbirth.
What crap. There is a biblical principle that anything to alleviate the effects of the Curse is a blessed thing to do, e.g. saving lives, curing diseases. The inventor of modern anesthesia, James Simpson, was a devout Christian who appealed to the account of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, pointing out that God anesthetized Adam. Queen Vic was one of the first influential users of this, referring to "the blessed chloroform" to relieve childbirth pain.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2010, 06:42 AM
Re RW's link about the transformation of the YEC geologist, this seems to me to have been the rule, rather than an isolated exception.
Oh, this guy is hardly a rule.


It seems to be the experience of the majority of scientists from yester-century. Consider, you have all the scientists of the day believing in a young earth.
Yes, and they had the same evidence we did. They could see rock layers and fossils.


Just ask Jono and he'll tell you all about how these brilliant historical figures were young earthers way back when. And then they started to dig. They started to measure. They started to explore. They started to grow things in new ways.
Yes, ask me. Then I'll answer: no, they were trying to "free science from Moses", rejected the Flood dogmatically. E.g. In 1785, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed:


‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added)

This philosophy was expounded and popularized by the influential lawyer-geologist Charles Lyell in his book Principles of Geology (3 volumes, 1830–33), which greatly influenced Darwin. The historian and philosopher of science, William Whewell, coined the term uniformitarianism for this philosophy in an (anonymous) review of Lyell’s second volume (Quarterly Review XLVII(93):126, March 1832). Uniformitarianism is a not a refutation of Biblical teaching on Creation and the Flood, but a dogmatic refusal to consider them as even possible explanations for the rocks and fossils we observe.

Desmond
16-11-2010, 08:56 AM
Yes, and they had the same evidence we did. They could see rock layers and fossils.

Yes, ask me. Then I'll answer: no, But hang on, you just agreed that there was a time when the majority of scientists were young earthers.

What is more likely; that they all just woke up one day and threw away everything they knew, or that they came to realise that their world view was flawed due to mounting evidence.


they were trying to "free science from Moses", rejected the Flood dogmatically. E.g. In 1785, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed:


‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added)Pretty much what one would expect. Once there was mass of data suggesting the world was not young, skeptical minds rejected the a priori beliefs as written. If the a priori beliefs were true, then prove them with the evidence, he seems to be saying.

What is interesting to me is that Frosty seems to think that for all practical purposes the whole field of geology is compatible with YEC yet according to you it would all be unsubstanitated fruit from the poisoned tree. According to you the father of geology prohibited the truth from the discipline. If that were true and geology since has followed in the same tradition, well YEC should be dancing in circles aroung geologists with all their applciations. Yet where are they?

Rincewind
16-11-2010, 09:02 AM
Yet where are they?

Maybe they're busy looking for fossils of non-marine lifeforms in Cambrian sediments. 150 years of searching and still no luck. :lol:

morebeer
16-11-2010, 09:41 AM
Yes, ask me. Then I'll answer: no, they were trying to "free science from Moses", rejected the Flood dogmatically. E.g. In 1785, before examining the evidence, the deist James Hutton, ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed:


‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ (emphasis added)

Discounting magical/supernatural explanations is a good thing. The universe does not operate according to the same laws as in an episode of I Dream of Jeannie.

Why bother trying to work anything out if the lazy crutch of supernaturalism is the panacea for any complex problem.

Rincewind
16-11-2010, 11:21 AM
Discounting magical/supernatural explanations is a good thing. The universe does not operate according to the same laws as in an episode of I Dream of Jeannie.

Why bother trying to work anything out if the lazy crutch of supernaturalism is the panacea for any complex problem.

One should remember that supernaturalism is just another way to say no scientific evidence exists at present.

People have been looking for evidence for various claimed supernatural phenomena. For example with ESP, 100 years of (sometimes) intense research has uncovered no evidence except in a few isolated and non repeatable cases which were either flawed or non repeatable flukes. If ESP was a repeatable phenomena like (for example) communication via radio waves, then it would be studied and understood scientifically and would no longer be considered supernatural.

Before ESP claims were found to be bogus, science did seriously investigate the claims. Just as in geology, 150 years ago, people did seriously try to accord geological data with the Nochian flood hypothesis. In both cases, the evidence is lacking and both are consigned to the supernatural (read, no evidence) category.

The lack of discussion in the modern literature on flood geology is due to the field examining the case 150 years ago and rejecting it. The overwhelming weight of new evidence supports the 4+ billion year old earth and causes mountains of problems for flood geology. However, when people (even those with science degrees) take on faith things that make no scientific sense, then the science goes out the window. Or to quote Jono


The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

That is, preacher first and if there is any room for science after taking on the fairytales of the OT, we'll worry about them then.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2010, 04:50 PM
... actual applications actually arising from creationism. So what you need to do is to nominate a particular position which creationism holds that is incompatible with science and show how it works in a practical context.
I totally get that this is the challenge you posed. But since I don't think there are any such applications (nor any arising from evolutionism), I don't see why this is something I need to do. If your proposition is that there are no such applications, I agree with you.

Desmond
16-11-2010, 05:32 PM
I totally get that this is the challenge you posed. But since I don't think there are any such applications ...
It doesn't strike you as odd that there are none?

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2010, 06:27 PM
So what you need to do is to nominate a particular position which creationism holds that is incompatible with science and show how it works in a practical context.
Can't speak for creationism, but I expect creationists not to accept the premise of that statement. In other words, show which creationist position is incompatible with science and demonstrate why.

antichrist
16-11-2010, 06:30 PM
What crap. There is a biblical principle that anything to alleviate the effects of the Curse is a blessed thing to do, e.g. saving lives, curing diseases. The inventor of modern anesthesia, James Simpson, was a devout Christian who appealed to the account of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, pointing out that God anesthetized Adam. Queen Vic was one of the first influential users of this, referring to "the blessed chloroform" to relieve childbirth pain.


Come on Jono we are not simpletons that you can trick like you do your flock. That inventor Simpson had it wrong, the creation of Eve was before the Fall, so therefore God had not cursed them yet. So he was being un-Biblical in inventing anesthesia. An Anti-Christ that guy.


As stated from Bible stated below, God directed childbirth pain, so you and Scott are being deceptive.

Genesis 3:16 says, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain will you give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

And your sins will find you out.

Rincewind
16-11-2010, 07:56 PM
Can't speak for creationism, but I expect creationists not to accept the premise of that statement. In other words, show which creationist position is incompatible with science and demonstrate why.

:lol: Pure gold! :lol:

Incomplete list of common creationist beliefs which are incompatible with science...

10,000 year old earth - totally incompatible with science
uncommon descent (e.g. creationist "orchard") - totally incompatible with science
radiometric dating flawed - totally incompatible with science
dinosaurs coexisting with humans - totally incompatible with science
no death before "the fall" - totally incompatible with science
worldwide flood around 6,000 years ago - totally incompatible with science

All these (and there are plenty of others) are incompatible with science because science says all these things certainly did not happen. Furthermore there are YouTube videos you can watch (you don't even to need to read) of Creationists deriding scientists for holding orthodox scientific opinions which are contrary to all of these I mention above.

If you think they somehow ARE compatible with science, then it's up to the those making the claim to provide the evidence.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2010, 08:40 PM
It doesn't strike you as odd that there are none?
No, because where the rubber hits the road in the creationist view of things, its mostly to do with origins and (relatively) ancient history, therefore this has very little to do with practical scientific outcomes. At least that's how I view it.

Creationism expresses constraints (e.g. one kind of animal cannot turn into another kind, life doesn't come from non-life by chance, etc).

On the other hand, if evolution is true then creationist constraints would turn out to be false constraints. So you could breed one kind of creature into another kind (e.g. a lizard into a bird, a fly into something that isn't a fly, you could create living cells by mixing enough chemicals enough times, and so on). If you really could do those things, that would be something; it would really make me sit up and take notice. But I'm not holding my breath, because the more we learn about life and the more we learn about the environment on the early earth (according to evolutionary views of such things), the more implausible it becomes.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2010, 08:46 PM
... totally incompatible with science ...
Not quite; its just incompatible with the currently prevailing majority view of scientists; there's nothing unscientific about the ideas themselves.

Rincewind
16-11-2010, 08:55 PM
Not quite; its just incompatible with the currently prevailing majority view of scientists; there's nothing unscientific about the ideas themselves.

No you are quite mistaken. They are completely unscientific that is why they have been rejected by science. If their did have some scientific basis they may be considered a possible hypothesis. But they are not. They have been examined and then discarded as having no scientific merit.

Desmond
16-11-2010, 09:00 PM
No, because where the rubber hits the road in the creationist view of things, its mostly to do with origins and (relatively) ancient history, therefore this has very little to do with practical scientific outcomes. At least that's how I view it.As I said there are plenty of websites full of differences between creationism and science, pretty much across all disciplines.


Creationism expresses constraints (e.g. one kind of animal cannot turn into another kind, life doesn't come from non-life by chance, etc).

On the other hand, if evolution is trueThere you go slipping into denying evolution again, when before you told me that most if not all creationists accept it and that creationist biologists can work in an evolution related field without difficulty.
then creationist constraints would turn out to be false constraints. So you could breed one kind of creature into another kind (e.g. a lizard into a bird, a fly into something that isn't a fly, you could create living cells by mixing enough chemicals enough times, and so on). If you really could do those things, that would be something; it would really make me sit up and take notice.I am almost certain that if you or any creationist were to define "kinds" then it could be demonstrated from what we know of evolution that those barriers have been crossed. But since it is not defined, it is not falsifyable. As I said before, in my view you have absolutely no way of knowing that the "kinds" barriers have not been crossed since you do not know where those barriers are.


But I'm not holding my breath, because the more we learn about life and the more we learn about the environment on the early earth (according to evolutionary views of such things), the more implausible it becomes.Pretty sure you have that one backwards. As time goes on we know more, we understand more, we can re-produce more. The gaps are receeding.

Rincewind
16-11-2010, 09:05 PM
Astrology - it's just incompatible with the currently prevailing majority view of scientists; there's nothing unscientific about the ideas themselves.

Unicorns - it's just incompatible with the currently prevailing majority view of scientists; there's nothing unscientific about the beasts themselves.

The Tooth Fairy - it's just incompatible with the currently prevailing majority view of scientists; there's nothing unscientific about the fairy herself.

Russell's Teapot - you can't prove it doesn't exist therefore my assertion that it does exist is just as valid as your assertion that things that you actually do have evidence for existing.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2010, 09:16 PM
:lol: Pure gold! :lol:

Incomplete list of common creationist beliefs which are incompatible with science...

10,000 year old earth - totally incompatible with science
uncommon descent (e.g. creationist "orchard") - totally incompatible with science
radiometric dating flawed - totally incompatible with science
dinosaurs coexisting with humans - totally incompatible with science
no death before "the fall" - totally incompatible with science
worldwide flood around 6,000 years ago - totally incompatible with science

All these (and there are plenty of others) are incompatible with science because science says all these things certainly did not happen. Furthermore there are YouTube videos you can watch (you don't even to need to read) of Creationists deriding scientists for holding orthodox scientific opinions which are contrary to all of these I mention above.

If you think they somehow ARE compatible with science, then it's up to the those making the claim to provide the evidence.

You don't understand the simple logical principle that question based on premise not accepted by other side is a loaded question and does not warrant an answer.

You also confuse science and majority of scientists. If particular view is rejected by scientists it might or might not be wrong, but it does not mean it's incompatible with science.

Please explain, for example, how rejection of common descent is incompatible with science.

Rincewind
16-11-2010, 09:22 PM
Please explain, for example, how rejection of common descent is incompatible with science.

A rejection of common descent is of itself not unscientific. It is the replacement they substitute for an explanation which is unscientific.

Supernatural causation (saying "God did it") is inherently a religious and not a scientific concept.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-11-2010, 09:35 PM
A rejection of common descent is of itself not unscientific.
OK, good to clear it out.

Supernatural causation (saying "God did it") is inherently a religious and not a scientific concept.
It is indeed not a scientific concept. It does not mean, though, that it's incompatible with science.

Rincewind
16-11-2010, 09:52 PM
It is indeed not a scientific concept. It does not mean, though, that it's incompatible with science.

Look Igor, I'll try to be more civil to you but you have to try a lot harder to not say such mind-numbingly dumb things. They are incompatible on at least three grounds.

Firstly, you say yourself the concept is not scientific. Hence it can never be assimilated into science. Hence - incompatible.

Secondly, the scientific theory of evolution and the evidence for shared ancestry of all life (include humans) is well-established and uncontroversial. You cannot simultaneously believe the scientific position and creationism. Hence - incompatible.

Finally the creationist position is not unknown to science. Indeed 150 years ago almost all scientists were creationist. However, thanks to the enlightenment and the scientific method put the claims of creationism to the test and they were rejected (albeit gradually in some cases). Science has examined the claims of creationism and rejected them as unjustified. Hence - incompatible.

antichrist
16-11-2010, 10:07 PM
OK, good to clear it out.

It is indeed not a scientific concept. It does not mean, though, that it's incompatible with science.

Igor, I think that you have misunderstood me. Because (and I admit it) I act like an idiot but I am only acting. I am sorry if I have led you to think that it is okay to make a fool of yourself in public.

We know from psychology in chess that the most difficult thing to do is take a piece back to a previous position, because we do not want to admit making a mistake. Don't let this hurdle prevent you from saving face and admitting that creationism is untrue.

Rincewind
16-11-2010, 10:19 PM
Earlier you gave the full weight of your support to school boards over big government educational departments. You might be interested to read about the Kitzmiller v Dover court case where two members of the Dover School Board tried to get Intelligent Design into the science classroom and in the process purgored themselves on the witness stand to try and cover up the level of their complicity and the religious motivations.
There is no perfect system. Even if your reporting of the case is correct and not a simple spin (which, given your bias and overall record, cannot be assumed), it does not mean that by and large government department do better in selecting the curriculum.

Well at least they know science and don't push their religion in science classrooms.

Anyway, even though you cowardly (again) accused me of misrepresentation without substantiation I was looking through the Kitzmiller v Dover decision and I have this gem for you to try and interpret as "spin".

pg. 115 (my bolding)


As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs’ election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy.

If you don't take Judge John E Jones III on his word you can read further into his decision for the further compelling evidence. It is quite a laugh. For a little more light amusement here is a news item from the time of the trial...

http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3219254

antichrist
16-11-2010, 10:27 PM
RW, you have to make allowances for some folk. It has very recently come out that those who attended Christian schools are performing badly in national tests. Though those schools are 90% funded by taxpayers the Christians are screwing up the students.

Spiny Norman
17-11-2010, 06:15 AM
There you go slipping into denying evolution again ...
Let me re-phrase:

"If ALL of evolutionary belief is true, INCLUDING those components which have NOT been observed (such as the changing of one kind of animal into another ... e.g. a lizard into a bird ... and such as the origin of life occurring by chance from non-living matter), and not not just those components which HAVE been observed and are accepted on all sides of the debate ..."

Happier?

morebeer
17-11-2010, 07:56 AM
Not quite; its just incompatible with the currently prevailing majority view of scientists; there's nothing unscientific about the ideas themselves.

Wrong.

Science is predicated on ontological naturalism. Like it or lump it that is the way it is.

The bedrock of your and Jono's worldview is predicated on the supernatural.

Don't know what you think you are doing, but if the kernel of your argument involves a supernatural entity then it isn't science.

Supernaturalism/science is about as complete a dichotomy as you can get.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 08:12 AM
Well at least they know science and don't push their religion in science classrooms.

Anyway, even though you cowardly (again) accused me of misrepresentation without substantiation I was looking through the Kitzmiller v Dover decision and I have this gem for you to try and interpret as "spin".

pg. 115 (my bolding)


As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs’ election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy.

If you don't take Judge John E Jones III on his word you can read further into his decision for the further compelling evidence. It is quite a laugh. For a little more light amusement here is a news item from the time of the trial...

http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3219254

It's good to see that finally you tried to substantiate some of your claims. Keep up good work!

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 08:14 AM
Igor, I think that you have misunderstood me. Because (and I admit it) I act like an idiot
True


but I am only acting.
Maybe, but I am not sure


We know from psychology in chess that the most difficult thing to do is take a piece back to a previous position, because we do not want to admit making a mistake. Don't let this hurdle prevent you from saving face and admitting that creationism is untrue.
There is a difference (that you and RW seem to miss) that showing something is untrue is not the same as not showing something to be true.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 08:34 AM
Firstly, you say yourself the concept is not scientific. Hence it can never be assimilated into science. Hence - incompatible.


You don't understand it, do you?
Saying that God created everything is a matter of faith. It might be true or untrue, but it's not scientific.
However, saying that the world was created 6,000 years ago by the process we do not understand and know about, but can only see the results of, while can be true or untrue, is not incompatible with science.
Unless you managed to prove it to be untrue beyond any doubt - which you don't seem to be able to.


Secondly, the scientific theory of evolution and the evidence for shared ancestry of all life (include humans) is well-established and uncontroversial. You cannot simultaneously believe the scientific position and creationism. Hence - incompatible.
What evidences? Can you cite any evidence that prove common descent beyond any reasonably doubt?


Finally the creationist position is not unknown to science. Indeed 150 years ago almost all scientists were creationist. However, thanks to the enlightenment and the scientific method put the claims of creationism to the test and they were rejected (albeit gradually in some cases). Science has examined the claims of creationism and rejected them as unjustified. Hence - incompatible.
No, they were rejected by Darwinists who gradually captured a leadership position in various committees and bureaucracies knows as Academy of Science. You are free to call it a scientific process.

morebeer
17-11-2010, 08:45 AM
However, saying that the world was created 6,000 years ago by the process we do not understand and know about, but can only see the results of, while can be true or untrue, is not incompatible with science.
Unless you managed to prove it to be untrue beyond any doubt - which you don't seem to be able to.


I don't think that accurately characterizes the argument Igor.

From a creationists perspective there is no ambiguity about the processes involved in creating a 6,000 year old earth. Their supernatural entity created it.

Ipso facto it is not science.

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 09:06 AM
You don't understand it, do you?

:lol: Teach me wise waddler of misinformation. :lol:


Saying that God created everything is a matter of faith. It might be true or untrue, but it's not scientific.

Indeed it is completely incompatible with science because should a scientist have that belief it would halt the progress of science. That is, believing in a supernatural agent without question stops one for investigating what ACTUALLY happened.


However, saying that the world was created 6,000 years ago by the process we do not understand and know about, but can only see the results of, while can be true or untrue, is not incompatible with science.

If you genuinely believe that than you have no idea about what science has determined from looking at the evidence. A young earth model was rejected by geology more than 100 years ago as being incompatible with the physical evidence. Over the last century more evidence was naturally discovered at it all was in accordance with the old earth model. Young earth is on the scientific scrap heap because it cannot explain the data.


Unless you managed to prove it to be untrue beyond any doubt - which you don't seem to be able to.

No I don't. That is the job of geologists who (by the way) discarded young earth more than 100 years ago. Since then more data has been collected all of it in accordance with the old earth model.


What evidences? Can you cite any evidence that prove common descent beyond any reasonably doubt?

There is plenty of evidence for common descent. Again special creation was the dominate view prior to the Darwin and Wallace's publication on evolution. Science has consigned all other theories to the scientific scrap heap because they don;t fit the data. The only theory that works is evolution.

There is plenty of evidence for common descent, particularly for the reasonably recent common ancestry of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes (humans and chimps). If that challenges your religious ideals then continue to deny the obvious. Science doesn't have time for faith. Just evidence.


No, they were rejected by Darwinists who gradually captured a leadership position in various committees and bureaucracies knows as Academy of Science. You are free to call it a scientific process.

:lol: Conspiracy theories. Aren't you precious? :lol:

I hope you're wearing your tinfoil hat.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 10:53 AM
I don't think that accurately characterizes the argument Igor.

From a creationists perspective there is no ambiguity about the processes involved in creating a 6,000 year old earth. Their supernatural entity created it.

Ipso facto it is not science.
We need to distinguish. Claiming unambiguously that God created earth exactly 6000 is a faith, not science. Claiming that theory of evolution proved it to be impossible is also a faith, not a science.

Faith, expressed as above, is not a science. It does not, however, contradict the science unless proven otherwise. Despite all the wild claims of Rincewind, it wasn't.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 11:07 AM
:lol: Teach me wise waddler of misinformation. :lol:
You inability to contain yourself usually is indicator of you running out of logical arguments.


Indeed it is completely incompatible with science because should a scientist have that belief it would halt the progress of science. That is, believing in a supernatural agent without question stops one for investigating what ACTUALLY happened.
As far as I know, those beliefs were held for centuries, if not millenniums, yet I doubt it halted the progress of science. Believers is supernatural agent, as you call them, keep investigating what and how it actually happen.
By the way, Darwinian believe set lead to many pale ontological evidences being discarded because they didn't fit into the official version. As a result many of them are lost.



If you genuinely believe that than you have no idea about what science has determined from looking at the evidence. A young earth model was rejected by geology more than 100 years ago as being incompatible with the physical evidence. Over the last century more evidence was naturally discovered at it all was in accordance with the old earth model. Young earth is on the scientific scrap heap because it cannot explain the data.
You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between natural science and field of knowledge. Many claims of paleontology, anthropology, history, social studies, etc. (i.e. those areas that should not be, strictly speaking, classified as science) are quite dubious, unverifable and not supported by the evidences, despite claims to the contrary.



There is plenty of evidence for common descent. Again special creation was the dominate view prior to the Darwin and Wallace's publication on evolution. Science has consigned all other theories to the scientific scrap heap because they don;t fit the data. The only theory that works is evolution.

There is plenty of evidence for common descent, particularly for the reasonably recent common ancestry of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes (humans and chimps). If that challenges your religious ideals then continue to deny the obvious. Science doesn't have time for faith. Just evidence.

You keep repeating ad nauseum that there are plenty of evidences (and plenty of practical benefits), but unable to produce anything apart from reference to experts. Time to start thinking independently.



:lol: Conspiracy theories. Aren't you precious? :lol:


You are fond of conspiracy theories, but I have to disappoint, it's much simpler then that. So called evolutionist scientists like to keep their warm places. Admitting that some of their theories might be built on the thin air is the last thing they want. Rejecting evidences that don't fit fairy tales is much easier.
Lack of practical benefits of their theories (we are still waiting for examples from you and Boris) ensure that serious scientists (with rare exceptions) aren't really interested and happy to leave the field.

morebeer
17-11-2010, 12:14 PM
We need to distinguish. Claiming unambiguously that God created earth exactly 6000 is a faith, not science.

Agreed.


Claiming that theory of evolution proved it to be impossible is also a faith, not a science...

I understand your point but am not in full agreement.

I think you will find that science does not claim to "prove" that the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years.

Science suggests that based on our current understanding about the physical properties of the universe, combined with our capacity to reason inductively, such a young earth is highly improbable.

Not impossible, but so mind bogglingly unlikely that it is profligate spending intellectual resources to pursue that particular hypothesis.

In the context of your above statement, if the word faith is defined as a high degree of confidence based on the available data, then I agree. If it is defined as inflexible acceptance, then I disagree. This is a very important distinction not understood, ignored or forgotten by many people on both sides of debates such as this one.

The "faith" (using the high degree of confidence definition) science has in the veracity of its conception that the earth is much older than 6,000 years is no different to the "faith" it has in its capacity to elucidate the quantum world, astrophysics or geodynamics. Scientific knowledge is proximal, but in my view, the best we can hope to get to the "truth" - whatever that may be.

Desmond
17-11-2010, 12:18 PM
Let me re-phrase:

"If ALL of evolutionary belief is true, INCLUDING those components which have NOT been observed (such as the changing of one kind of animal into another ... e.g. a lizard into a bird ... and such as the origin of life occurring by chance from non-living matter), and not not just those components which HAVE been observed and are accepted on all sides of the debate ..."

Happier?
Not really. You are simply wrong to include abiogenesis under the theory of evoultion, as I previously explained more than once. Also you bring up an argument - evolution into new "kinds" has not been observed - when as I previously said that is not knowable without a detailed list of "kinds". Also your use of the term "belief" is misplaced.

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 12:29 PM
You inability to contain yourself usually is indicator of you running out of logical arguments.

:lol: Oh yes, that's it. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the silliness of your arguments. :lol:


As far as I know, those beliefs were held for centuries, if not millenniums, yet I doubt it halted the progress of science.

Amazing you know as little about the history of science as you do about biology. Those beliefs did lead to a suppression of scientific enquiry lasting at least 1,000 years. Between 500 and 1500 AD. Things didn't really get going in earnest in the scientific enterprise stakes until the church was no longer seen as a threat sometime in the late 18th or early 19th centuries.


Believers is supernatural agent, as you call them, keep investigating what and how it actually happen.
By the way, Darwinian believe set lead to many pale ontological evidences being discarded because they didn't fit into the official version. As a result many of them are lost.

The grammer of this bit was particularly poor so if I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, then forgive me. You are saying there is solid evidence which is being systematically ignored because it doesn't fit with the evolutionary model. If that is the case then please provide evidence of your claim or retract it. Unless you can substantiate something as outrageous as this no one can take you seriously.


You seem to be unable to comprehend the difference between natural science and field of knowledge. Many claims of paleontology, anthropology, history, social studies, etc. (i.e. those areas that should not be, strictly speaking, classified as science) are quite dubious, unverifable and not supported by the evidences, despite claims to the contrary.

It is only in your puny-minded opinion that should paleontology not be regarded as a science. Of course at the boundary of the field (new finding etc) there are hypotheses which have not yet be satisfactorily tested to be called theory. However, most of the field including most of the paleontological evidence for evolution is not even close to being dubious. We have many independently verified fossil finds which can be reliably dated which match to what evolution says we should have. The dates match, the forms match. Unequivocally the evidence disproves that all species were created (pretty much) in their modern form, over a 6 day period some few thousand years ago.


You keep repeating ad nauseum that there are plenty of evidences (and plenty of practical benefits), but unable to produce anything apart from reference to experts. Time to start thinking independently.

More lunacy from the village idiot.

The question is about whether the young earth is compatible with science. Not with my view of science on your twisted view of science. To be science hypotheses are submitted to the rigors of peer-review and only the most robust hypotheses remain. It doesn't matter if they make sense to me (although of the ones I have investigated, they do) or if they make sense to you. Science doesn't care what you or I think, they care about what best explains the data.

So for young earth to be compatible with science there would be some scope for a 10,000 year earth in geology theory. Unequivocally the sceintific evidence shows the earth is much older than this (~4.5 billion years). Note this is not a small quibble, this is a factor of something like 5 orders of magnitude.

Likewise the evidence for common descent and a long history of gradual change to modern lifeforms is well documented in the fossil record. This is not a dubious claim, this is a scientific fact. Creationist say humans were made in the anatomically modern form in one go, however there are numerous transitional forms of early hominids and humans. Creationists say all the birds and fish were made at the same time. Fossil record says fish evolved waaaaayyyyyy before fish and infact many land animals (which were created later according to Creationists) ALSO evolved before birds. Again these claims are not dubious, they are uncontroversial and well supported claims based on evidence.


You are fond of conspiracy theories, but I have to disappoint, it's much simpler then that.

No, I'm just fond of pointing out your special pleading to conspiracy theories and then seeing you squirm.


So called evolutionist scientists like to keep their warm places. Admitting that some of their theories might be built on the thin air is the last thing they want. Rejecting evidences that don't fit fairy tales is much easier.

You see here is the problem. What you have just outlined is presupposing that all of science is being controlled by some clandestine group of scientists who are feathering their own nests by ignoring evidence that doesn't fit with a priori set of beliefs.

First of all that basically is a conspiracy theory since it requires a conspiracy of 'gatekeepers' to make any sense.

Secondly it is a particularly silly one since if it were true science would be stagnant and all the benefits you presently enjoy, clean water, medicine, etc, would simply not exist.

Thirdly there is no mechanism for the 'gatekeepers' to maintain power over the worldwide community. Unless you are contending that the conspiracy involves every single scientist, which is even more absurd, the non-gatekeeping scientists would blow the whistle.

In short you have an overactive imagination and under-active (to the point of being absent) cognitive processes.


Lack of practical benefits of their theories (we are still waiting for examples from you and Boris) ensure that serious scientists (with rare exceptions) aren't really interested and happy to leave the field.

I've given some examples in exploration geophysics, you have your own personal opinion. Regarding so-called "common descent theory" then I will repeat the challenge you keep shrinking away from (being the mimophant you are)...

If you want to discuss the practical benefits of biology, I suggest you start a new thread. Specify exactly which part of biology you disagree with and why, and what your alternative hypotheses are. We will go from there but until I know which parts of biology you dispute, it is pretty hard to answer your question.

Time to put up, or shut up.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 12:46 PM
I think you will find that science does not claim to "prove" that the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years.
Correct. However, crusaders a la Rincewind do.


Science suggests that based on our current understanding about the physical properties of the universe, combined with our capacity to reason inductively, such a young earth is highly improbable.

That's the view of majority of scientists. It is undoubtedly valid and might very well be correct, even though I am far from convinced by the arguments presented.
However, there are scientists that disagree, and they provide sound arguments that their position is valid.


Not impossible, but so mind bogglingly unlikely that it is profligate spending intellectual resources to pursue that particular hypothesis.


That's a very good point. The practical benefits of particular paradigm (old vs young earth, common ancestry vs common design, etc.) are not clear. Rincewind and Boris on this board failed, so far, to demonstrate any, despite making strong statement.
Given lack of practical benefits one can argue that it's profligate spending intellectual resources on any of them. Also, one should encourage critical examination of evidences (which might lead to a rejection of hypothesis) instead of trying to fit them into the theory. Pursuit of alternative theories does that.



In the context of your above statement, if the word faith is defined as a high degree of confidence based on the available data, then I agree. If it is defined as inflexible acceptance, then I disagree. This is a very important distinction not understood, ignored or forgotten by many people on both sides of debates such as this one.
Another good point. I am not troubled by common ancestry or uniformitarianism and have nothing against the concept. When people decide to accept it on the balance of evidences, it's fine and conforms to the first definition.
However, in the last few years I witnessed mostly example of the dogmatic inflexible acceptance, like Rincewind branding PhDs as idiots only because they agreed that "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged". That definitely falls within second definition.


The "faith" (using the high degree of confidence definition) science has in the veracity of its conception that the earth is much older than 6,000 years is no different to the "faith" it has in its capacity to elucidate the quantum world, astrophysics or geodynamics. Scientific knowledge is proximal, but in my view, the best we can hope to get to the "truth" - whatever that may be.
Actually, the science is quite indifferent to whether Earth is 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years old.
It is true that uniformitarianism requires old earth, while catastrophism may live with either old or young earth. AFAIK, what we know can be explained equally from either old or young earth position.

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 12:55 PM
In the context of your above statement, if the word faith is defined as a high degree of confidence based on the available data, then I agree. If it is defined as inflexible acceptance, then I disagree. This is a very important distinction not understood, ignored or forgotten by many people on both sides of debates such as this one.

I don't think that is particularly true. I find most people from the scientific point of view avoid using faith at all in the first sense because an intrinsic distinction between science and religion is precisely the point you make here.

When I say faith I endeavour to always mean an belief which is held a priori or at least not arrived at through a rational process of examining objective evidence. Faith is sometimes changed but for most people, to the first approximation it is fixed. Religious convictions such as: there is a god, Jesus rose from the dead, the world was created "as is" by God, are statements of faith. There is no scientific proof for any of these claims, yet the holy book says so, therefore they must be valid.

Scientific opinion is a rational process which examines evidence and comes to a conclusion based on objective evidence. While some scientists may hold the opinion that some hypothesis does match reality in some sense, if that is a scientific opinion, then it is not a faith at all.

Almost all (if not all) the topic discussed in recent posts here are in the widely accepted theory category.

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 01:01 PM
Correct. However, crusaders a la Rincewind do.

What rubbish and slander. If ever I have said science proves anything I have endeavoured to make it clear to dimwits like you that science looks at evidence and pickes the best explanation.

A scientific "fact" is not an immutable truth it is just something that is so well-supported by evidence that the chance of it being found to be wrong is vanishingly small (a bit like your brain).


Actually, the science is quite indifferent to whether Earth is 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years old.

More drivel.

Science is not indifferent at all, and science actually says both numbers you posit are stupefyingly wrong.

The number is 4.5 billion years plus or minus a few hundred million. The chance that 6,000 is true is so vanishingly small that to not call it nil is disingenuous. Likewise, 6 billion is too large and likewise a vanishingly small probability that it is anything like that.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 02:27 PM
The number is 4.5 billion years plus or minus a few hundred million.
At which point?

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 03:31 PM
At which point?

If you want the full story you can check out a geology text book. I would recommend The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple. It was published 15 years ago but it contains a pretty complete historical description of scientific and non-scientific dating methods to that point.

Any good library should have a copy.

Edit: Dalrymple as a shorter but more up-to-date book called Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies which also presents what seems to be a summarised version of the history in "The Age of the Earth". If you look at google books you can also peek at come of the content. According to this expert - all the dating methods prior to the 1950s were wrong for various reasons. The scientific methods used prior to that date were generally either based on assumptions later shown to be invalid, or errors in measurement. Generally the dates arrived at by physicists were predicting an earth that was too young for geologists and biologists but still several orders of magnitude older than that posited by Young Earth creationists. (They were of the order of 10's of millions of years).

Certainly in our lifetime the date of 4.5 billion plus or minus some error margin has been pretty static and the main advances have been reducing the error margin. AFAICT no scientific method has produced an age of less than a million years for at least a century. For more details see either of the books.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 05:25 PM
Amazing you know as little about the history of science as you do about biology. Those beliefs did lead to a suppression of scientific enquiry lasting at least 1,000 years. Between 500 and 1500 AD. Things didn't really get going in earnest in the scientific enterprise stakes until the church was no longer seen as a threat sometime in the late 18th or early 19th centuries.
You either have no understanding of history or you hate of religion clouts your judgement. If science was still until 1500AD, how come it started to develop in 16th century when church stopped to be a threat only in the late 18th century?
Also how scientific enquiry stopped in the countries that were not under control of influence of church? They'd be light years ahead of Europe if your logic had any grounds.
In reality the greatest (IMO) invention in mankind history - printing press was developed in 15th century. It made dissemination and storage of information much more effective and boosted science and technological development.
It also made documenting historic events at least remotely reliable.

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 06:04 PM
You either have no understanding of history or you hate of religion clouts your judgement. If science was still until 1500AD, how come it started to develop in 16th century when church stopped to be a threat only in the late 18th century?

Either you have no understanding of logic or your hate of science clouts [sic] your judgement.:lol:

Ahhhh the false dichotomy. Either science was full steam ahead or else it was completely stopped. There is no continuum to see here folks. Move along.


Also how scientific enquiry stopped in the countries that were not under control of influence of church? They'd be light years ahead of Europe if your logic had any grounds.

That is largely true. And for a time China and the Middle East was "light years" ahead of Europe. However Europe did get a back into things thanks to trade with China and conquest of Spain which helped kick start the enlightenment whilst China and the Middle East stagnated for different reasons.


In reality the greatest (IMO) invention in mankind history - printing press was developed in 15th century. It made dissemination and storage of information much more effective and boosted science and technological development.

Yes and the printing press (along with paper) was developed in China and imported into Europe. Further proof that Europe had to import technology to catch up after 1,000 years of church domination.


It also made documenting historic events at least remotely reliable.

I can't tease out what you mean here. Are you saying mass media increased the accuracy of documenting historical events, and if so, why? I mean I can see how it might help to some extent, but to write off all history before the 1500s as intrinsically unreliable seems a little rash.

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 06:19 PM
http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/100000/00000/5000/800/105822/105822.strip.gif

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 08:14 PM
This is a press release but makes an interesting read...

http://www.scienceinpublic.com/blog/embargoed/pmphysical

Katherine Trinajstic: Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year


Three hundred and eighty million years ago, on the Gogo Barrier Reef in what is now the Kimberley Ranges, our early ancestors were developing teeth, jaws, limbs, and even a womb.

...

Her work is important, not just to our understanding of how life on Earth has evolved and responded to extinction events. She is also helping in the search for new oil and gas reserves.

...

She is also developing tools for the oil company Chevron to help it date core samples rapidly and accurately in its search for new oil and gas reserves.


Yeah, old earth theory is such baloney. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 08:23 PM
That is largely true. And for a time China and the Middle East was "light years" ahead of Europe. However Europe did get a back into things thanks to trade with China and conquest of Spain which helped kick start the enlightenment whilst China and the Middle East stagnated for different reasons.
Renaissance started in 15th century, reconquest of Spain finished at the end of 15th century.
Trade with China (which was very far away by the standards of the time) alone could not so quickly remove technological gap that accumulated over millennia. Try to allow other factors apart from your pet hate of religion.



Yes and the printing press (along with paper) was developed in China and imported into Europe. Further proof that Europe had to import technology to catch up after 1,000 years of church domination.
And the Chinese inventor Johannes Gutenberg moved from China to Europe. For some reason historians, who were not aware of oppressing role of the church and religion, erroneously decided his place of birth was Mainz.
Possibly Vatican conspired to hide it's role in the oppression and directed historians to distort the truth.



I can't tease out what you mean here. Are you saying mass media increased the accuracy of documenting historical events, and if so, why? I mean I can see how it might help to some extent, but to write off all history before the 1500s as intrinsically unreliable seems a little rash.
It means that printing press allowed multiple copies of chronicles and documents. That reduced the occurrence of documents irrevocably lost.
Multiple copies also made changing/forging existing documents more difficult.
I does not warrant writing off pre 15th century, but it's less reliable (and more prone to mistakes, misrepresentation and falsifications).

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 08:26 PM
This is a press release but makes an interesting read...

http://www.scienceinpublic.com/blog/embargoed/pmphysical

Katherine Trinajstic: Malcolm McIntosh Prize for Physical Scientist of the Year


Three hundred and eighty million years ago, on the Gogo Barrier Reef in what is now the Kimberley Ranges, our early ancestors were developing teeth, jaws, limbs, and even a womb.

...

Her work is important, not just to our understanding of how life on Earth has evolved and responded to extinction events. She is also helping in the search for new oil and gas reserves.

...

She is also developing tools for the oil company Chevron to help it date core samples rapidly and accurately in its search for new oil and gas reserves.


Yeah, old earth theory is such baloney. :lol:
How an old earth theory helps her in oil and gas exploration?

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 08:35 PM
"The Everlasting Man" by G. K. Chesterton: (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100311.txt). Published in 1925, but still relevant today:lol: :lol:

PROFESSORS AND PREHISTORIC MEN

Science is weak about these prehistoric things in a way that has hardly
been noticed. The science whose modern marvels we all admire succeeds by
incessantly adding to its data. In all practical inventions, in most
natural discoveries, it can always increase evidence by experiment. But
it cannot experiment in making men; or even in watching to see what the
first men make. An inventor can advance step by step in the construction
of an aeroplane, even if he is only experimenting with sticks and scraps
of metal in his own back-yard. But he cannot watch the Missing Link
evolving in his own back-yard. If he has made a mistake in his
calculations, the aeroplane will correct it by crashing to the ground.
But if he has made a mistake about the arboreal habitat of his ancestor,
he cannot see his arboreal ancestor falling off the tree. He cannot keep
a cave-man like a cat in the back-yard and watch him to see whether he
does really practice cannibalism or carry off his mate on the principles
of marriage by capture.

......

In dealing with a
past that has almost entirely perished, he can only go by evidence and
not by experiment. And there is hardly enough evidence to be even
evidential. Thus while most science moves in a sort of curve, being
constantly corrected by new evidence, this science flies off into space
in a straight line uncorrected by anything. But the habit of forming
conclusions, as they can really be formed in more fruitful fields, is so
fixed in the scientific mind that it cannot resist talking like this. It
talks about the idea suggested by one scrap of bone as if it were
something like the aeroplane which is constructed at last out of whole
scrapheaps of scraps of metal. The trouble with the professor of the
prehistoric is that he cannot scrap his scrap. The marvellous and
triumphant aeroplane is made out of a hundred mistakes. The student of
origins can only make one mistake and stick to it.

Desmond
17-11-2010, 08:45 PM
This is a press release but makes an interesting read...Sorry, reading is not permitted.

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 09:16 PM
Renaissance started in 15th century, reconquest of Spain finished at the end of 15th century.
Trade with China (which was very far away by the standards of the time) alone could not so quickly remove technological gap that accumulated over millennia. Try to allow other factors apart from your pet hate of religion.

Did I say the complete removal of the last Muslim and Jew from Spain? That had happened by the end of the 15th century. The process began in the around the 8th century. It is widely acknowledged that classical Greek and Islamic learning was reintroduced to Europe through Spain after it was largely lost to European scholarship at the beginning of the Dark Ages. The process occurred over the period of the Reconquista, which spanned 700 years.


And the Chinese inventor Johannes Gutenberg moved from China to Europe. For some reason historians, who were not aware of oppressing role of the church and religion, erroneously decided his place of birth was Mainz.
Possibly Vatican conspired to hide it's role in the oppression and directed historians to distort the truth.

China had moveable type printing using porcelain in the 11th century and wood in the 13th century. At around the same time metal moveable type printing was in use in Korea. The earliest known metal moveable type printed book was published in 1377, in Korea.

Gutenburg came up with particular alloy for the type and an automated press to increase productivity. But the moveable type idea and using metal for the type had already been worked out centuries earlier in China.


I does not warrant writing off pre 15th century, but it's less reliable (and more prone to mistakes, misrepresentation and falsifications).

I take your point on things not getting lost as easily but assuming we have an intact original manuscript from antiquity how is it less reliable than something printed up by a 15th century journalist?

I mean exactly how is it more prone to mistakes, misrepresentations and falsifications if it is written by hand. Surely you can mass produce lies and easily as the truth and if the event is not well know then some people will just believe the lies. See for example the spread on urban legends on the internet. Even though there is more information there is also more misinformation.

I don't see the rise of printed media in Europe affecting the quality of the historical evidence. There is more printed documents for sure but many important documents are hand written. For example letters between important people (Galileo, Franklin, Jefferson,etc) Newton letters and personal notes, The diary of Samuel Pepys, etc. These were all after the introduction of the press into Europe but aren't less reliable because they are handwritten.

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 09:17 PM
Sorry, reading is not permitted.

Mmmm award ceremony is tonight. Maybe check tomorrow.

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 09:22 PM
"The Everlasting Man" by G. K. Chesterton: (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100311.txt). Published in 1925, but still relevant today:lol: :lol:


Wait the Christian apologetics of the present day are so bad you are having to go back to Chesterton! :lol:
This is a sad indictment on Jono and co. Chesterton!!! Seriously! :lol: :lol:

That would be like me arguing modern geology has all the answers by appealing to Theophrastus.

Desmond
17-11-2010, 09:28 PM
Mmmm award ceremony is tonight. Maybe check tomorrow.
hehe

Seriously though, interesting story.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 10:15 PM
I take your point on things not getting lost as easily but assuming we have an intact original manuscript from antiquity how is it less reliable than something printed up by a 15th century journalist?
Single copy of the document originating, say, in 11th century, could've been amended/forged in 13th century. It becomes virtually impossible to discovery forgery in, say, 17th century.
Two documents stored in two different places are more difficult to forged. Sometimes the ruler in 13th century is not even aware of second copy. When they both surface in 17th century, a researcher can deduce that there were two different versions, but he does not knows which one is original and which one was forged. They both could've been forged. There could've been more copies, but they were lost.

But if twenty of fifty copies of the same documents were printed in 15th century, chances are ten or more will survive until nowdays days (or at least reach, say, 18th century when they are reprinted) true picture is much easier to restore.



I mean exactly how is it more prone to mistakes, misrepresentations and falsifications if it is written by hand. Surely you can mass produce lies and easily as the truth and if the event is not well know then some people will just believe the lies. See for example the spread on urban legends on the internet. Even though there is more information there is also more misinformation.
Sure printing press does not stop lies and misinformation. Details of English civil war can be lost and distorted, but at least we can be certain that Charles I was beheaded in 1649.



I don't see the rise of printed media in Europe affecting the quality of the historical evidence. There is more printed documents for sure but many important documents are hand written. For example letters between important people (Galileo, Franklin, Jefferson,etc) Newton letters and personal notes, The diary of Samuel Pepys, etc. These were all after the introduction of the press into Europe but aren't less reliable because they are handwritten.
Without the printed copies they would most likely be lost. And paper copies (either handwritten or printed) rarely withstand onslaught of time. Most of the ancient (or even reasonably recent) books reach our time because they were reprinted.

Btw, many books printed in 16-19 (or even 20th!) century are irrevocably lost, simple because they were never reprinted.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2010, 10:19 PM
Wait the Christian apologetics of the present day are so bad you are having to go back to Chesterton! :lol:

It's very convenient to dismiss the famous English writer and philosopher because he happened not to share your views. However, I quoted him only because he elegantly expressed the problems and shortcomings of anthropoligists/paleontologists/etc. The same problems and shortcomings are as relevant now as they were almost a century ago.

Try to read a classic of English literature instead of summarily dismissing him because he happened not to support your orthodoxy.:owned:

Rincewind
17-11-2010, 10:39 PM
Single copy of the document originating, say, in 11th century, could've been amended/forged in 13th century. It becomes virtually impossible to discovery forgery in, say, 17th century.
Two documents stored in two different places are more difficult to forged. Sometimes the ruler in 13th century is not even aware of second copy. When they both surface in 17th century, a researcher can deduce that there were two different versions, but he does not knows which one is original and which one was forged. They both could've been forged. There could've been more copies, but they were lost.

Of the number you are talking about the forgery isn't entirely ruled out. You are assuming more than one intact version from the one printing run. There are variations between runs even from the same printer let along forgeries from rival printers.

However I was talking intact manuscripts. If we have say a ships log or the like the providence of the document can be reasonably well established then I can't see the the 15th century as being a watershed from historical accuracy.


But if twenty of fifty copies of the same documents were printed in 15th century, chances are ten or more will survive until nowdays days (or at least reach, say, 18th century when they are reprinted) true picture is much easier to restore.

Assuming reprinting without distortion which introduces the same problems as you are arguing against. :)


Sure printing press does not stop lies and misinformation. Details of English civil war can be lost and distorted, but at least we can be certain that Charles I was beheaded in 1649.

We can also be pretty sure that, say, Harold was defeated by William. We don't need a printed document to provide reasonably accurate information on what happened to ruling monarchs. Especially when they are defeated by other rulers (or mobs as the case may be).


Without the printed copies they would most likely be lost. And paper copies (either handwritten or printed) rarely withstand onslaught of time. Most of the ancient (or even reasonably recent) books reach our time because they were reprinted.

Btw, many books printed in 16-19 (or even 20th!) century are irrevocably lost, simple because they were never reprinted.

Paper is certainly less durable than vellum which can last more than 1,000 years if kept is suitable conditions.

So back to the matter at hand. You said that mass printing made history "at least remotely reliable". This implies that prior to mass printing history was not remotely reliable. If you just means printing press made a more complete history possible then I agree that it helps in that regard.

There is little doubt mass media contributed to the renaissance and subsequently the enlightenment. As did the acquisition of Islamic and Classical knowledge via Spain.