Jump to content


Photo

Talk Origins Problems


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
69 replies to this topic

#41 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 03 May 2005 - 08:51 AM

Basically, if you use bad maths, statistics or science to prove anything (be it social, polictical or religious points) then it will get criticized. This does not mean that the social, political or religious point is wrong - just that people find it abhorant to abuse science, logic or maths.


Of course it is wrong to use things such as "bad maths, statistics, or science to prove anything" as well as to "abuse science, logic, or maths." This is why I
I have been listing (what I believe) are some problems with the logic, and science on the Talk Origins site (with specific examples).

Here is another one:

http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive.

I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above [7]. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator [10], the SunY self-replicator [24] or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group [12], but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony.

The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low.


So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.


The Talk Origins author is attempting to demonstrate that a very small protein polypeptide sequence (32 amino acids) could be reached by chance. However make the incredible assumption that all the amino acids are going to somehow self-polymerize into 32 acid length chains (and then based on this he starts his search sequence calculations) ! From what I have read in a watery environment polymers will tend to de-polymerize, therefore the idea that amino acids are all going to "link up" into chain sequences is the opposite of science.


So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 1024 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

According to a reviewed paper by Truman and Heisig, the ocean volume that the Talk Origins author used was the volume of the entire earth.

http://www.answersin...in_Families.pdf (see page 125 and foot note 55)

#42 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 03 May 2005 - 09:03 AM

Please note that when pasting from the Talk Origns arcticle some of the math doesn't come accross well (such as 10 to the 40th power becomes a much lower "1040")


By the way linking on the link provided in the talk Origins arcticle for his example polypeptide

[7] Severin K, Lee DH, Kennan AJ, and Ghadiri MR, A synthetic peptide ligase. Nature, 389: 706-9, 1997

gives us this brief arcticle fro Nature magazine: (an interesting read)

http://www.ncbi.nlm....0&dopt=Abstract

#43 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 03 May 2005 - 09:34 AM

Of course it is wrong to use things such as "bad maths, statistics, or science to prove anything" as well as to "abuse science, logic, or maths." This is why I
I have been listing (what I believe) are some problems with the logic, and science on the Talk Origins site (with specific examples).


OK we're agreed then. Using dodgy maths is bad. Now we know why supporters of evolution theory react in the way they do, which was what I was discussing at the time.

You then provide an example of a Creationist claim of "abiogenesis is improbable", which uses really dodgy maths to arrive at a probability. It lists all the bad assumptions - the most important one being "there is only one shot at it". He then goes on to use some rough numbers to show that, with ideal conditions it is almost inevitable that life would generate. Here is the thing though - we don't know what the conditions for abiogenesis were. That fact alone means it is impossible to calculate realistic odds for it happening. What are the chances of Maurice Green winning a race? Well it depends on the length of the race, who his competitors are, the conditions, his condition...lots of variables. If we don't know any of these conditions we have to guess.

If you make a guess that the race is going to be 5billion miles long against a light beam, a superjet and the starship enterprise, the conditions are that it is set in outer space, and Green can't breath in space, then we assume the chances of him winning are very near 0.

If we make a guess that the race is going to 100m against a three toed sloth, a brick and a dead Chinese ambassador, then we can assume the chances of him winning are considerably higher.

So you might be able to punch holes in the examples provided. The examples provided weren't meant to be accurate scientific models (unlike the Creationist's version). The reason? Because chemists know that we cannot know what the odds are, its crazy to make assumptions. Notice how the Creationists only assume the worst case scenario? They never assume a 'best case scenario' to give a range of odds.

#44 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 May 2005 - 01:38 PM

Of course it is wrong to use things such as "bad maths, statistics, or science to prove anything" as well as to "abuse science, logic, or maths." This is why I
I have been listing (what I believe) are some problems with the logic, and science on the Talk Origins site (with specific examples).

Here is another one:

View Post


Another article that discusses statistical probability for evolution, it highlights the same reasoning, and why the creationist method is in error.
LINK

The importance of Dawkins's simulation is that it highlights the error of all the creationist arguments against the statistical improbability of evolution, by showing that the creationists' choice of a single-step versus cumulative multi-step model creates a falsely low estimate of the potential for deriving a particular sequence via random mutation and selection.


So if one is now going this type of issue, it’s not the math that is in question but who is right in selecting the parameters. So what reasoning have creationists used to warrant a single-step model?

#45 Guest_Paul C. Anagnostopoulos_*

Guest_Paul C. Anagnostopoulos_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 May 2005 - 05:20 PM

So what reasoning have creationists used to warrant a single-step model?

The reasoning that they want it to be impossible for evolution to do its work? Or a misunderstanding of evolution?

~~ Paul

#46 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:25 PM

I don't know if its about closed mindedness. Evolutionists are happy to accept that some people believe the world was created 6 days ago over a period of 6,000 years or the other way around or whatever. Its when people use bad science to discredit good science that people get upset.


Science has not come up with any absolute truths. I was taught in school that science was a work towards truth. But yet everything is still theories. In my opinion, if science can't own up to their goal, then that in itself is bad science.

The same way that historians (amongst others) get upset when holocaust deniers come on the scene.


And yet I still run into scientists and evolutionists, that deny it also. Is it a double standard where science is concerned?

That's fine - but what about those who have been convinced to accept Christ on the basis of bad science, lies and falsehoods?  Indeed, this raises an interesting point: When it comes to salvation do the ends justify the means? I don't think so, but that's only my opinion.


Like I said before. I see no absolutes in science. So if you want to point a finger at creation, you'd better look at yourself as well.

Actually that's wrong in my case on many accounts. First, I was taught the creation story before I went to school.  One of the first stories I was taught was the birth of Jesus. I then went to a Gospel school in the Caribbean and then I moved to England, which has no state/religion differentiation. As such I was exposed to both sides of the story.


Your story may be true. But lately I have caught several evolutionists, scientists, etc... lying about how they were raised to discredit the faith. So from that, I can only say that if you did, you went the wrong way. And you can thank your fellow evolutionists for giving me this attitude. I used to take people at their word, but since debating, researching, etc... I find out there's alot more lying going on, on purpose than meets the eye.

Example: Like the world view members claim here. I find about 5-10% of them are lying, and use what they claim to their advantage while debating. And there are some at this forum right now that are doing this.

Interestingly, the Creationist debate is not as pronounced in England as it is in the US, yet the Creation story is taught in schools here (or at least was)...
Totally agreed. Of course, this works both ways, right?
Other people consider it a science, if nobody responded with a "no it isn't", with supporting evidence, then others would consider creationism a science. At the end of the day I (and others) consider Creationism is a political movement. As such it provokes a strong response in some people.  Most scientists don't care about the whole thing, some scientists would be surprised there is a debate in the first place.
Its not God, or Christianity that is being fought. Its misleading science. Its hooky mathematics designed to convert people. Evolutionists don't have all the answers, and they are open about that (wheras Creationists often claim to have more absolute answers).  It is when Creationists use dodgy maths, and equivocation to prove a scientists work as being wrong....the scientists often take that as criticism and respond in kind. 

Nobody is asking anyone to 'believe' evolution...we're just asking you to not misrepresent the scientific model in order to try to disprove it.

[edit:- It kind of reminds me of The moon Landing Hoax fiasco. Because NASA never officially rebutted the claims, they grew stronger and stronger.  Eventually NASA, started to formally respond, does this mean they felt threatened by the claims? Or maybe they got tired of people saying wrong things about them, using bad science to prove them wrong? Maybe they got tired of being accused of orchestrating a conspiracy?

And tying this back to talk.origins. Many members there are indeed Christian, but they do not accept a young earth because it is contrary to evidence. When someone starts making claims that the evidence is wrong that's fine. When the reasoning they use to demonstrate this is flawed,  that is when those flaws are pointed out. Naturally not everyone agrees with what is flawed and what is not flawed and so debate flares. Talk.origins is an outlet for frustrated scientists and laypersons who are tired of seeing the same flawed (in their opinion) arguments pop up all the time...so the language used there is frequently informal and (regretably) oftentimes derogatory.  Indeed, I find their posts on Thermodynamics, and some other subjects to be incomplete and unsatisfactory.

View Post


Without making this a long drawn out response to all that is said, I will tell my view of the creation evolution debate, and why evolutionist have such a problem with creation.

I look at both as a two sided coin of the same issue. Two groups with two different opinions. And most creationists will tell you the samething.

Evolutionist look at it as a one sided coin, that there is no room for anything else. Don't believe me? Then why is there a 10 to 1 ratio of websites fighting creation? Why do evolutionist's seek out creation websites and forums to discredit them in one form ar another? It's a one sided coin, and because they will never give in to it becomming two sided, they fight it tooth and nail. The free thinking they claim we discurage, they discurage in the name of evolution and say: it's ok. It's only bad when we do it.

Creation sites have now only started catching up to what is being done by scientific sites and evolution sites. But there are people, such as talk origins, who take it upon themselves to try and discurage this from happening. Their one sided coin may not work, and their afraid of this. The internet is a free speech area, I don't go to sites looking for trouble. Why? Because I know I have the truth. And something that science cannot even phamton an absolute, will never see what I see. Or even understand it.

#47 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 May 2005 - 09:33 PM

edit:- It kind of reminds me of The moon Landing Hoax fiasco. Because NASA never officially rebutted the claims, they grew stronger and stronger.  Eventually NASA, started to formally respond, does this mean they felt threatened by the claims? Or maybe they got tired of people saying wrong things about them, using bad science to prove them wrong? Maybe they got tired of being accused of orchestrating a conspiracy?


Yes, I imagine it does. And like also I could bring up things like pelt down man, the Stanley Miller experiment etc... Whether it was, or was not a scientist that exposed what was done. The fact is, there were great pains taken to make the hoax work. Along with several lies... I saw a pbs special on this. Dawson, smith, woodward, and Teilhard de Chardin. All comspired to do this. It also shows that scientists will pull together to do such a thing.

Maybe they got tired of telling lies. or maybe one, one moral scientist decided he would expose them. Which also makes me wonder why those who would hold more to the moral end (creation or christian scientist) of it are now, not even welcome. It is one thing to get caught up in a conspiracy, it is a totally different thing to concock one from practically nothing. Using known faked evidence, making fake evidence, comspiring with others to lie about the evidence. Then allowing it to be taught in our schools even after it had been found to be fake. I guess when science is proven wrong, it's not completely wrong until they say so. After all, who makes the rules that science is governed by?

So don't point your finger at the creationist, when there are several fingers that can point right back.

#48 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 May 2005 - 10:08 PM

From the opening post

It has been my experience that Talk Origins is regarded by many as some sort of "objective" source for information on the subject of origins. The site even claims to be "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy". Its is a relatively lengthy site and is frequently used in online debates in order to provide answers to creationst claims etc.


IMO Talk Origins is a site created in response to the creationist movement, it’s objectivity would be limited to producing articles in response to creationist claims “that science proves the Biblical history (6000-10000 years, and by default no evolution)”. To that end, there is an extensive list of creationist claims and the rebuttal, usually with a extensive references to the source material.
Talk Origins ‘objectivity’ is limited to producing a extensive list of creationist sites. It should be noted that Talk Origins is not the science, but specific database.

Objectivity is embedded within the scientific method that produces the theories, science should be amoral, apolitical, and where possible in the public domain.

#49 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 May 2005 - 01:11 AM

From the opening post

IMO Talk Origins is a site created in response to the creationist movement, it’s objectivity would be limited to producing articles in response to creationist claims “that science proves the Biblical history (6000-10000 years, and by default no evolution)”.  To that end, there is an extensive list of creationist claims and the rebuttal, usually with a extensive references to the source material.
Talk Origins ‘objectivity’ is limited to producing a extensive list of creationist sites.  It should be noted that Talk Origins is not the science, but specific database.

Objectivity is embedded within the scientific method that produces the theories, science should be amoral, apolitical, and where possible in the public domain.

View Post


A data based that is used to promote what? And is used mostly by who? You left one thing out of your list. acreation, or better yet, ayec.

#50 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 04 May 2005 - 07:00 AM

Science has not come up with any absolute truths. I was taught in school that science was a work towards truth. But yet everything is still theories. In my opinion, if science can't own up to their goal, then that in itself is bad science.

View Post



Correct. What's your point? I think its clear that science is tentative...it would be a mistake to declare something as absolute. It would be bad science. Who is not owning up to their goal?

And yet I still run into scientists and evolutionists, that deny it also. Is it a double standard where science is concerned?


I fail to see the connection. We are agreed that using bad science, and ad hoc explanations to deny an event has occured due to a political or religious motivation is a bad thing, right? Where is the double standard? Is science using bad science to further a political or religious end? Please provide evidence/examples.


Like I said before. I see no absolutes in science. So if you want to point a finger at creation, you'd better look at yourself as well.


I'm not pointing the finger at anyone. There are no absolutes, I agree, I wouldn't claim otherwise. My point remains though...can one find salvation through being lied and manipulated? I'm sure one can fall from salvation through lies...but does it work both ways?

I find out there's alot more lying going on, on purpose than meets the eye.


Agreed.


Evolutionist look at it as a one sided coin, that there is no room for anything else. Don't believe me? Then why is there a 10 to 1 ratio of websites fighting creation?


Actually, there is room for other theories. It is not a one sided coin. The only thing remains now is for another theory to be put forward. Whenever people put bad theories forward, they are slated.

...I know I have the truth. And something that science cannot even phamton an absolute, will never see what I see. Or even understand it.


Science will never explain the supernatural. But scientists are perfectly capable of accepting Christ as their saviour. I'm sure many of them have experienced a "I know I have the truth" moment, and I'm sure many of them understand it perfectly. Are you sure this is not just hubris? How would you tell?



Yes, I imagine it does. And like also I could bring up things like pelt down man, the Stanley Miller experiment etc... Whether it was, or was not a scientist that exposed what was done. The fact is, there were great pains taken to make the hoax work. Along with several lies... I saw a pbs special on this. Dawson, smith, woodward, and Teilhard de Chardin. All comspired to do this. It also shows that scientists will pull together to do such a thing.


Erm, the moon landing wasn't a hoax (unless you think it was...?). I was talking about people claiming events didn't happen when they did, and using 'common sense science' to prove it....when NASA scientists didn't merit it with a response it was confirmation. It was only later that NASA actually responded with a "you are using bad science to discredit good science" message.

Just quickly though - The Piltdown Man actually clashed with evolutionary theory, evolutionary theory predicted it was a hoax before anyone had the technology to prove it. And what does the Stanley Miller experiment have to do with this? I don't recall that being a hoax.


Maybe they got tired of telling lies. or maybe one, one moral scientist decided he would expose them. Which also makes me wonder why those who would hold more to the moral end (creation or christian scientist) of it are now, not even welcome.


That's a shocking thing to say. First off - do not question the morality of non-christian scientists without proof. I'm fairly sure there are plenty of non-christian scientists who surpass many christian scientists in their morality. And christian scientists are perfectly welcome. Indeed, they are prevalent. Creation scientists are welcome, as long as they do good science...once they start doing bad science their work will be criticised.

It is one thing to get caught up in a conspiracy, it is a totally different thing to concock one from practically nothing. Using known faked evidence, making fake evidence, comspiring with others to lie about the evidence. Then allowing it to be taught in our schools even after it had been found to be fake. I guess when science is proven wrong, it's not completely wrong until they say so. After all, who makes the rules that science is governed by?


What are you talking about? What conspiracy? What known faked evidence?

So don't point your finger at the creationist, when there are several fingers that can point right back.


I wasn't pointing fingers. I was stating that the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory grew stronger when scientists didn't fight it. That is why science fights creationism, lest it grow stronger. That is why science must fight and critisise all bad sciece. In fact, that is how science has always worked. If a theory withstands all the critics, it become accepted. That is why creation science isn't accepted, and must self-publish it's work.

#51 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 04 May 2005 - 01:41 PM

A data based that is used to promote what? And is used mostly by who? You left one thing out of your list. acreation, or better yet, ayec.

View Post


To promote – What evolution is and what it is not. Where you can find mainstream science opinion on an evolutionary subject.

Used mostly by – IMO, those not sure of what evolution is. Those not familiar with creationist spin on evolution.

Acreation (aYEC) – not really, because if scientific investigation did find evidence of a young earth you could not prevent it from becoming public knowledge (science has no political/religious agenda), e.g. 150 to 200+ years ago, If geologist discovered that there were basically two strata, the lower separated from a hot potch of sediment containing a mix of all life in all stages, then one could conclude that something terrible happened at that boundary. If dating methods also revealed a consistent young earth etc I suspect we would not be having this conversation.

#52 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 May 2005 - 03:07 PM

That's a shocking thing to say. First off - do not question the morality of non-christian scientists without proof. I'm fairly sure there are plenty of non-christian scientists who surpass many christian scientists in their morality. And christian scientists are perfectly welcome. Indeed, they are prevalent. Creation scientists are welcome, as long as they do good science...once they start doing bad science their work will be criticised.


Actually, I put that there so you can see and feel what it's like to have to put up with this on a every day bases..... Because those whom claim to have morality, were not raised to do so. So why would they feel the need? It was that type of thinking that got peltdown man started. No morals.

Erm, the moon landing wasn't a hoax (unless you think it was...?).


And I never said it was. But you listing this also proves another point of how creationists are all catagorized into a certain group who all suppositly, believe the samething. So when I include peltdown man, I'm just doing what is done to us on a everyday bases. Just as talk origin promotes on a everyday bases.

What are you talking about? What conspiracy? What known faked evidence?


In the making of the hoax of peltdown man. Fake tools were also made. Four people were involved in this, and they included some that were not directly involved, but went along with the idea. Then you say that it was figured to be no part of evolution, but yet was it permitted in our school text books? Here again an example of what a no moral type of thinking does.
Question: How many scientific channels do you think a scientific theory goes through before it printed and taught in our schools? So guess what? That means the whole science community accepted this, and even science teachers taught this. I was taught it as fact where I went to school and was never told it had been proven a hoax several years before.
This site goes into more detail: http://www.yecheadqu....0.html5.2.html

If I researched, and went through the whole process of how something, that is a hoax, got as far as it did. I'm sure the evidence would be shocking. Things such as this don't go as far as this did, unless it's get's help from all involved in the area of science. But trying to cover up this fact, as I have seen so many do. Only leaves the door open for it to happen again. And it often makes me wonder if it already has, and we just don't know about it.

#53 Guest_Paul C. Anagnostopoulos_*

Guest_Paul C. Anagnostopoulos_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 May 2005 - 04:27 PM

And it often makes me wonder if it already has, and we just don't know about it.

It's possible. But Piltdown Man was eventually exposed as a hoax, so we can hope that any current hoaxes will also be exposed. Better yet, we can hope that any current hoaxes are never accepted in the first place.

It appears that you think scientists are superhuman and should be immune to such problems.

~~ Paul

#54 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 May 2005 - 07:07 PM

And it often makes me wonder if it already has, and we just don't know about it.

It's possible. But Piltdown Man was eventually exposed as a hoax, so we can hope that any current hoaxes will also be exposed. Better yet, we can hope that any current hoaxes are never accepted in the first place.

It appears that you think scientists are superhuman and should be immune to such problems.

~~ Paul

View Post


No, both sides of the issue can fall prey to it. But one has more control over what is taught to our children, and should take that into consideration before allowing such things in our text books for them to read.

If one side does not want it's past being brought up, then the other should do the same. It becomes a childish came of who can dig up the most mud on the other. And basically proves nothing in the end. But is used effectly to keep what is not wanted from ever seeing the light of day. Because it is used to discredit information that is presented. So, we will in affect, do the same.

#55 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 04 May 2005 - 10:41 PM

Actually, I put that there so you can see and feel what it's like to have to put up with this on a every day bases..... Because those whom claim to have morality, were not raised to do so. So why would they feel the need? It was that type of thinking that got peltdown man started. No morals.


To see what what feels like? Those who claim to have morality were not raised to claim to have morality? But you claim to have morality, and you claimed to have morality. Why did you feel the need?

And I never said it was. But you listing this also proves another point of how creationists are all catagorized into a certain group who all suppositly, believe the samething. So when I include peltdown man, I'm just doing what is done to us on a everyday bases. Just as talk origin promotes on a everyday bases.


Huh? I listed the moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists because they, like the creationists, take a piece of scientific history and claim it didn't happen. When science did not respond it was taken as confirmation that it was faked, vindicating the conspiracy nuts. You asked why science feels the need to defend itself so strongly, and why does it fear creationism. That is what I answered, that if science did not criticize creationism it might be taken as acceptance that creationism is right.


In the making of the hoax of peltdown man. Fake tools were also made. Four people were involved in this, and they included some that were not directly involved, but went along with the idea. Then you say that it was figured to be no part of evolution, but yet was it permitted in our school text books? Here again an example of what a no moral type of thinking does.


A conspiracy of four, plus or minus a few hardly constitutes a grand conspiracy. It was contrary to evolutionary theory, however scientists publish all the evidence, not just the evidence that agrees with their theories - does this not demonstrate their honesty? Why was it permitted in school text books? Is this a case of no morals or poor research? Mistakes enter text books all the time, indeed I once saw a brontosaurus picture in an educational book, a long time after they were demonstrated to have never existed. If a book published in the mid to late 50s or later proclaimed the piltdown man as anything but a hoax then that book was wrong. If you wish to make the claim that the books publishers/writers/editors deliberatly published false information, because of a lack of morals, then you will have to provide some actual evidence.

If I researched, and went through the whole process of how something, that is a hoax, got as far as it did. I'm sure the evidence would be shocking. Things such as this don't go as far as this did, unless it's get's help from all involved in the area of science. But trying to cover up this fact, as I have seen so many do. Only leaves the door open for it to happen again. And it often makes me wonder if it already has, and we just don't know about it.


It is possible there are hoaxes out there still...indeed there are tons of creationist hoaxes out there, things like the modern item in coal exhibits. Strangely creationists that claim to have these artifacts are often reluctant to have their finds independantly tested for free. There maybe items out there that a hoaxes now, but you neglect the fact that this happened at a the beginning of the 20th century. It wasn't until the late 40s that sufficient advances in radiological dating allowed the first suspicious results to come in. The lesson taught was that anything could be a hoax, and so methodologies were established to help circumvent future hoaxes - also documentation became more and more practical as camera equipment was advanced.

Anyway - we are agreed. Hoaxes are bad science, whether they are perpetrated by scientists or by creationists. Sometimes things get taught in schools which shouldn't be, in all subjects. We should scrutanize what is being taught, and correct any errors as soon as is possible.

#56 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 May 2005 - 11:17 PM

To see what what feels like? Those who claim to have morality were not raised to claim to have morality?  But you claim to have morality, and you claimed to have morality. Why did you feel the need?
Huh? I listed the moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists because they, like the creationists, take a piece of scientific history and claim it didn't happen. When science did not respond it was taken as confirmation that it was faked, vindicating the conspiracy nuts. You asked why science feels the need to defend itself so strongly, and why does it fear creationism. That is what I answered, that if science did not criticize creationism it might be taken as acceptance that creationism is right.
A conspiracy of four, plus or minus a few hardly constitutes a grand conspiracy.  It was contrary to evolutionary theory, however scientists publish all the evidence, not just the evidence that agrees with their theories - does this not demonstrate their honesty? Why was it permitted in school text books? Is this a case of no morals or poor research? Mistakes enter text books all the time, indeed I once saw a brontosaurus picture in an educational book, a long time after they were demonstrated to have never existed.  If a book published in the mid to late 50s or later proclaimed the piltdown man as anything but a hoax then that book was wrong. If you wish to make the claim that the books publishers/writers/editors deliberatly published false information, because of a lack of morals, then you will have to provide some actual evidence.
It is possible there are hoaxes out there still...indeed there are tons of creationist hoaxes out there, things like the modern item in coal exhibits. Strangely creationists that claim to have these artifacts are often reluctant to have their finds independantly tested for free.  There maybe items out there that a hoaxes now, but you neglect the fact that this happened at a the beginning of the 20th century. It wasn't until the late 40s that sufficient advances in radiological dating allowed the first suspicious results to come in.  The lesson taught was that anything could be a hoax, and so methodologies were established to help circumvent future hoaxes - also documentation became more and more practical as camera equipment was advanced.

Anyway - we are agreed. Hoaxes are bad science, whether they are perpetrated by scientists or by creationists. Sometimes things get taught in schools which shouldn't be, in all subjects. We should scrutanize what is being taught, and correct any errors as soon as is possible.

View Post


The reason creatonists are reluntant to let evolutionists to examine their evidence is that the findings are always turned against them. And it's always done behind the the creationist's back. Such as what is shown here: http://www.bibleands.../footprints.htm

This site is owned by a OEC. Scroll about halfway down to the pic where a plaster is made. Now, what would have been the problem of having Baugh present while that was being done? What was the problem of having both go to someone neither of them knew to have the plaster examined? But as you can see, this is a perfect case of what happens when evidence of creation is shared with those who choose not to believe. The unwillingness to work together is very apparent here. The desire to decieve is made know by the boasting of going behind Carl Baugh's back.

Then you have the destroying of the evidence: http://www.bible.ca/...aylor-trail.htm
Scroll to about halfway down the page and you can see pic of where two evolutionists, one I know their names (Glen Kuban), destroyed creation evidence.

So why don't we share? It's pretty clear why. And these are only a couple of many like this.

Added: I found the web page of the person who the accusation was made. I laugh as I read it in it's frail attempt to explain away what happened.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/rebutt.htm Glen Kuban's site.
I also might mention that Glen Kuban was part of the group that decided to sneak that plaster foot print, and take it to their own person they knew would examine it, and give them the answers they wanted. All of this behind Baugh's back. But I guess it's the way things work when your bent on disproving something. And have a personal hate for someone who stands for what your trying to disprove. Because most of everything Kuban has written about, on his websites, are about Baugh. So he has taken this to a level of a personal grudge. Which makes me think he is not beyond doing what he has been accused of.

#57 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 04 May 2005 - 11:26 PM

Offers have included enabling the entire procedure to be witnessed by Creationists to prevent any claims of said bad behaviour.

#58 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 May 2005 - 01:58 AM

Well, Carl Baugh now locks up all his evidence in a safe. Why? People have attempted to destroy it, or steal it. And some of this evidence is priceless. Evidence given by other countries to him. So do you think he would allow scientists who have done nothing but mock him, stab him in the back, slander his name, to handle this stuff, or even test it?

And what does talk origins say about Carl Baugh?
http://www.talkorigi...xy/degrees.html
http://www.talkorigi...xy/retrack.html
http://www.talkorigi...luxy/tooth.html

With these remarks, it's no wonder creationist don't do bussiness with evolutionists. But I do think it's funny that no one had any problems with Baugh's education until he became a creation scientist, instead of a evolution scientist. I wonder why NOVA would allow someone of this bad background to appear on their show? But I guess as a evolutionist, it don't really matter. Only as a creationist does it matter.

So let me ask you. Would you be friends with people who act and say, what has been said about Baugh, if you were him? I very seriously doubt you would.

#59 Modulous

Modulous

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • United Kingdom

Posted 05 May 2005 - 02:53 AM

I think we are in danger of drifting wildly off topic here. However, as I said, if a creationist is allowed to act as full witness to the proceedings, where's the problem? So there are two possible reasons why he is not letting the scientific community at his remarkable, scientifically amazing evidences.
  • A global conspiracy of scientists, intent on destroying or stealing any evidence that the world might be younger than currently thought
  • The evidences are frauds or hoaxes or Baugh is not confident of their authenticity.
Now, given we have previously discussed (and I think we agree) hoaxes and frauds, and how we should be very careful to avoid taking evidence at face value unless it has been rigorously tested and confirmed as viable evidence. For example, imagine if I claimed to have 500 hominid fossils that show clear transition from ape like through to homo sapien. However, I will not let anyone see or test this evidence, but I will show you some photos...or perhaps I swear I have an authentic hand written treatise by Jesus describing evolution and advanced quantum cosmology solutions. You would rightly be skeptical, especially if I refused to let any one perform authentication tests on it. So, we have to be skeptical, lest Baugh be concocting some elaborate hoax or fraud. We know that there are more lies out there than meet the eye - we need to treat this as one of them for now.

I'm sure Baugh, in all his smarts, should be able to devise a suitable method for testing some of his finds fairly and accurately, using plenty of witnesses, video cameras and so on, so that no jiggery pokery can take place, so that when the scientists confirm his astounding discoveries, nobody can claim anything fishy happened. That fact should help us discard the already unlikely first option, and look towards the second option as a distinct possibility.


[edit - I will note, however that regards to his education it is important for the reasons stated above. When deciding whether to 'just take his word for it' we have to examine his credibility. If he makes claims that he earned his degree and there seems to be some significant question of that, then we have at least one reason why we might not want to take his word on anything. Especially when other dubious claims have previously been made. Would you have taken the word of Dawson had he found half a dozen 'Piltdown men' in the 60s?]

#60 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 05 May 2005 - 06:42 AM

I would like to say that I hope to go back and respond to some of the previous posts. However, since the subject is Talk Origins problems here is another one:

Under the "Welcome to talk.origins page" we find the following claim:

http://www.talkorigi...aq-welcome.html

To really impress the regulars, come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation.
The ToC is the Holy Grail of the origins debate - everyone talks about it, but no one's ever seen it. If you argue against evolution, or imply in any way that creationism is scientific, then you can count on being asked to supply a theory. A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory. Thus, such statements as "God created the heavens and the earth..." are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.

While no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us, we maintain that it is necessary for an honest comparison of various ideas of origins. Because of the properties listed above, theories provide specific points for comparison of the explanatory value of different ideas. Without a predictive, falsifiable theory of creation, it remains impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.


The falseness of this claim is shown even by another talkorigins arcticle:

http://www.talkorigi...art1a.html#pred


Predictions of creationism and of evolution
Before launching into the transitional fossils, I'd like to run through the two of the major models of life's origins, biblical creationism and modern evolutionary theory, and see what they predict about the fossil record.

Most forms of creationism hold that all "kinds" were created separately, as described in Genesis. Unfortunately there is no biological definition of "kind"; it appears to be a vague term referring to our psychological perception of types of organisms such as "dog", "tree", or "ant". In previous centuries, creationists equated "kind" to species. With the discovery of more and more evidence for derivation of one species from another, creationists bumped "kind" further up to mean higher taxonomic levels, such as "genus", or "family", though this lumps a large variety of animals in the same "kind". Some creationists say that "kind" cannot be defined in biological terms.
Predictions of creationism: Creationists usually don't state the predictions of creationism, but I'll take a stab at it here. First, though there are several different sorts of creationism, all of them agree that there should be no transitional fossils at all between "kinds". For example, if "kind" means "species", creationism apparently predicts that there should be no species-to-species transitions whatsoever in the fossil record. If "kind" means "genus" or "family" or "order", there should be no species-to-species transitions that cross genus, family, or order lines. Furthermore, creationism apparently predicts that since life did not originate by descent from a common ancestor, fossils should not appear in a temporal progression, and it should not be possible to link modern taxa to much older, very different taxa through a "general lineage" of similar and progressively older fossils.

Other predictions vary with the model of creationism. For instance, an older model of creationism states that fossils were created during six metaphorical "days" that may each have taken millenia to pass. This form of creationism predicts that fossils should be found in the same order outlined in Genesis: seed-bearing trees first, then all aquatic animals and flying animals, then all terrestrial animals, then humans.

In contrast, many modern U.S. creationists believe the "Flood Theory" of the origin of fossils. The "Flood Theory" is derived from a strictly literal reading of the Bible, and states that all geological strata, and the fossils imbedded in them, were formed during the forty-day flood of Noah's time. Predictions of the Flood Theory apparently include the following:



see also: http://www.trueorigi.../creatheory.asp




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users