How Many Christians Will Lose Their Faith After Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham?

[Rob Osborn]

That doesn't really deal with Osborn's question.  For a scientist it may indeed be unnecessary to include God or god in any naturalistic explanation.  However,  that doesn't deal with Osborn's point that God (or god) may have dealt with such matters in a fully naturalistic way, fully explicable via science.  Some of us take that as the Mormon position, and it is simultaneously compatible with intelligent design.

 

Is that such a weird and obnoxious position to take?

Thanks for expounding upon my point. Its like saying this- Dr. John Doe did some work in the lab and came up with some interesting results. Thus it is a scientific finding. But, if we say- God did some work in the lab and came up with some interesting results. But because it is God it automatically gets thrown into the "not science" bin. As if God himself works outside of science is a slap in the face to people like myself. God is the very author of law, of nature, of science. Were gonna kick God out of his own work? Is that what science is doing?

As you also brought up Intelligent Design, I wish more LDS would understand just what this theory is because in truth it embraces in full measure every doctrine the church teaches. Perhaps I would go so far as to say that the LDS religion has more in line with Intelligent design than any other Christian religion on the planet!

[Rob Osborn]

It's "big black and ugly?" Consider revising.

Its a monster- the Monster of science

[The Nehor]

I'm not just saying "God did it". That's not what we are after. The more we study microbiology the more we are finding that life just keeps getting more and more complex- far beyond what we would have ever thought with each new passing decade. Just this last year they have found another written language encoded in the DNA molecule. What we are finding out is that this specified information doesn't just randomly come about. Sure, its one thing to look for some natural law that might supposedly be the cause for intelligence to arise in nature, but its a completely different matter when every speck of evidence gathered doesn't point to any laws in nature capable of generating specified intelligent information let alone complete repetitive intelligent processes leading to perpetuate itself. Its kind of like a fairytale- come up with these millions of years, then come up with billions upon billions of opportunities, and then by some miracle chance everything clicked just in the right perfect sequence and life sprang into action. You know, I read fairytales to my daughter at bedtime and its all good, but even she knows that they arent real- just made up stories that pass the time and give flight to the imagination. This is the classic case of the fairytale that grownups tell but somehow cant see the reality of it for what it is- a fairytale.

For evolutionists it isn't about "if" life could have first arrived fully functioning from somewhere else in the universe. No, they can't even call such a thing as being "scientific" because it is outside of their preconceived belief system that life "has to" arise by entirely naturalistic means. So, they search in vain and when confronted with the facts that counter their own theory they discard it as nonscientific. This is what we call "dogma" and its big black and ugly! Its kind of shameful that learned men could even embrace such tomfoolery and go like as if its fact. Whats everyone smoking these days?

 

And there lies the void in your argument. You need data to be scientific. If you could present evidence that a superior being intervened then you should present it. Saying that the current naturalistic argument is unconvincing does not mean you can default to God did it which is what you just argued. That is untestable. It doesn't even matter if you happen to be right. It is unscientific. Science follows certain rules and you can't get around that by saying scientists are dumb and you aren't convinced.

 

Also there is not a second written language in DNA. That was science hype reporting. We already knew about the second way DNA is used. The paper that created the hype just presented findings that it occurs at a greater frequency then previously thought. A good step forward in understanding DNA but the reporting was (as usual) irresponsible.

 

Life has not gotten more complex with each passing decade. Human DNA has not changed much at all actually. Neither has most animals except for very simple survival developments. All indications are human DNA has not changed in a meaningful way in the whole of recorded history.

 

If you truly want to discredit the scientific process you have to understand it and what it is doing and how it works and what you can and cannot do with it. Your data seems to come from pseudoscience and misunderstandings.

 

I know you think God created everything. So do I. I think he was involved. I have no idea how much was his active work and how much of it was God putting the right things in the right place at the right time. I feel wonder about the Universe. Your sense of wonder and being impressed with how complex things are is not going to overturn the scientific method. Nor should it.

[The Nehor]

Thanks for expounding upon my point. Its like saying this- Dr. John Doe did some work in the lab and came up with some interesting results. Thus it is a scientific finding. But, if we say- God did some work in the lab and came up with some interesting results. But because it is God it automatically gets thrown into the "not science" bin. As if God himself works outside of science is a slap in the face to people like myself. God is the very author of law, of nature, of science. Were gonna kick God out of his own work? Is that what science is doing?

As you also brought up Intelligent Design, I wish more LDS would understand just what this theory is because in truth it embraces in full measure every doctrine the church teaches. Perhaps I would go so far as to say that the LDS religion has more in line with Intelligent design than any other Christian religion on the planet!

 

God is not a scientist. Science is the quest for understanding about the Universe. God already understands. God is an engineer.

[danielwoods]

Well, to begin with, relative dating can be readily observable in the stratigraphy, and with just a few chronological anchors to provide some absolute dates, we can easily see exactly what kinds of significant geological events created the state of the strata from around that time period, which would be around the late Triassic. We've identified a number of dinosaurs from this time period (we have their very bones available for study), and the first mammals crop up in the record around then as well. We know the climate was hot and dry, and that the poles were pretty temperate and moist. We can test this by comparing deposits that match the relative stratigraphy all over the world and see if the patterns match up with what our models propose (they do). We can show that the strata from this time period from around the world share the same types of fauna and fit correctly into the developmental stages of the various species we know from before and after the time period. We can predict what we will find when we dig down to that level because our models have been accurate. All these things are testable ways to know that what we're concluding about these time periods is accurate, and the fact that we don't have any evidence directly conflicting with our models provides another level of evidence. We obviously have models being honed and tweaked here and there to account for new evidence, but something that you don't find, which one would absolutely expect were this just conjecture, is material evidence that undermines any of the fundamental and established methodological principles upon which all the models are based.

 

Now, I asked for a specific assumption. Do you have any, or are you really just assuming that they must be there because you don't know any better?

 

You didn't actually describe a test. You described a model. A model which takes the data from many places and fits that data into the model, in an attempt to make sense of the data. The assumptions are numerous. 

 

The first is how strata is formed. Was it's formation observed? No. Are there possible indicators that the strata was laid differently than assumed by the evolutionary model? Yes, Guy Berthault demonstrated this. 

 

Another is time. The assumption is that strata indicates time, the deeper the strata the deeper into the past. What demonstrates this? What tests verify this? 

 

Two mitigating facts taken at face value should at least cause for some doubts that the current interpretation of strata indicates time. One is blood found in supposed 68 million year old dinosaur bones. And the second is carbon 14 found in Diamonds. In both of these examples, time doesn't allow for their existence, yet they exist. 

 

The evolutionary model interprets the strata as a timeline. The creation model interprets the strata as the ecological niches where animals were trapped during the flood. 

 

In both models, throughout the world fossils are found in the same order, as would be expected by both models. 

[Rob Osborn]

God is not a scientist. Science is the quest for understanding about the Universe. God already understands. God is an engineer.

A scientist is someone who knows or understands the laws and works within scientific methods. God thus is a scientist.

[Rob Osborn]

And there lies the void in your argument. You need data to be scientific. If you could present evidence that a superior being intervened then you should present it. Saying that the current naturalistic argument is unconvincing does not mean you can default to God did it which is what you just argued. That is untestable. It doesn't even matter if you happen to be right. It is unscientific. Science follows certain rules and you can't get around that by saying scientists are dumb and you aren't convinced.

 

Also there is not a second written language in DNA. That was science hype reporting. We already knew about the second way DNA is used. The paper that created the hype just presented findings that it occurs at a greater frequency then previously thought. A good step forward in understanding DNA but the reporting was (as usual) irresponsible.

 

Life has not gotten more complex with each passing decade. Human DNA has not changed much at all actually. Neither has most animals except for very simple survival developments. All indications are human DNA has not changed in a meaningful way in the whole of recorded history.

 

If you truly want to discredit the scientific process you have to understand it and what it is doing and how it works and what you can and cannot do with it. Your data seems to come from pseudoscience and misunderstandings.

 

I know you think God created everything. So do I. I think he was involved. I have no idea how much was his active work and how much of it was God putting the right things in the right place at the right time. I feel wonder about the Universe. Your sense of wonder and being impressed with how complex things are is not going to overturn the scientific method. Nor should it.

I didn't mean life was getting more complex by the decade. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant to say that as each passing decade passes we are finding that life is more complex than we previously thought.

Because I adhere to ID I am not out there to get a polaroid of God. Intelligent Design proponents have long argued that all of the intelligent information can only be the product of intelligent information preceding it. The documentation and study of this intelligent information and intelligent processes is the "data". Because this theory is supported by actual data it is scientific.

[maklelan]

You didn't actually describe a test. You described a model. A model which takes the data from many places and fits that data into the model, in an attempt to make sense of the data. The assumptions are numerous. 

 

The first is how strata is formed. Was it's formation observed? No. Are there possible indicators that the strata was laid differently than assumed by the evolutionary model? Yes, Guy Berthault demonstrated this. 

 

Another is time. The assumption is that strata indicates time, the deeper the strata the deeper into the past. What demonstrates this? What tests verify this? 

 

Two mitigating facts taken at face value should at least cause for some doubts that the current interpretation of strata indicates time. One is blood found in supposed 68 million year old dinosaur bones. And the second is carbon 14 found in Diamonds. In both of these examples, time doesn't allow for their existence, yet they exist. 

 

The evolutionary model interprets the strata as a timeline. The creation model interprets the strata as the ecological niches where animals were trapped during the flood. 

 

In both models, throughout the world fossils are found in the same order, as would be expected by both models. 

 

Oh, holy crap. First off, the papers Guy was actually able to have published in reputable journals back in the 90's engaged the original centuries-old formulation of the principles of stratigraphy as promoted by Steno, not the more refined modern scientific models. Everything he's published since 1993 is pseudo-science he is forced to publish in places like Russia, where no one reads them. Second, all he showed was that in certain circumstances, and in small flumes with only a couple feet of water, strata can be laid down rapidly. This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it can be laid down slowly, or what the actual case is with the geological strata scientists examine. We know that the stratigraphy takes millions of years to form because we can radio-date the biological material found in them, and it's consistent. We know it because the fossil records contained within them consistently contain the exact assemblages of species demanded by the models we use. We never find fossils out of place. They are always in the order demanded by our models. We know Guy's theories have no bearing on anything today because of numerous factors he just ignores. For instance, varves would not exist if all the sediment we observe had been laid down in a violent flood. Varves are annual sedimentary layers that form each year in shallow and low-current environments. We can measure exactly how quickly they form, and in what environments they form. This not only helps us date sediment, but it even helps us calibrate radiometric dating so we know it's accurate. Varves completely undermine guy's theories. We can even correlate certain sized varves with known geological and even astronomical occurrences, which helps us further zero in on dating. We also have fossilized ripples and erosion patterns deep in the stratigraphy that directly testify to slow-moving, gentle, and shallow currents that lasted for millions of years. That simply wouldn't be there if that stuff was laid down rapidly in a violent flood. We also have volcanic ash and lava flows preserved deep in the stratigraphy that show the unmistakeable characteristics of settling above the water level. That wouldn't be there if it was all laid down in a violent flood. 

Regarding the dinosaur blood, time absolutely does allow for the preservation of soft tissue, and if you will actually look up what Mary Schweitzer has had to say on the topic, you'll see she doesn't appreciate young earth creationists hijacking and then misrepresenting her research and discoveries. New evidence will always come forth to refine the picture. What Schweitzer's very significant discoveries show is that there are circumstances where soft tissue can be preserved. What it doesn't do is suggest that all the other science related to dating is wrong.  

 

Regarding diamonds, Carbon-14 can be produced underground from the decay of uranium and thorium. This is called cluster decay, and we've known about it for a long time. Scientists have to account for things like this in determining date ranges, and that's part of what creates the different results when multiple tests are run. 

 

The creationists' "ecological" notion of fossilization has absolutely no science whatsoever to back it up. It actually has the fossils in the wrong order. Invertebrates actually inhabit shallower regions. The deepest sea-dwellers are pelagic fish, who are far more evolutionarily developed, and who don't show up until later in the fossil records. This "ecology" sorting would also have amphibians later in the record than deep sea reptiles, but in evolutionary theory, as in the fossil records, those reptiles are later. The stratigraphic record of ancient flora even more violently obliterates the notion of ecological sorting. 

 

Here's the take-home: you will never find a young earth creationist who understands the contemporary science correctly and can engage it within any kind of creationist model. Young earth creationism is a scientific joke and it strains the credulity and the patience of 99% of the academic world that people with degrees and actual experience in science could ever pretend that anything in the scientific method at all supports it. It is absolutely laughable, and any informed analysis always comes back to that conclusion. The evidence simply doesn't support it. One must insist on it in spite of the evidence.

[maklelan]

A scientist is someone who knows or understands the laws and works within scientific methods. God thus is a scientist.

 

A scientist is more fundamentally one who is looking for answers to how the universe functions. Is God thus a scientist?

[Rob Osborn]

A scientist is more fundamentally one who is looking for answers to how the universe functions. Is God thus a scientist?

It always comes down to semantics with you guys.-

sci·en·tist [sahy-uh n-tist] : an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.

Is God thus an expert in science?

I rest my case on this.

[Rob Osborn]

Oh, holy crap. First off, the papers Guy was actually able to have published in reputable journals back in the 90's engaged the original centuries-old formulation of the principles of stratigraphy as promoted by Steno, not the more refined modern scientific models. Everything he's published since 1993 is pseudo-science he is forced to publish in places like Russia, where no one reads them. Second, all he showed was that in certain circumstances, and in small flumes with only a couple feet of water, strata can be laid down rapidly. This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it can be laid down slowly, or what the actual case is with the geological strata scientists examine. We know that the stratigraphy takes millions of years to form because we can radio-date the biological material found in them, and it's consistent. We know it because the fossil records contained within them consistently contain the exact assemblages of species demanded by the models we use. We never find fossils out of place. They are always in the order demanded by our models. We know Guy's theories have no bearing on anything today because of numerous factors he just ignores. For instance, varves would not exist if all the sediment we observe had been laid down in a violent flood. Varves are annual sedimentary layers that form each year in shallow and low-current environments. We can measure exactly how quickly they form, and in what environments they form. This not only helps us date sediment, but it even helps us calibrate radiometric dating so we know it's accurate. Varves completely undermine guy's theories. We can even correlate certain sized varves with known geological and even astronomical occurrences, which helps us further zero in on dating. We also have fossilized ripples and erosion patterns deep in the stratigraphy that directly testify to slow-moving, gentle, and shallow currents that lasted for millions of years. That simply wouldn't be there if that stuff was laid down rapidly in a violent flood. We also have volcanic ash and lava flows preserved deep in the stratigraphy that show the unmistakeable characteristics of settling above the water level. That wouldn't be there if it was all laid down in a violent flood. 

Regarding the dinosaur blood, time absolutely does allow for the preservation of soft tissue, and if you will actually look up what Mary Schweitzer has had to say on the topic, you'll see she doesn't appreciate young earth creationists hijacking and then misrepresenting her research and discoveries. New evidence will always come forth to refine the picture. What Schweitzer's very significant discoveries show is that there are circumstances where soft tissue can be preserved. What it doesn't do is suggest that all the other science related to dating is wrong.  

 

Regarding diamonds, Carbon-14 can be produced underground from the decay of uranium and thorium. This is called cluster decay, and we've known about it for a long time. Scientists have to account for things like this in determining date ranges, and that's part of what creates the different results when multiple tests are run. 

 

The creationists' "ecological" notion of fossilization has absolutely no science whatsoever to back it up. It actually has the fossils in the wrong order. Invertebrates actually inhabit shallower regions. The deepest sea-dwellers are pelagic fish, who are far more evolutionarily developed, and who don't show up until later in the fossil records. This "ecology" sorting would also have amphibians later in the record than deep sea reptiles, but in evolutionary theory, as in the fossil records, those reptiles are later. The stratigraphic record of ancient flora even more violently obliterates the notion of ecological sorting. 

 

Here's the take-home: you will never find a young earth creationist who understands the contemporary science correctly and can engage it within any kind of creationist model. Young earth creationism is a scientific joke and it strains the credulity and the patience of 99% of the academic world that people with degrees and actual experience in science could ever pretend that anything in the scientific method at all supports it. It is absolutely laughable, and any informed analysis always comes back to that conclusion. The evidence simply doesn't support it. One must insist on it in spite of the evidence.

Please explain in your own words how the layers we see in the Grand Canyon got there, especially the really thick uniform layers.

[name]

Easy-peasy:

 

We can date the rocks by the fossils we find in them and we can date the fossils by what rocks they are in!

 

Now, can we go back and discuss the proposal that 3.6 billion years the first simple/single cell life formed spontaneously from non-living matter?

[name]

Hoe do you edit a post?

 

Meant to type 3.6 billion years ago above.

 

Sorry!

[thesometimesaint]

A quote from your link, "Discovered by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert. Estimated age is between 6 and 7 million years."

 

Since it wasn't observed, it must not be science, which is what you said. It's an "estimated age..." 

 

Come on your smarter than that.

 

Exactly how far is the earth from the sun?

[thesometimesaint]

I didn't mean life was getting more complex by the decade. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant to say that as each passing decade passes we are finding that life is more complex than we previously thought.

Because I adhere to ID I am not out there to get a polaroid of God. Intelligent Design proponents have long argued that all of the intelligent information can only be the product of intelligent information preceding it. The documentation and study of this intelligent information and intelligent processes is the "data". Because this theory is supported by actual data it is scientific.

 

We been through this before Creationism/Intelligent Design is a religion.

See Wedge Document http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

 

It is based on the premise of Irreducible Complexity. EVERY TIME a Irreducible Complexity claim is made it is examined, and it falls apart.

 

The Mouse Trap is not Irreducibly Complex

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

 

The Human Eye is not Irreducibly Complex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0

 

The Bacteria Flagellum is not Irreducibly complex.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html

 

A living cell is not Irreducibly Complex

 

Theistic Evolutionists are not welcome. Even Pat Robertson agrees.

[The Nehor]

Aside from all the unnecessary talk about "God," you are quite wrong about the nature of scientific research today.  Indeed, it has been over 50 years now since I was introduced to the concept of Transmission as a major theory.  I found it in my philosophy class textbook in 1963, a book by a CalTech professor named Hunter Mead, Types and Problems of Philosophy, 3rd ed., pp. 96ff.  As he explained it, naturalistic philosophers lay out three major theories of origins:

 

(1) archebiosis, i.e., spontaneous emergence of organic from inorganic by natural processes,

(2) special creation by a creator/Creator, or

(3) transmission of amino acids, spores, or the like, via meteorite or other means of locomotion, to Earth from a life source in another system.

 

The latter is supported by a number of developments, including discovery and confirmation of extra-terrestrial amino acids in several meteorites decades ago (reports Sept 10, 1979 at the Univ. of Maryland), and now with even more compelling recent reports:

 

Lindsey Alexander, “NASA Analyzes Possible Life in Meteorite,” GuardianLibertyVoice, February 5, 2014, online at http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/nasa-analyzes-possible-life-in-meteorite/  .

 

Arjun Walia, “Scientists Uncover The Very First ‘Official’ Proof Of Extraterrestrial Life,” CollectiveEvolution, September 16, 2013, online at http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/09/16/extraterrestrial-fossils-uncovered-inside-meteorite-found-in-sri-lanka/#sthash.901RY4hx.dpuf  . 

Philosophy about science is not science.

[The Nehor]

A scientist is someone who knows or understands the laws and works within scientific methods. God thus is a scientist.

It always comes down to semantics with you guys.-sci·en·tist [sahy-uh n-tist] : an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.Is God thus an expert in science?I rest my case on this.

An expert in science which means an expert in discovering and testing with the intent of uncovering new knowledge. So I would say "no".

[thesometimesaint]

Please explain in your own words how the layers we see in the Grand Canyon got there, especially the really thick uniform layers.

 

How the Grand Canyon was formed.

[JDave]

I like this definition of engineering from Merriam Webster.  Science exists, and God employs it, but God is an engineer.

 

Full Definition of ENGINEERING

1

:  the activities or function of an engineer

2

a :  the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people

 

Full disclosure: I am biased since I am an engineer.

[thesometimesaint]

Science is the getting the cup to the lip. Engineering makes the cup.

[danielwoods]

Oh, holy crap. First off, the papers Guy was actually able to have published in reputable journals back in the 90's engaged the original centuries-old formulation of the principles of stratigraphy as promoted by Steno, not the more refined modern scientific models. Everything he's published since 1993 is pseudo-science he is forced to publish in places like Russia, where no one reads them. Second, all he showed was that in certain circumstances, and in small flumes with only a couple feet of water, strata can be laid down rapidly. This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it can be laid down slowly, or what the actual case is with the geological strata scientists examine. We know that the stratigraphy takes millions of years to form because we can radio-date the biological material found in them, and it's consistent. We know it because the fossil records contained within them consistently contain the exact assemblages of species demanded by the models we use. We never find fossils out of place. They are always in the order demanded by our models. We know Guy's theories have no bearing on anything today because of numerous factors he just ignores. For instance, varves would not exist if all the sediment we observe had been laid down in a violent flood. Varves are annual sedimentary layers that form each year in shallow and low-current environments. We can measure exactly how quickly they form, and in what environments they form. This not only helps us date sediment, but it even helps us calibrate radiometric dating so we know it's accurate. Varves completely undermine guy's theories. We can even correlate certain sized varves with known geological and even astronomical occurrences, which helps us further zero in on dating. We also have fossilized ripples and erosion patterns deep in the stratigraphy that directly testify to slow-moving, gentle, and shallow currents that lasted for millions of years. That simply wouldn't be there if that stuff was laid down rapidly in a violent flood. We also have volcanic ash and lava flows preserved deep in the stratigraphy that show the unmistakeable characteristics of settling above the water level. That wouldn't be there if it was all laid down in a violent flood. 

Regarding the dinosaur blood, time absolutely does allow for the preservation of soft tissue, and if you will actually look up what Mary Schweitzer has had to say on the topic, you'll see she doesn't appreciate young earth creationists hijacking and then misrepresenting her research and discoveries. New evidence will always come forth to refine the picture. What Schweitzer's very significant discoveries show is that there are circumstances where soft tissue can be preserved. What it doesn't do is suggest that all the other science related to dating is wrong.  

 

Regarding diamonds, Carbon-14 can be produced underground from the decay of uranium and thorium. This is called cluster decay, and we've known about it for a long time. Scientists have to account for things like this in determining date ranges, and that's part of what creates the different results when multiple tests are run. 

 

The creationists' "ecological" notion of fossilization has absolutely no science whatsoever to back it up. It actually has the fossils in the wrong order. Invertebrates actually inhabit shallower regions. The deepest sea-dwellers are pelagic fish, who are far more evolutionarily developed, and who don't show up until later in the fossil records. This "ecology" sorting would also have amphibians later in the record than deep sea reptiles, but in evolutionary theory, as in the fossil records, those reptiles are later. The stratigraphic record of ancient flora even more violently obliterates the notion of ecological sorting. 

 

Here's the take-home: you will never find a young earth creationist who understands the contemporary science correctly and can engage it within any kind of creationist model. Young earth creationism is a scientific joke and it strains the credulity and the patience of 99% of the academic world that people with degrees and actual experience in science could ever pretend that anything in the scientific method at all supports it. It is absolutely laughable, and any informed analysis always comes back to that conclusion. The evidence simply doesn't support it. One must insist on it in spite of the evidence.

 

 

The "take home" is you are arguing that we can test the past, I disagree. We create models to explain the data collected. At no time is the past tested. The past is gone. So, while you are confident (and in the majority) that the "evidence simply doesn't support" the creation model, you opinion is just that. An opinion. 

 

With reference to Guy, his publishing in Russia demonstrates the political power of current science popularity, more than anything else. And varves certainly don't disprove his theory. Unless you can demonstrate that varves can't from under other conditions as well (which they do). 

 

And the idea that blood 68 million years old can now survive is a demonstration of how flexible the evolutionary model is. The question is how did that get tested? Who tested this great preservation technique that protected the blood? 

 

Carbon 14 isn't supposed to be in Diamonds (it is simply decays to quickly), and now that again displays the flexibility of the evolutionary model.

 

You say,  "you will never find a young earth creationist who understands the contemporary science correctly..." yet what is really happening, is that creation scientists do understand the science, but they disagree with the evolutionary model as taught by 99% of the schools, so they are labeled as "not understanding..." or some other derogatory term. 

 

It seems to me that the claim that we can test the past is akin to malpractice. Why not rather say, "You're right... we don't test the past, we create models to explain the data we find in the present to give us a picture into what we think happened in the past."

[Calm]

Name, you will be able to edit at 25 posts.

[name]

Name, you will be able to edit at 25 posts.

 

Thank you, calmoriah!

 

(Wondering what else is in store for me at the 25 mark?)

 

Name

[thesometimesaint]

Thank you, calmoriah!

 

(Wondering what else is in store for me at the 25 mark?)

 

Name

 

Wait And Find Out. :lol;

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

The "take home" is you are arguing that we can test the past, I disagree. We create models to explain the data collected. At no time is the past tested. The past is gone. So, while you are confident (and in the majority) that the "evidence simply doesn't support" the creation model, you opinion is just that. An opinion. 

 

With reference to Guy, his publishing in Russia demonstrates the political power of current science popularity, more than anything else. And varves certainly don't disprove his theory. Unless you can demonstrate that varves can't from under other conditions as well (which they do). 

 

And the idea that blood 68 million years old can now survive is a demonstration of how flexible the evolutionary model is. The question is how did that get tested? Who tested this great preservation technique that protected the blood? 

 

Carbon 14 isn't supposed to be in Diamonds (it is simply decays to quickly), and now that again displays the flexibility of the evolutionary model.

 

You say,  "you will never find a young earth creationist who understands the contemporary science correctly..." yet what is really happening, is that creation scientists do understand the science, but they disagree with the evolutionary model as taught by 99% of the schools, so they are labeled as "not understanding..." or some other derogatory term. 

 

It seems to me that the claim that we can test the past is akin to malpractice. Why not rather say, "You're right... we don't test the past, we create models to explain the data we find in the present to give us a picture into what we think happened in the past."

 

SEE http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating