PDA

View Full Version : Is Young Earth Creationism "patently false"? (sf economic self-rel)



Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2012, 01:09 PM
Given you also believe in the patently false dogma of YEC I would say GF has it right.
My belief in the true system of YEC, that is another point in my favour and against that shyster.

pax
29-11-2012, 01:31 PM
My belief in the true system of YEC, that is another point in my favour and against that shyster.
rofl

Rincewind
29-11-2012, 01:34 PM
My belief in the true system of YEC, that is another point in my favour and against that shyster.

Well it could be true that every working biologist and geologist on the planet could be wrong and that a someone trained as a physical chemist who never held a research position and has only a handful of research papers in chemistry and none in biology or geology knows more about biology and geology than practically all of the planet's experts. That is possible.

pax
29-11-2012, 02:26 PM
Well it could be true that every working biologist and geologist on the planet could be wrong and that a someone trained as a physical chemist who never held a research position and has only a handful of research papers in chemistry and none in biology or geology knows more about biology and geology than practically all of the planet's experts. That is possible.

Not to mention physicists and astronomers.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2012, 02:55 PM
Well it could be true that every working biologist and geologist on the planet could be wrong and that a someone trained as a physical chemist who never held a research position and has only a handful of research papers in chemistry and none in biology or geology knows more about biology and geology than practically all of the planet's experts. That is possible.
Of course, since these people were not there in the past, so are making suppositions about the past. None of them use goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution in their real work. Truth in science is not decided by majority vote. A non-scientist like you just opposes YEC because of your atheopathic faith, and same with Pax.

Desmond
29-11-2012, 04:08 PM
Of course, since these people were not there in the past, so are making suppositions about the past. None of them use goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution in their real work. Truth in science is not decided by majority vote. A non-scientist like you just opposes YEC because of your atheopathic faith, and same with Pax.
Probably belongs in the "Parallel Universe" thread. Or the comedy channel.

Rincewind
29-11-2012, 04:13 PM
A non-scientist like you just opposes YEC because of your atheopathic faith, and same with Pax.

Many of the experts are theists (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, et al.) but the science is not out on the age of the planet. It's 4.5 billion years old to an accuracy of around 1%. Could it be 4.55, yes. Could it be only 10,000 years? Not a snowflake's chance.

Kevin Bonham
29-11-2012, 05:15 PM
Truth in science is not decided by majority vote.

It's even less decided by declaring that:


By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Indeed your adherence to that shows that you don't believe truth and science to have anything to do with each other, since effectively what you mean by truth is not factuality in any remotely standard sense of the word, but rather compliance with scripture.

Adamski
30-11-2012, 12:00 AM
Many of the experts are theists (Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, et al.) but the science is not out on the age of the planet. It's 4.5 billion years old to an accuracy of around 1%. Could it be 4.55, yes. Could it be only 10,000 years? Not a snowflake's chance.Who has "proved" that excessive age and that accuracy and how have they "proved it"? As Jono said, they weren't there to see the earth's start.

Rincewind
30-11-2012, 12:21 AM
Who has "proved" that excessive age and that accuracy and how have they "proved it"? As Jono said, they weren't there to see the earth's start.

From Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth


After more than two centuries of scientific endeavor, we have concluded that the age of the planet on which we live is 4.54 billion years. This value, which is based on the relationship between lead isotopes in meteorites and in the Earth, has an uncertainty of less than 1 percent and is consistent with numerous radiometric age measurements on acient rocks found on the Earth and Moon as well as on meteorites. In addition, the antiquity of the Earth is consistent with evidence indicating that the Milky Way Galaxy and the universe are of the order of 14-16 billion years in age.


Also...


We can be confident that the minimum age for the Earth ecxeeds 4 Ga - the evidence is abundant and compelling. Rocks exceeding 3.5 Ga in age are found on all the continents, but there are four especially well-studied areas on Earth: the Superior region of North America, the Isua-Godthaab area of western Greenland, the Pilbara block in the northern part of Western Australia, and Swaziland in southern Africa, where rocks 3.5 Ga or more in age have been found, carefully mapped, thoroughly studied, and dated by more than one radiometric method.


If you have a genuine interest in knowing and understanding the scientific evidence I recommend reading this book.

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2012, 12:43 AM
As Jono said, they weren't there to see the earth's start.

Nor were creationists, yet Jono with his totally ludicrous scriptural axiom considers it acceptable to not only consider things proven true that he did not witness, but even to consider some empirical statements to be axiomatic (ie assumed true without even examining the evidence.)

You're also quite happy to accept that Junta Ikeda beat a grandmaster although you didn't personally witness it. So your use of that objection is either selective or just another attempt to increase your post count.

Adamski
30-11-2012, 06:29 AM
Nor were creationists, yet Jono with his totally ludicrous scriptural axiom considers it acceptable to not only consider things proven true that he did not witness, but even to consider some empirical statements to be axiomatic (ie assumed true without even examining the evidence.)

You're also quite happy to accept that Junta Ikeda beat a grandmaster although you didn't personally witness it. So your use of that objection is either selective or just another attempt to increase your post count.
Lol a mere 20, 000 behind you!
Yeah. no human was there.

RW I still don't see a proof in what Dalrymple says. I don't think the age of the earth is provable by either side.

Desmond
30-11-2012, 07:17 AM
Lol a mere 20, 000 behind you!
Yeah. no human was there.

RW I still don't see a proof in what Dalrymple says. I don't think the age of the earth is provable by either side.
lplcRdNDcps

morebeer
30-11-2012, 07:55 AM
Of course, since these people were not there in the past, so are making suppositions about the past. None of them use goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution in their real work. Truth in science is not decided by majority vote. A non-scientist like you just opposes YEC because of your atheopathic faith, and same with Pax.

Last time I looked, truth in science was also not predicated on the supernatural.

Rincewind
30-11-2012, 09:50 AM
RW I still don't see a proof in what Dalrymple says. I don't think the age of the earth is provable by either side.

I don't think you understand science very well but if you are interested in learning more I suggest you read the book. The work is not controversial and so any good scientific textbook dealing with geological dating would suffice, but Dalrymple aims to present the scientific evidence to a general audience.

morebeer
30-11-2012, 10:15 AM
I don't think you understand science very well....

Understanding the power and limitations of inductive reasoning might be a good start.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2012, 10:41 AM
Lol a mere 20, 000 behind you!

The issue being not the number but the nature. Lately you've posted a large number of very inane one-line posts, some of them completely unnecessary and uninformative, that have made me suspect you're deliberately posting fluff to try to win the race to be the next poster into the top ten.


I don't think the age of the earth is provable by either side.

Then what about the world do you think is "provable" and how do you believe it can be proved?

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2012, 12:49 PM
I don't think you understand science very well but if you are interested in learning more I suggest you read the book. The work is not controversial and so any good scientific textbook dealing with geological dating would suffice, but Dalrymple aims to present the scientific evidence to a general audience.
Dalrymple wasn't there. He has to rationalize away "millions of years" K-Ar dates in 10yo rocks, and who knows what he would do about proteins and blood vessels in dino bones (http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-protein-even-more-confirmation) (and more recently, DNA). And KB and RW are more dogmatic about their silly atheopathy than most Baptists are about the Bible, just like Lewontin (http://creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote) and Dawko (http://creation.com/atheism-agnosticism-and-humanism-godless-religions-questions-and-answers#dawkins).

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2012, 01:12 PM
And KB and RW are more dogmatic about their silly atheopathy [..]

This silly ipse dixt (with additional clueless hack-psychiatric sledging via the ludicrous claim of "atheopathy") is coming from someone whose position takes dogmatism to the absolute maximum by declaring a major disputed core belief to be axiomatic "by definition".

Desmond
30-11-2012, 01:13 PM
"millions of years" K-Ar dates in 10yo rocksDo you use kitchen scales to weigh an elephant?

Rincewind
30-11-2012, 01:20 PM
Dalrymple wasn't there.

Wasn't claimed that we was. But neither was the person who wrote or compiled Genesis.

However looking at the physical evidence which was there (rocks) they attest to a 4.54 billion year history.


He has to rationalize away "millions of years" K-Ar dates in 10yo rocks,

Since the half-life of K40 is measured in billions of years it could not possibly be used to date 10 year old rocks. And in any case the quote by Dalrymple mainly talks about Lead dating.

Adamski
30-11-2012, 11:25 PM
Then what about the world do you think is "provable" and how do you believe it can be proved?
Things that can be repeated are provable. i.e. experimental science.
But I am not hung up on "proof" as a necessity for all hypotheses. That is an unreasonable expectation.

Rincewind
30-11-2012, 11:42 PM
Things that can be repeated are provable. i.e. experimental science.

How many times does something need to be repeated before it is proven?

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2012, 12:11 AM
Do you use kitchen scales to weigh an elephant?
The point is, if an animal actually can be weighed by kitchen scales, then it's not an elephant.

Rincewind
01-12-2012, 12:16 AM
The point is, if an animal actually can be weighed by kitchen scales, then it's not an elephant.

Exactly and when you get 10 year old lava flows and use a dating procedure which firstly cannot possibly measure of that time scale and secondly use whole of sample dating which is known to have limitation if you have xenoliths which you typically have in lava flows, but you do it anyway and then get spurious results then there is nothing to explain. Spurious results are in fact expected.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2012, 01:58 AM
Things that can be repeated are provable. i.e. experimental science.

I gave the example of Junta Ikeda defeating a grandmaster and whether you considered this proven true. While that probably is repeatable in a broad and irrelevant sense (he will probably defeat grandmasters again), I'll clarify the claim: that Ikeda defeated a particular grandmaster on a particular day in a particular game.

Now unless you believe in certain interpretations of Nietzsche's views on the Eternal Recurrence, or certain other more clearly cyclical doctrines, the case of Ikeda beating that grandmaster on that day will never happen again, and so you cannot test by experimentally repeating it.

But it is a mistake to say therefore that because Ikeda beating the GM is a past event that nobody who didn't witness it can "prove" that it occurred. For instance, a website reports the result that Junta won. That isn't proof, so we might establish the hypothesis that the website was wrong. Now we could seek to test that hypothesis by attempting to examine the evidence that Junta won that game through different angles. For instance, we could ask Junta if he won. We could examine the next round draw. We could ask the arbiters. We could check the next FIDE rating list. We could download the live games. We could get the original scoresheet. And so on. There are many different angles of evidence on to this past event that give us the possibility of having enough evidence to be extremely confident that it is true, even though the event was in the past, is not strictly repeatable, and was not observed by us.

So events not being repeatable is no barrier. An event does not need to be repeatable to be testable.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2012, 04:09 AM
Exactly and when you get 10 year old lava flows and use a dating procedure which firstly cannot possibly measure of that time scale
The point is, a 10yo flow should not provide a measurable K-Ar 'age' if the method is reliable; but it did, therefore the method is not reliable.


and secondly use whole of sample dating which is known to have limitation if you have xenoliths which you typically have in lava flows,
“This criticism is unfounded (http://creation.com/countering-the-critics-radio-dating-in-rubble) because Dr Austin was particularly careful to identify xenoliths and ensure none were included in the sample.”


but you do it anyway and then get spurious results then there is nothing to explain. Spurious results are in fact expected.
The problem lies in the assumptions required for radiometric dating, in this case that the "daughter" product is in fact the result of the "parent" isotope decaying over time.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2012, 04:10 AM
I gave the example of Junta Ikeda defeating a grandmaster and whether you considered this proven true.
That's the point: there were reliable eyewitnesses to this event, which is what the Bible is.

Desmond
01-12-2012, 05:39 AM
The point is, if an animal actually can be weighed by kitchen scales, then it's not an elephant.Not at all. You could stand an elephant on the scales, it just gives a meaningless result. Does this mean the kitchen scales are useless or not reliable? No, it means people who actually know what they are doing use other scales.

Rincewind
01-12-2012, 09:12 AM
The point is, a 10yo flow should not provide a measurable K-Ar 'age' if the method is reliable; but it did, therefore the method is not reliable.

Not true. The method is inappropriate for samples of that age and hence it produces spurious ages.


“This criticism is unfounded (http://creation.com/countering-the-critics-radio-dating-in-rubble) because Dr Austin was particularly careful to identify xenoliths and ensure none were included in the sample.”

Or rather Dr Austin selected a sample which was completely incompatible with the method he critiquing to acheive his predetermined conclusion.


The problem lies in the assumptions required for radiometric dating, in this case that the "daughter" product is in fact the result of the "parent" isotope decaying over time.

That is not an assumption it is scientific theory which has a huge amount of supporting evidence. If you are going to try and discredit a dating method you should at least choose a sample which is appropriate for the method. There were a at least three problems with the sample chosen by Austin: age, low potassium content and xenolith inclusions. Any one of these threse would make the results unreliable. All three was simple Austin making sure he got a spurious result which he could then write up for the unscientific creationist literature.

Kevin Bonham
01-12-2012, 02:00 PM
That's the point: there were reliable eyewitnesses to this event, which is what the Bible is.

Not even remotely comparable in the case of key disputed incidents. For starters there is no opportunity in the case of the resurrection to examine any evidence compiled by anyone at the time of the event or more or less directly after - only accounts from considerably after. This would not matter if there were other ways to directly examine evidence for the claimed event but there are apparently not. And many of the events claimed by the Bible are far more loaded in terms of potential for people to spin the story their way than the question of the result of a chess game played in a major tournament.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 02:43 AM
Cameron Diaz talks science and religion (http://vimeo.com/63054932)
30 March 2013

Archetypical dumb blonde bint Cameron Diaz thinks that the development of an embryo into an adult is “evolution”, and doesn't know the difference between “basis” (singular) and “bases” (classical plural form pronounced “bayseez” in English). Amd antitheist Lawrence Krauss nods in approval, although he thinks that teaching creation is “child abuse” and anti-science.

(See this Fawlty Towers clip show (http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/the-fawlty-towers-basil-fawlty.html) from about 1:25 so you can work out the connotations of the word “bint”. It's derived from Arabic for “girl”.)

Redmond Barry
12-05-2013, 03:59 AM
Cameron Diaz talks science and religion (http://vimeo.com/63054932)
30 March 2013

Archetypical dumb blonde bint Cameron Diaz thinks that the development of an embryo into an adult is “evolution”, and doesn't know the difference between “basis” (singular) and “bases” (classical plural form pronounced “bayseez” in English). Amd antitheist Lawrence Krauss nods in approval, although he thinks that teaching creation is “child abuse” and anti-science.

(See this Fawlty Towers clip show (http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/the-fawlty-towers-basil-fawlty.html) from about 1:25 so you can work out the connotations of the word “bint”. It's derived from Arabic for “girl”.)

i wonder what paris hiltons thoughts on the matter are ?? :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 04:21 AM
i wonder what paris hiltons thoughts on the matter are ?? :hmm:
She would probably agree, so Krauss should invite her for the next panel discussion.

Redmond Barry
12-05-2013, 04:28 AM
She would probably agree, so Krauss should invite her for the next panel discussion.

would Krauss get more respect for involving meryl streep perhaps ?

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 07:08 AM
would Krauss get more respect for involving meryl streep perhaps ?
Maybe but doubtful, and it would depend on whether she said things as silly as Diaz did.

Desmond
12-05-2013, 07:51 AM
Cameron Diaz talks science and religion (http://vimeo.com/63054932)
30 March 2013

Archetypical dumb blonde bint Cameron Diaz thinks that the development of an embryo into an adult is “evolution”, and doesn't know the difference between “basis” (singular) and “bases” (classical plural form pronounced “bayseez” in English). Amd antitheist Lawrence Krauss nods in approval, although he thinks that teaching creation is “child abuse” and anti-science.Pity there wasn't a sound byte of her mis-explaining long division - I guess that would disprove mathematics would it Jono?

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 08:19 AM
Pity there wasn't a sound byte of her mis-explaining long division - I guess that would disprove mathematics would it Jono?
No comparison. The point is that Krausskopf was using this bint as an expert, and approving of what she said.

Desmond
12-05-2013, 09:02 AM
No comparison. The point is that Krausskopf was using this bint as an expert, and approving of what she said.
I doubt anyone accused her of being an expert.

In any case by looking at parents and their kids, one can see evolution in progress, if not in quite the way she described. There will be a lot of resemblance between the children to the parents yet there are differences. Even brother and sisters often look very much alike but still different. One might have longer fingers, one might have a fuller beard. One might have asthma. One might have poor eyesight. Under certain environmental pressures these differences will offer advantage in terms of being able to effectively find food, reproduce and so on. It all starts with the passing of traits from one generation to the next.

She is quite right that the evidence is all around us.

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 10:02 AM
I doubt anyone accused her of being an expert.

In any case by looking at parents and their kids, one can see evolution in progress, if not in quite the way she described. There will be a lot of resemblance between the children to the parents yet there are differences. Even brother and sisters often look very much alike but still different. One might have longer fingers, one might have a fuller beard. One might have asthma. One might have poor eyesight. Under certain environmental pressures these differences will offer advantage in terms of being able to effectively find food, reproduce and so on. It all starts with the passing of traits from one generation to the next.

She is quite right that the evidence is all around us.
You are as ignorant as she is. All those are examples of recombination or deleterious mutation (asthma). None of these examples would turn bacteria into biologists, or prokaryotes into professors, which is the real question under dispute. No one denies that allele frequencies change over time. So quit this dishonest bait-and-switch (http://creation.com/don-t-fall-for-the-bait-and-switch).

Desmond
12-05-2013, 10:43 AM
I didn't realize coyotes could fly. Maybe top speed is not the only factor to consider. :hmm:


None of these examples would turn bacteria into biologists, or prokaryotes into professors, which is the real question under dispute. No one denies that allele frequencies change over time.And yet there is no stopping small changes accumulating over time.

Desmond
12-05-2013, 10:56 AM
hPLgfGX1I5Y

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 11:11 AM
I didn't realize coyotes could fly. Maybe top speed is not the only factor to consider. :hmm:
It's not a strong flyer, and the cartoon roadrunner never seems to take off, so only their top running speeds are relevant.

That Zimmer twit is clueless, although not as much as Diaz. The so-called feathers on a dino are actually remains of a connected dermal crest, as documented in ‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all! (http://creation.com/feathered-dinosaurs-not-feathers) which discussed the paper by Prof. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar at the University of KwaZulu Natal, Seth Effrica, The evolution of the feather: Sinosauropteryx, life, death, and preservation of an alleged feathered dinosaur, J. Ornithol. 153(3):699–711, 2012 | DOI 10.1007/s10336-011-0787-x.


And yet there is no stopping small changes accumulating over time.
It's irrelevant if they are not in the right informationally uphill direction required (see for example The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction (http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin)).

Desmond
12-05-2013, 11:23 AM
It's not a strong flyer, and the cartoon roadrunner never seems to take off, so only their top running speeds are relevant.Yet they do fly to avoid predators.



That Zimmer twit is clueless, although not as much as Diaz. The so-called feathers on a dino are actually remains of a connected dermal crest, as documented in ‘Feathered’ dinos: no feathers after all! (http://creation.com/feathered-dinosaurs-not-feathers) which discussed the paper by Prof. Theagarten Lingham-Soliar at the University of KwaZulu Natal, Seth Effrica, The evolution of the feather: Sinosauropteryx, life, death, and preservation of an alleged feathered dinosaur, J. Ornithol. 153(3):699–711, 2012 | DOI 10.1007/s10336-011-0787-x."A handful of debatable examples"? Funny.


It's irrelevant if they are not in the right informationally uphill direction required (see for example The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction (http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin)).
There is no right or wrong direction.

Rincewind
12-05-2013, 12:15 PM
There is no right or wrong direction.

Indeed and the "no new information" argument has been thoroughly debunked both here and elsewhere [1]. The information has always come from the environment and is encoded in the genome. In fact you could define life as a way of encoding environmental information into self-replicating information storage units.

Why creationists still parrot such a discredited arguments is beyond me.

1. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html

Capablanca-Fan
12-05-2013, 12:16 PM
There is no right or wrong direction.
There is a direction that turns prokaryotes into professors, and your examples of mere change is in the opposite direction.

Rincewind
12-05-2013, 12:36 PM
There is a direction that turns prokaryotes into professors, and your examples of mere change is in the opposite direction.

No that is just stupid. Mutations sometimes result in less storage space and sometimes result in more storage space. That space can be used to store new information from the environment.

Redmond Barry
12-05-2013, 09:34 PM
britney spears has just tweeted that she agrees with the concept of young earth creationism.

this must be a boon for your cause jono. :D

Desmond
12-05-2013, 09:48 PM
britney spears has just tweeted that she agrees with the concept of young earth creationism.



http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24321116.jpg

Ian Murray
24-08-2013, 11:14 AM
Welcome to The Age of Denial (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?_r=0)
New York Times op ed
21.8.13


... Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.

Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.

The list goes on....

antichrist
26-08-2013, 10:14 AM
Welcome to The Age of Denial (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/opinion/welcome-to-the-age-of-denial.html?_r=0)
New York Times op ed
21.8.13


... Today, however, it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact. Narrowly defined, “creationism” was a minor current in American thinking for much of the 20th century. But in the years since I was a student, a well-funded effort has skillfully rebranded that ideology as “creation science” and pushed it into classrooms across the country. Though transparently unscientific, denying evolution has become a litmus test for some conservative politicians, even at the highest levels.

Meanwhile, climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.

The list goes on....

that's why I was in Friends of Earth 40 years ago, boasting of course, and the atheistic mobs. I noticed that Father BOb McGuire of John Safran fame was whinging how the RCC booted FoE out of his church premises in South Melb when he was evicted himself. Decent guy that Bob, was on interview on ABC last night if you want to catch up.

Desmond
01-05-2014, 07:40 PM
IF WE FOLLOWED “FLOOD GEOLOGY,” WE WOULD HAVE NO OIL (http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/04/30/if-we-followed-flood-geology-we-would-have-no-oil/)


In my 2007 book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, I detailed the problems with the bizarre view of the earth known as “flood geology.” Originally hatched by George Macready Price, a school teacher with no training or experience whatsoever in geology, he dreamed it up by reading children’s books about geology. Price was a Seventh-Day Adventist, therefore he had to believe in Young-Earth Creationism. Thus, he would create elaborate explanations of how Noah’s flood could explain the entire geological record—or at least the record as portrayed in oversimplified cartoons in kiddie books. If he had ever bothered to go into the field and look directly at the rocks, he might have changed his mind.

Ironically, the entire idea of Noah’s flood explaining the rock record was disproven by creationist geologists themselves. The Noah’s flood model was widely believed before 1795, but in the early 1800s geologists began to look at the rocks of Europe in greater detail, and realized that it could not be explained by one flood or by many floods. By 1830, “flood geology” was completely dead, even though the geologists of the time were all devoutly religious and believed in the Bible. And this all happened decades before Charles Darwin published his ideas in 1859, so in no way did geologists “shuffle the fossils and the strata” to prove evolution, as some creationists claim. ...

The most significant implication of “flood geology” and its fantasy view of the earth is a practical problem. Without real geologists doing their work, none of us would have the oil, coal, gas, groundwater, uranium, and most other natural resources that we extract from the earth. There are lots of devout Christians in oil and coal companies (I know of many of them personally), but they all laugh at the idea of “flood geology” and would never attempt to use it to find what they’re paid to find. Instead, like the Clark and Block quotes above demonstrate, they have seen the complexity of real geology in hundreds of drill cores spanning whole continents, and don’t even begin to try to interpret these rocks in a creationist mold (even though they may be devout Christians and believe much of the rest of the fundamentalist’s credo). If they tried, they’d find no oil, and lose their jobs!

This problem has been attested to many times. Although there are people who may have been trained in “flood geology” after graduating from religious colleges, as soon as they are employed doing geology in their jobs, the real world gets in the way of their fantasies, and they abandon “flood geology”—because it doesn't work! The most vivid testimony to this effect comes from Glenn Morton, who started as a YEC “flood geologist,” but when he began his career in petroleum he found it was worthless for finding oil, since it bears no resemblance to the real world. ...

As creationists keep trying to get their bizarre notion of “flood geology” inserted into classrooms and places like the Grand Canyon, we have to ask ourselves: are we willing to give up the oil and gas and coal and groundwater and uranium that our civilization requires? That would be one of the steepest prices we would pay if we followed the creationists.

The full article is well worth a read. A while ago we were discussing Geology and YEC somewhere - can't remember where. Prob buried somewhere in DGE.

Capablanca-Fan
02-05-2014, 12:28 AM
There are flood geologists who work in the oil industry, unlike that author. Petroleum geologists look for stratigraphic correlations likely to have oil-bearing rocks, and don't care too much in their work how these correlations came to be.

Also lots of revisionism there. Pioneering geologists like Steno used the biblical flood for their models (http://creation.com/geological-pioneer-nicolaus-steno-was-a-biblical-creationist). Later on, too many supposed creationists like Buckland followed Lyell's uniformitarianism and restricted the Flood rocks to a so-called diluvium of surface loam gravel above the harder rocks. It was this false attribution that Buckland disproved.

Rincewind
02-05-2014, 02:32 AM
Petroleum geologists look for stratigraphic correlations likely to have oil-bearing rocks, and don't care too much in their work how these correlations came to be.

Really and they spend years at university to do a job you could train a creationist to do?

The reality is that good geology is much more involved in correlating oil-bearing rocks. They consider not only where the oil formed but also the entire history of the oil deposit which travels though porous media under various conditions to reach the basins it is found in today.

Also I'd point out that creationist geologists seem to forget about their flood geology when they are doing paid work. For example see Andrew Snelling's article on the Koongarra uranium deposits where Snelling describes in detail the history of the uranium deposit in terms of periods of thousands of millions of years. I suspect the "flood geologists" in the oil industry are much like Snelling and forget their religion when they are doing proper geology.

Patrick Byrom
02-05-2014, 03:09 PM
There are flood geologists who work in the oil industry, unlike that author. Petroleum geologists look for stratigraphic correlations likely to have oil-bearing rocks, and don't care too much in their work how these correlations came to be.
Could you name some of these Flood geologists who work in the oil industry - they appear to be very rare?

If Flood geology is correct, it's strange that oil companies still employ 'conventional' geologists. Flood geologists could presumably skip years of expensive university training, and still be more effective at finding oil. Either it's a serious case of market failure, or Flood geology isn't that useful in practice.

Rincewind
02-05-2014, 04:01 PM
Here is a blog post by someone who claims to be a geologist (though not a petrogeologist). Note that he specifically rebuts the claims of Snelling and McQueen and also make some observations regarding the science of petrogeology and how important an appreciation for the geological timescale and the total history of the oil deposit is to the business of finding oil for commercial exploitation.

The Flood geology of oil (http://questioninganswersingenesis.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/flood-geology-of-oil.html)


Conclusion

Petroleum geology provides an elegant, multidisciplinary approach to finding one of the world’s most prized resources. Regardless of your opinion of the oil industry, its success is testimony to the validity of the conventional geologic timescale, evolutionary theory, and theories of oil generation, maturation, migration, and accumulation over multi-million-year timescales. This stands over against the proposed catastrophic explanations of petroleum systems offered by Dr. Snelling and Mr. McQueen, who overlooked many basic geological facts to convince their readers that the occurrence of petroleum systems supports Flood geology. As it stands, Flood geology is neither explanatory of outstanding geochemical evidence from oil and gas resources nor predictive of evidence in the field. Notwithstanding a major restructuring of existing theories by Flood geologists, oil and gas resources provide a powerful argument against a young-Earth interpretation of geologic history.

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2014, 08:33 AM
If Flood geology is correct, it's strange that oil companies still employ 'conventional' geologists. Flood geologists could presumably skip years of expensive university training, and still be more effective at finding oil. Either it's a serious case of market failure, or Flood geology isn't that useful in practice.
What nonsense. Even in my one year of geology at uni, evolution played a very small part. And even this was notable, since the professor who was head of paleontology said "The fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution. It seems to support a series of divine creations." Then he assured us that he was not a "divine creationist" and resorted to special pleading, I thought. Evolution had no part to play in volcanic petrology or pedology, and even stratigraphy was pioneered by the flood geologist Steno.

There would be plenty more geology to be learned by people before the petroleum industry would hire them, but most of it concerns rocks as they are (composition, position, stratigraphic relationships, permeability, etc.) rather than how they came to be.

Why respond to an anonymous blog that RW cites?

Desmond
04-05-2014, 10:05 AM
What nonsense. Even in my one year of geology at uni, evolution played a very small part. And even this was notable, since the professor who was head of paleontology said "The fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution. It seems to support a series of divine creations." Convenient, unsourced, dubious hearsay. As already noted above, young earth geology was already refuted by young earth creationists centuries ago, before Darwin came along. That evolution was 100% consistent with the geological column was just nails in YEC's already buried coffin.

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2014, 10:31 AM
Convenient, unsourced, dubious hearsay.
Well, it happened, and certainly is reliable, and suitable for this forum, but I wouldn't source it in a paper in our technical Journal of Creation (http://creation.com/journal-of-creation).


As already noted above, young earth geology was already refuted by young earth creationists centuries ago, before Darwin came along.
Rubbish. They were already uniformitarian old-earthers.

Desmond
04-05-2014, 10:45 AM
Well, it happened, and certainly is reliable, and suitable for this forum, but I wouldn't source it in a paper in our technical Journal of Creation (http://creation.com/journal-of-creation).OK then, let's start with: what was the course/s, institution and professor for this supposed year?



Rubbish. They were already uniformitarian old-earthers.More like: true believers who realised that the evidence was contradictory with the literal interpretation of the bible.

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2014, 10:48 AM
Why creationists still parrot such a discredited arguments is beyond me.

1. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html
Why atheopathic mathematicians parrot nonsense from a long-ago refuted diatribe (http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-natural-selection) is beyond me.

pax
04-05-2014, 10:58 AM
What nonsense. Even in my one year of geology at uni, evolution played a very small part.

Evolution may have little to do with geology, however the timescales of geology are millions and billions of years. The timescales are rather fundamental to everything.

Patrick Byrom
04-05-2014, 01:02 PM
What nonsense. Even in my one year of geology at uni, evolution played a very small part.
Where did I mention evolution? Flood geology assumes that all geological processes occurred over a period of a few thousand years, while conventional geology assumes billions of years (as Pax also points out). This enormous difference in timescales should have some observable consequences.

Interestingly, I did come across one example of an attempt to use Flood geology in oil exploration (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1117):

When I was finishing up my Ph.D. work, having developed a real love for petroleum exploration, I approached the research branch of a major oil company with a proposal. Pointing out that an exploration program based on old-earth/uniformitarian concepts doesn't work very well (only about one exploration well in fifty produces enough oil to pay for itself), I proposed that this company establish a team of young-earth creationist/catastrophists to see if a better exploration program could be developed. To fund a research team of five or so creationist geologists for several years would cost about the same as one dry hole. Certainly, we couldn't do any worse!

So naturally he went on to found his own company to apply Flood geology in petroleum exploration? Not exactly:

Unfortunately, my proposal was not accepted (maybe this was good, for I took a university faculty position and eventually ended up at ICR). I still don't know for sure if a Flood-geology approach would work better, but I think it could. At least it wouldn't be based on a wrong premise.
Other areas could be discussed, but the point is, no real good will come from a denial of truth. If creation is true, if the Flood really happened, then each related discipline must be founded on them to be truly successful. Denying truth dooms one to failure!

As he says, if the Flood really happened, then a discipline which incorporates this should be more successful than one which doesn't. Yet I haven't been able to find a single example of an oil company using Flood geology. It seems that the free market prefers conventional geology.

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2014, 01:21 PM
↑↑↑ Missing the point by geological engineer Dr John Morris. Evolution/uniformitarianism clearly is not necessary to find oil. Rather, origins-neutral geological research is what oil companies use.

Patrick Byrom
04-05-2014, 03:52 PM
↑↑↑ Missing the point by geological engineer Dr John Morris. Evolution/uniformitarianism clearly is not necessary to find oil. Rather, origins-neutral geological research is what oil companies use.
Let me quote from the final paragraph by John Morris again:

... I still don't know for sure if a Flood-geology approach would work better, but I think it could. ... If creation is true, if the Flood really happened, then each related discipline must be founded on them to be truly successful. Denying truth dooms one to failure!
So he thinks that Flood geology could be a more effective approach than conventional geology, and that denying Flood geology will "doom[s] one to failure!".

Obviously oil can be found using conventional geology. But if Flood geology is true, then using it should improve your chances, and give companies a competitive advantage. That is obviously what John Morris (an actual geologist) thinks, and I can't see how anyone could disagree with that - once you accept the premise, of course. And if oil companies do use origins-neutral methods (which I don't think is correct), what was the point of his research proposal: "...I proposed that this company establish a team of young-earth creationist/catastrophists to see if a better exploration program could be developed."?

Rincewind
04-05-2014, 04:13 PM
↑↑↑ Missing the point by geological engineer Dr John Morris.

While John has a PhD in Geological Engineering his project was nothing to do with Oil It was processing of coal powder into pellets. I note that his undergraduate training was in civil engineering and I have not been able to locate a single scientific peer-reviewed paper that he has written either on oil or on anything else. In fact he is remarkable in that he appears to have a worse scientific publication record than yours.


Evolution/uniformitarianism clearly is not necessary to find oil. Rather, origins-neutral geological research is what oil companies use.

As John doesn't appear to have ever worked for such a company he would not be an expert on what those companies do. Now if you wanted to have someone as an expert at traipsing around Turkey blowing huge sums of money trying to find something that never existed, he's your man.

Rincewind
04-05-2014, 04:21 PM
Why atheopathic mathematicians parrot nonsense from a long-ago refuted diatribe (http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-natural-selection) is beyond me.

If you think your petty little rant is a refutation you certainly do have delusions of adequacy. In fact you aren't even aware that my link is not referenced in the page you link to so it cannot possibly be "refuted".

Desmond
04-05-2014, 08:45 PM
Evolution may have little to do with geology, however the timescales of geology are millions and billions of years. The timescales are rather fundamental to everything.Indeed, since the young earthers believe that the world is only 5 minutes old, I should be able to bury some organic matter in my backyard, come back next week, and badda-bing badda-bang enough oil to fill my car for the week. Why the flood "geologists" aren't doing this is anyone's guess.

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2014, 02:05 AM
Indeed, since the young earthers believe that the world is only 5 minutes old, I should be able to bury some organic matter in my backyard, come back next week, and badda-bing badda-bang enough oil to fill my car for the week. Why the flood "geologists" aren't doing this is anyone's guess.

Don't know where this 5 minutes comes from, but indeed oil (http://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form)and coal (http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood)can form quickly. But your back yard lacks the high pressures and temperatures. Most scientists realize that you can often trade intensity for time, which is why you don't.

Rincewind
05-05-2014, 10:07 AM
Most scientists realize that you can often trade intensity for time, which is why you don't.

I thought someone trained as a chemist would know better than to sprout such rubbish. You cannot simply substitute pressure and (especially) temperature for time. The natural process forming oil has a specific temperature window because you want to break down the chemicals to hydrocarbon chains of a particular length. If the temperature is too high then it would favour the formation of shorter hydrocarbon chains (ie natural gas). Too low and the kerogen does not break down at all.

Desmond
05-05-2014, 01:11 PM
Don't know where this 5 minutes comes from, but indeed oil (http://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form)and coal (http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood)can form quickly. But your back yard lacks the high pressures and temperatures. Most scientists realize that you can often trade intensity for time, which is why you don't.
If you're right why aren't they doing it then.

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2014, 01:52 AM
I thought someone trained as a chemist would know better than to sprout such rubbish. You cannot simply substitute pressure and (especially) temperature for time. The natural process forming oil has a specific temperature window because you want to break down the chemicals to hydrocarbon chains of a particular length. If the temperature is too high then it would favour the formation of shorter hydrocarbon chains (ie natural gas). Too low and the kerogen does not break down at all.

OTOH, I thought someone trained as a mathematician and dogmatically atheopathic would spout such rubbish. I made a general statement about intensity, not a categorical statement about temperatures and pressure. E.g. it is well known that reaction rates in general are exponentially dependent on temperature, but this is not a hard-and-fast rule when there are competing reactions. When it comes to the formation of various hydrocarbons, temperature is most important, and time is not: “These equations predict that in the sub-surface the influence of time is not great, and that most oil is formed between 100 and 150 °C; and most gas between 150 and 220 °C.” from The temperatures of oil and gas formation in the sub-surface (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v333/n6173/abs/333549a0.html) Nature 333:549 - 552 (09 June 1988); doi:10.1038/333549a0

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2014, 01:53 AM
If you're right why aren't they doing it then.
What can be done is not always what should be done. E.g. if making oil in the lab costs more energy than would be recovered, then it's not so useful as far as fuel production is concerned.

Desmond
07-05-2014, 07:17 AM
What can be done is not always what should be done. E.g. if making oil in the lab costs more energy than would be recovered, then it's not so useful as far as fuel production is concerned.Seems extremely unlikely since oil exploration is extremely expensive and harder to get reserves are coming up now that many of the more readily tapable ones are becoming scarecer. Where is the method for doing it in the lab described and demonstrated, and where is the ROI analysis?

Rincewind
07-05-2014, 10:50 AM
OTOH, I thought someone trained as a mathematician and dogmatically atheopathic would spout such rubbish. I made a general statement about intensity, not a categorical statement about temperatures and pressure. E.g. it is well known that reaction rates in general are exponentially dependent on temperature, but this is not a hard-and-fast rule when there are competing reactions. When it comes to the formation of various hydrocarbons, temperature is most important, and time is not: “These equations predict that in the sub-surface the influence of time is not great, and that most oil is formed between 100 and 150 °C; and most gas between 150 and 220 °C.” from The temperatures of oil and gas formation in the sub-surface (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v333/n6173/abs/333549a0.html) Nature 333:549 - 552 (09 June 1988); doi:10.1038/333549a0

You're welcome.

Desmond
23-06-2014, 09:00 PM
UK bans teaching of creationism theory in free schools (http://rt.com/news/167044-uk-bans-teaching-creationism/)

UK free schools are now banned from teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution. The theory faces rising opposition in the UK, unlike in the US where private schools championing creationism receive millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money.

According to government documents, schools found teaching the doctrine as a fact will be in violation of the state Funding Agreement.

As part of a “broad and balanced” education, British free schools will no longer be allowed to teach creationism as if it were fact. In future, its teaching will be confined to religious education classes, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.
...

Sunrise
23-06-2014, 09:31 PM
I would just settle for a game of three player chess although I mus say that evolution is based on several fundamental aspects that I think any theorist can lack.

Remember the story on national geographic about the three scientists ?...a geologist, a oceanographer (in this case someone mapping a large lake) and a researcher investigating ice crystals from the perma frost...each discovered that about 50 - 80 thousand years ago, something atmospheric happened. The oceanographer then slowly discovered that the huge lake was the vent of the worlds largest volcano !!!.