Jump to content


Photo

Dino Proteins Proved To Be Original Material!


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#41 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 22 May 2011 - 02:58 AM

If you mean that any guess, assumption or presupposition about the past is unfalsifiable, then I would suppose that makes any sort of argument or evidence just irrelevant for those sorts of questions, and there's just no way to tell who's right and who's wrong.

In the context of an old earth, it is unfalsifiable, we can't prove/disprove that fossils were indeed transitional because we weren't there, we can't prove/disprove that the universe came about by an unguided premise. These are outside of the realm of Science. Sure, it is okay to speculate these things, but people really need to start thinking and understand that Science can not answer the question of origins on an empirical basis. Science can, however, work with the present. There is strong evidence for a young earth, but it largely goes ignored and the possibility of a young Earth is not even mentioned in textbooks in school, don't you think that there is something wrong with that? That is another reason why these origin theories are unfalsifiable in the secular community, because anything to the contrary is not considered.


Hi Spectre

I'm slightly confused.

My understanding of an unfalsifiable thing is that there's no possible way, even in principle, to find refuting evidence against it. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, an unfalsifiable thing will be consistent with any and all of it. It follows that you can't have strong evidence or weak evidence for or against something that's unfalsifiable, because evidence is just irrelevant.

Now many fields like science, criminal justice, history, etc. do not operate on the basis that conjectures about the past are unfalsifiable. They think ideas about the past can be tested and confirmed or falsified. Like, in forensics, the conjecture that the suspect was wounded by the victim at the crime scene 10 years ago can be confirmed by matching the suspect's DNA with a bloodstain from the crime scene. Then another investigator may match the suspect's fingerprints to those on objects from the crime scene. These matches are based on observations being made in the present day, but they are confirming conjectures about events in the past. Its not perfect, but with enough confirming evidence you can build a strong enough case to send someone to prison.

So, do you think old earth/young earth views are unfalsifiable in principle, so the evidence can never confirm or refute anyones ideas? Or do you think old earth/young earth views are more like a forensic question, in that we can build a very strong case based on present day observations about what happened in the past?

Relativism mostly applies to moral principles and does not necessarily mean that all points are equally valid in every circumstance. I do agree that relativism(In morality) is a concern, but the Creationist movement is not a contributing factor to that world view. However, in the instances of old earth theories, it is true that presuppositions do apply. In this case, relativism outside of the context of morality is not a illogical way of thinking.

View Post


Well, I think you're right about the emphasis mostly being on moral relativism as the big concern.

Cheers - S.

#42 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 22 May 2011 - 05:20 AM

Now many fields like science, criminal justice, history, etc. do not operate on the basis that conjectures about the past are unfalsifiable. They think ideas about the past can be tested and confirmed or falsified. Like, in forensics, the conjecture that the suspect was wounded by the victim at the crime scene 10 years ago can be confirmed by matching the suspect's DNA with a bloodstain from the crime scene. Then another investigator may match the suspect's fingerprints to those on objects from the crime scene. These matches are based on observations being made in the present day, but they are confirming conjectures about events in the past. Its not perfect, but with enough confirming evidence you can build a strong enough case to send someone to prison.


Hi,


That's the whole point of this thread. Collagen can't be millions of years old and carbon dating can't be extrapolated in the past at present rates with a constantly weakening magnetic field. That should send any million year old dinosaur to jail. <_<

#43 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 22 May 2011 - 06:05 AM

In the context of an old earth, it is unfalsifiable, we can't prove/disprove that fossils were indeed transitional because we weren't there, we can't prove/disprove that the universe came about by an unguided premise. These are outside of the realm of Science. Sure, it is okay to speculate these things, but people really need to start thinking and understand that Science can not answer the question of origins on an empirical basis. Science can, however, work with the present. There is strong evidence for a young earth, but it largely goes ignored and the possibility of a young Earth is not even mentioned in textbooks in school, don't you think that there is something wrong with that? That is another reason why these origin theories are unfalsifiable in the secular community, because anything to the contrary is not considered.

View Post

Very pithy. There is plenty of counter evidence against an old earth, and just like they can "refute" young earth evidence, creationists can "refute" old earth evidence. The problem is political, and legal, rather than scientific. Because evolutionary research is state funded, and considered non religious, it is allowed to be taught by state paid professors, researchers, and teachers. Even though it makes an anti religious connotation, along with all naturalistic theories (i.e.big bang) on origins, it is not seen as religious in nature. It's all about the "separation of church and state" issue, and it is the lawyers and judges who have made the final decision, not scientists or college professors.

#44 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 22 May 2011 - 09:34 AM

Hi Spectre

I'm slightly confused.

My understanding of an unfalsifiable thing is that there's no possible way, even in principle, to find refuting evidence against it. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, an unfalsifiable thing will be consistent with any and all of it. It follows that you can't have strong evidence or weak evidence for or against something that's unfalsifiable, because evidence is just irrelevant.

It is possible to have evidence that supports two totally different views or premises. A young/old earth is unfalsifiable because we weren't there. We can only speculate.

Now many fields like science, criminal justice, history, etc. do not operate on the basis that conjectures about the past are unfalsifiable.

Not to the extent of the origins of the planet. We have written records to go off of for history, and in forensics it is usually based off of recent events. In fact, sometimes forensics failed in court and people were jailed unjustly because the interpretation of the evidence was incorrect. There are different ways to look at evidence, but we can not empirically prove our origins.


They think ideas about the past can be tested and confirmed or falsified. Like, in forensics, the conjecture that the suspect was wounded by the victim at the crime scene 10 years ago can be confirmed by matching the suspect's DNA with a bloodstain from the crime scene.

I was a criminal justice major and I know that forensics is a very important part of it and is effective, but not perfect. But forensics deal with fairly recent happenings, what we are talking about is 6000-4.6 billion years ago. That is completely different. And keep in mind that there have been times where mistakes were made in the prosecution because of the wrong interpretation of the evidence. If we are wrong even about one part of our theories, then it throws the whole rest of it off as well.



Then another investigator may match the suspect's fingerprints to those on objects from the crime scene. These matches are based on observations being made in the present day, but they are confirming conjectures about events in the past. Its not perfect, but with enough confirming evidence you can build a strong enough case to send someone to prison.

See my reply above.

I'd like to add too that if we believe that we have made a strong case for the age of the Earth, we shouldn't have to tweak the numbers to get favorable data to match our presupposition.

Dr. Russel Humphreys successfully predicted the strength of Uranus and Neptune's magnetic fields in 1984 before Voyager II even reached Uranus based off the presupposition of a young universe that is about 6000 years old and assuming that Uranus may of been created the same way that God created Earth. His predictions were dead on. Secular Scientists, on the other hand, had a model that was way off for both Uranus and Neptune. Instead of reconsidering the age of the universe, they created the dynamo theory to try and get the numbers to be more favorable of an old universe. This theory is shaky at best. Hypotheses are supposed to be tested and thrown out, or kept based on the results. This is how forensics works too, but the secular scientists didn't follow that protocol, they simply tried to make the evidence fit their presuppositions just like they have in nearly every other area regarding origins. I do not view this as a good way to approach the truth, if one was really looking for it.

So, do you think old earth/young earth views are unfalsifiable in principle, so the evidence can never confirm or refute anyones ideas?

There are ways to point out flaws in each model, but neither are falsifiable because we weren't there, we have nothing to confirm our views, unless you believe The Bible is true that is but I am aware that it is irrelevant for most atheists.


Or do you think old earth/young earth views are more like a forensic question, in that we can build a very strong case based on present day observations about what happened in the past?

It is similar to forensics, but we will likely never have evidence that is as strong as forensics can provide because origins is a very elusive question in which Science will never be able to fully answer.

#45 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 22 May 2011 - 03:20 PM

Now many fields like science, criminal justice, history, etc. do not operate on the basis that conjectures about the past are unfalsifiable. They think ideas about the past can be tested and confirmed or falsified. Like, in forensics, the conjecture that the suspect was wounded by the victim at the crime scene 10 years ago can be confirmed by matching the suspect's DNA with a bloodstain from the crime scene. Then another investigator may match the suspect's fingerprints to those on objects from the crime scene. These matches are based on observations being made in the present day, but they are confirming conjectures about events in the past. Its not perfect, but with enough confirming evidence you can build a strong enough case to send someone to prison.


Hi,
That's the whole point of this thread. Collagen can't be millions of years old and carbon dating can't be extrapolated in the past at present rates with a constantly weakening magnetic field. That should send any million year old dinosaur to jail. <_<

View Post


Hi jason777, yes I agree that collagen can't be millions of years old and C14 dating can't be extrapolated back if the earth's magnetic field has been constantly weakening.

However, I'm getting the impression, from more than one poster in this thread now, that all old earth/young earth views are in principle unfalsifiable - i.e. that no evidence could ever possibly refute any such view (or confirm the opposite view). If that's the general consensus on this thread, then there would seem to be little point discussing the evidence.

Now I personally think young earth/old earth questions are really forensic-type questions, so they are falsifiable. If you have multiple lines of clear, independent, correlative evidence you can make a very strong case for one view over the other, so it would be reasonable to consider one view confirmed and the opposite view refuted. For example, we could be looking at whether the earth's magnetic field really is constantly weakening, and the totality of evidence that relates to that question without excluding any of it.

That said, maybe I'm just confused and I'm getting the wrong impression. What do you think? Do you think old/young earth questions are falsifiable, and thus forensic, so we can at least in principle decide which view is strongly supported by the evidence? Or do you think they are unfalsifiable, in which case the evidence doesn't make any difference, and we really have no principled way of saying which view is supported by evidence?

Thanks and regards - SeeJay

#46 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 22 May 2011 - 03:36 PM

Hi,
That's the whole point of this thread. Collagen can't be millions of years old and carbon dating can't be extrapolated in the past at present rates with a constantly weakening magnetic field. That should send any million year old dinosaur to jail. <_<

Hi jason777, yes I agree that collagen can't be millions of years old and C14 dating can't be extrapolated back if the earth's magnetic field has been constantly weakening.

However, I'm getting the impression, from more than one poster in this thread now, that all old earth/young earth views are in principle unfalsifiable - i.e. that no evidence could ever possibly refute any such view (or confirm the opposite view). If that's the general consensus on this thread, then there would seem to be little point discussing the evidence.

Now I personally think young earth/old earth questions are really forensic-type questions, so they are falsifiable. If you have multiple lines of clear, independent, correlative evidence you can make a very strong case for one view over the other, so it would be reasonable to consider one view confirmed and the opposite view refuted. For example, we could be looking at whether the earth's magnetic field really is constantly weakening, and the totality of evidence that relates to that question without excluding any of it.

That said, maybe I'm just confused and I'm getting the wrong impression. What do you think? Do you think old/young earth questions are falsifiable, and thus forensic, so we can at least in principle decide which view is strongly supported by the evidence? Or do you think they are unfalsifiable, in which case the evidence doesn't make any difference, and we really have no principled way of saying which view is supported by evidence?

Thanks and regards - SeeJay

View Post

Seejay,

I know your question is to Jason, but if I may just chime in once. I think it should be a case by case basis. Like for instance, how do you (and I know that this isn't technically evolution) falsify the big bang, or special creation by God. I really don't think you can. How do you falsify the geologic timescale when, once something is accepted at a certain assumed age, the first appearance and last appearance dating range just morphs. For instance, say tomorrow a paper is submitted at a paleontology convention, stating that it is a growing consensus that certain species of dinosaurs survived the alledged asteroid catastrophe, and lived until thousands of years ago. The dating range would just be extended, so that no matter where those fossils were found (or no matter how much soft tissue was found) it would be perfectly acceptable--and so the claim that 'order' in the fossil record was perfect, according to the predictions of geotime. So if a paleontologist says that a ceratin creature lived during a certain time range, and I later, being a creationist, find something that contradicts this, the actualist paleontologist will just say, "Great discovery! We can now extend the extinction date--it's no problem--the order is still perfect!"

There is an inherit danger of err, when you morph everything AFTER the evidence mounts, without admitting the possibility that the MODEL is in error---then it is really not a PREDICTION as is claimed. But if the Bible, being history states in a passing manner something, and something can fall into that model without contradiction, then, though it is not a science book, it does support that it is history. And so, science can help understand that while some things may at first apperance contradict the Bible, it may help explain facts that may account for an apparant contradiction (i.e. 14C dating longer than 6000 years).

#47 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 22 May 2011 - 08:10 PM

However, I'm getting the impression, from more than one poster in this thread now, that all old earth/young earth views are in principle unfalsifiable - i.e. that no evidence could ever possibly refute any such view (or confirm the opposite view). If that's the general consensus on this thread, then there would seem to be little point discussing the evidence.

I know your question is to Jason, but if I may just chime in once. I think it should be a case by case basis. Like for instance, how do you (and I know that this isn't technically evolution) falsify the big bang, or special creation by God. I really don't think you can. How do you falsify the geologic timescale when, once something is accepted at a certain assumed age, the first appearance and last appearance dating range just morphs. For instance, say tomorrow a paper is submitted at a paleontology convention, stating that it is a growing consensus that certain species of dinosaurs survived the alledged asteroid catastrophe, and lived until thousands of years ago. The dating range would just be extended, so that no matter where those fossils were found (or no matter how much soft tissue was found) it would be perfectly acceptable--and so the claim that 'order' in the fossil record was perfect, according to the predictions of geotime. So if a paleontologist says that a ceratin creature lived during a certain time range, and I later, being a creationist, find something that contradicts this, the actualist paleontologist will just say, "Great discovery! We can now extend the extinction date--it's no problem--the order is still perfect!"


Hi AFJ -- All chimes are very welcome <_<

I think that unless restrictions are put on what some conjectured process is capable of, then it can't be falsified. So if God's omnipotence is regarded as completely unrestricted, then special creation cannot be falsified (although I understand not all Christians accept that God's action is completely unrestricted i.e. He is good, holy etc as well as being omnipotent). On the other hand, I don't think scientists propose completely unrestricted behaviour for matter and energy etc. in relation to the big bang, so in principle it could be falsified. I would need to look into it more to give a fuller answer.

So, in that sense, I certainly agree with you on a case-by-case approach.

Regarding the geologic timescale, in my view it's falsifiable, but the appearance of fossils would not be a good way to do that. Even Darwin acknowledged "No fixed law seems to determine the length of time during which any single species or any single genus endures" so, as you say, evolutionists are very "flexible" on this aspect of the fossil record.

So how would one falsify it? Phew, well the geologic timescale is a really big thing. Evolutionists have a model of the earth's formation and development over billions of years that incorporates evidence from all over the place, like astronomy (timing of earth's formation, craters, abundance of extraterrestrial elements etc), geology (plate tectonics, sedimentology etc) and biology (tree rings, coral growth, genomics etc). The evolutionist model has an explanation for why the dates from all these various methods line up and correlate with each other very closely. So what you would need to do, I suppose -- as a kind of initial guess (I'm not an expert) -- is come up with a different model that incorporates all this different evidence, and explains why the dates from those methods all correlate, but does not require billions of years.

Cheers -- SeeJay

#48 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 May 2011 - 06:05 AM

My understanding of an unfalsifiable thing is that there's no possible way, even in principle, to find refuting evidence against it. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, an unfalsifiable thing will be consistent with any and all of it. It follows that you can't have strong evidence or weak evidence for or against something that's unfalsifiable, because evidence is just irrelevant.

Now many fields like science, criminal justice, history, etc. do not operate on the basis that conjectures about the past are unfalsifiable.

It is possible to have evidence that supports two totally different views or premises. A young/old earth is unfalsifiable because we weren't there. We can only speculate.


Hi Spectre

Yes, sometimes one piece of evidence could support opposite views, or multiple lines of evidence may conflict with each other so we just can't be sure. But sometimes multiple lines of independent evidence all point to the same conclusion e.g. in the example I gave of DNA and fingerprints. So even though nobody was there, if there's enough evidence from various different directions all pointing consistently in one direction, we can draw some firm conclusions, much stronger than speculation - enough, in the case of forensics, to send somebody to prison.

I was a criminal justice major and I know that forensics is a very important part of it and is effective, but not perfect. But forensics deal with fairly recent happenings, what we are talking about is 6000-4.6 billion years ago. That is completely different. And keep in mind that there have been times where mistakes were made in the prosecution because of the wrong interpretation of the evidence. If we are wrong even about one part of our theories, then it throws the whole rest of it off as well.


As far as I'm aware, all the sciences like forensics, anthropology, paleontology, geology, history, etc, will take all the evidence they can get. They don't have any rule that some evidence has to be discarded because it relates to things that are too old. It makes sense that the more evidence you take into account, the more likely you are to identify if any part of your theories is wrong. So I don't fault them for this.

Dr. Russel Humphreys successfully predicted the strength of Uranus and Neptune's magnetic fields in 1984 before Voyager II even reached Uranus based off the presupposition of a young universe that is about 6000 years old and assuming that Uranus may of been created the same way that God created Earth. His predictions were dead on. Secular Scientists, on the other hand, had a model that was way off for both Uranus and Neptune. Instead of reconsidering the age of the universe, they created the dynamo theory to try and get the numbers to be more favorable of an old universe. This theory is shaky at best. Hypotheses are supposed to be tested and thrown out, or kept based on the results.


Humphrey's article involves God miraculously changing many basic physical processes in order to make it "fit" the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune; his model doesn't work for Jupiter, so he proposed God made Jupiter a special case. Clearly this is outside the realms of science: It requires miracles, it's not internally consistent, and it fails to account for lots of independent evidence of the great age of celestial bodies like distant supernovas, long-period comets etc. That's why scientists developed the dynamo theory, to try to account for all the evidence they were aware of. Whether the scientists were right or wrong, again I don't think they should be faulted for this approach.

Anyway, much food for thought in your post. Thanks.

Regards - S.

#49 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 23 May 2011 - 10:45 AM

Yes, sometimes one piece of evidence could support opposite views, or multiple lines of evidence may conflict with each other so we just can't be sure. But sometimes multiple lines of independent evidence all point to the same conclusion e.g. in the example I gave of DNA and fingerprints. So even though nobody was there, if there's enough evidence from various different directions all pointing consistently in one direction, we can draw some firm conclusions, much stronger than speculation - enough, in the case of forensics, to send somebody to prison.

This appears to be turning more into a debate about forensics than the original subject. Again, I would like to point out that what happened recently and what happened 6000-4.6 billion years ago is completely different.

Humphrey's article involves God miraculously changing many basic physical processes in order to make it "fit" the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune; his model doesn't work for Jupiter, so he proposed God made Jupiter a special case. Clearly this is outside the realms of science: It requires miracles, it's not internally consistent, and it fails to account for lots of independent evidence of the great age of celestial bodies like distant supernovas, long-period comets etc. That's why scientists developed the dynamo theory, to try to account for all the evidence they were aware of. Whether the scientists were right or wrong, again I don't think they should be faulted for this approach.

I am sorry Seejay, but I am sensing some hypocrisy here. Predictions in Science has value, apparently it is okay for secular scientists to be completely wrong in their predictions but it is okay to quibble about the Creationist model. This is one of the reasons that your model is unfalsifiable in the secular circle because secular scientists are so protective of every part of the model. The fact is, Humphreys successfully predicted those magnetic fields based off of the Creation model while your scientists were dead wrong on the model. He may of been wrong on Jupiter, but he got it right for more planets than you guys did.

Exactly what part of Humphreys' model defies physics for Uranus and Neptune? Eugenie Scott said the same thing to Jason Lisle in a CNN debate but failed to come up with anything that showed that Dr. Humphreys was not following physics for this model.

To their credit, secular scientists were in a right ball park for Neptune when it came to the strength of the magnetic field, but there are several things that call into question about using the dynamo theory for this planet.

The dynamo theory implies that the magnetic and rotation axes should nearly always be closely aligned, except for a very small fraction of the time when the direction of the field is reversing. Secular Scientists tried to make the excuse that Uranus was in the rare state of flipping its magnetic field. However, when Voyager II passed Neptune and also noticed that Neptune was tilting, this explanation no longer held water.

The dynamo theory also only works with a liquid core. The Creationist model can work with a solid or liquid core. The fact is, the Creationist model is better than the secular one.

As for Jupiter, Dr. Russell Humphreys predicted the strength of the magnetic fields for the moons outside of Jupiter. Secular scientists once again got it wrong. Why are our predictions accurate regarding magnetic fields on a regular basis? It could be because The Bible is true after all. <_<

It is true that Jupiter was the exception to the rule for this model, but there are far more "exceptions" that do not fit the dynamo model. It is inexcusable for any secular scientist who is really interested in finding the truth to use the dynamo theory for planets that would not fit the profile for such a theory. I would also like to point out that it seems that Jupiter was designed for a special purpose, protecting Earth and that may be why the magnetic properties differ so much Humphreys recalculated Jupiter's magnetic dipole moment at creation by assuming that God aligned all of the water molecules for maximum effect. This would be consistent with the idea of designing Jupiter to protect Earth from stray asteroids or other heavenly objects.

Despite the supernatural explanation for Jupiter's magnetic field, his models do not defy physics on other planets and have been dead on in almost every occasion including moons in our solar system. Scientists should be able to at least adopt the model, in which a majority of it does not require supernatural intervention. But the reason why they will not adopt it is because then they would be using a model that assumes a young universe. Rather than reconsidering the age of the universe, they just didn't like it because it didn't fit their presuppositions. That isn't science Seejay, that is pride.

Thanks.

#50 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 May 2011 - 09:52 PM

Yes, sometimes one piece of evidence could support opposite views, or multiple lines of evidence may conflict with each other so we just can't be sure. But sometimes multiple lines of independent evidence all point to the same conclusion e.g. in the example I gave of DNA and fingerprints. So even though nobody was there, if there's enough evidence from various different directions all pointing consistently in one direction, we can draw some firm conclusions, much stronger than speculation - enough, in the case of forensics, to send somebody to prison.

This appears to be turning more into a debate about forensics than the original subject. Again, I would like to point out that what happened recently and what happened 6000-4.6 billion years ago is completely different.


Hi Spectre - Point taken :) I am wandering a bit afield, but I do find it interesting.

Forensics came up because its a case where I think everyone agrees that we can draw firm (but not perfect) scientific conclusions, even though nobody was there -- which was one objection against evolutionist conjectures.

You've also argued that conjectures about things over 6000 years ago are different in that they're unfalsifiable. I pointed out that there's no rule of science I'm aware of that automatically rules out evidence just because it relates to a theory about very old things; in fact, I believe scientists try to evaluate all the evidence that's available. And since you've raised planetary magnetic fields as a rebuttal to an ancient solar system, it appears to me that you implicitly acknowledge at least some theories about the distant past are falsifiable based on modern-day measurements. But if something is falsifiable then logically its also confirmable, which is what I've been trying to say all along.

So I'm really not sure where you stand on this point - either evidence can be used to falsify or confirm young/old earth ideas, or it cannot. If it can, its worthwhile looking into the evidence. If not, there's little point doing so, at least in my opinion.

I am sorry Seejay, but I am sensing some hypocrisy here. Predictions in Science has value, apparently it is okay for secular scientists to be completely wrong in their predictions but it is okay to quibble about the Creationist model. This is one of the reasons that your model is unfalsifiable in the secular circle because secular scientists are so protective of every part of the model. The fact is, Humphreys successfully predicted those magnetic fields based off of the Creation model while your scientists were dead wrong on the model. He may of been wrong on Jupiter, but he got it right for more planets than you guys did.


No problem Spectre. I would expect you to call out hypocrisy as you see it.

That said, I guess just don't see things the way you do. When the evolutionist model for magnetic fields was shown wrong, they changed it to try take into account all the evidence - not just magnetic field evidence, but everything they knew about relating to the age and development of the solar system. When Humphreys' model was shown wrong, with respect to Jupiter, he invoked a miracle from God to make it fit the evidence. So I don't think its hypocritical to point out that the former method is scientific, and Humphrey's method is not.

Exactly what part of Humphreys' model defies physics for Uranus and Neptune? Eugenie Scott said the same thing to Jason Lisle in a CNN debate but failed to come up with anything that showed that Dr. Humphreys was not following physics for this model.


I was referring to the part where Humphreys assumes God made the planets out of pure water, supernaturally configured the magnetic polarity of the water molecules, then miraculously converted the water to other elements (iron etc) immediately after creation.

My reading shows evolutionists frankly admit problems with the dynamo theory. But to be consistent with the methods of science, they do not posit miraculous intervention to solve these problems, and they do not sweep aside evidence from many other independent areas about the great age of the solar system.

Regards -- SeeJay

#51 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 23 May 2011 - 10:42 PM

Hi Spectre - Point taken  :) I am wandering a bit afield, but I do find it interesting.

Thanks for understanding. :)

Forensics came up because its a case where I think everyone agrees that we can draw firm (but not perfect) scientific conclusions, even though nobody was there -- which was one objection against evolutionist conjectures.

To be clear, I am not denying that we can draw reasonable conclusions from Science, but the origins of our universe and a crime scene that was present 0-20 years ago are two different things. The old Earth model is just simply unfalsifiable. I only point this out because atheists seem to believe that God is unfalsifiable.

You've also argued that conjectures about things over 6000 years ago are different in that they're unfalsifiable. I pointed out that there's no rule of science I'm aware of that automatically rules out evidence just because it relates to a theory about very old things; in fact, I believe scientists try to evaluate all the evidence that's available. And since you've raised planetary magnetic fields as a rebuttal to an ancient solar system, it appears to me that you implicitly acknowledge at least some theories about the distant past are falsifiable based on modern-day measurements. But if something is falsifiable then logically its also confirmable, which is what I've been trying to say all along.

I raised magnetic fields as an argument against an old universe and as for evidence of a young universe.(Just because magnetic fields are not kosher with an old universe does not necessarily falsify it, but the fact that Scientists would reject a better model just because they believe the universe is old is pretty ludicrous in my opinion. I'll expand more on this later.) Evidence does not prove/disprove anything in Science as it is constantly "evolving." See what I did there? :)

So I'm really not sure where you stand on this point - either evidence can be used to falsify or confirm young/old earth ideas, or it cannot. If it can, its worthwhile looking into the evidence. If not, there's little point doing so, at least in my opinion.

Evidence could be used to support either view based on how you see the evidence. I simply believe that while it is impossible to prove or falsify the age of the Earth, that the evidence for a young universe is simply stronger than an old universe.

I was referring to the part where Humphreys assumes God made the planets out of pure water, supernaturally configured the magnetic polarity of the water molecules, then miraculously converted the water to other elements (iron etc) immediately after creation.

Planet and star formation is still a highly theoretical area. I don't think it is fair to say that his model defies physics on this reason alone as we are still not sure how heavenly bodies can form or if they can form from a natural process. Humphreys was testing the Bible's claim that a planet may be able to be made out of water, and it passed.

I want to expand on some other underlying points as well that you put forth in your post. First, a dynamo powering a magnetic field in a planet with a solid core is not within the realm of physics. There is a georeactor model as well, but it is plagued with problems of its own. If you want to argue that Humphreys model is inadequate due to him appealing to the supernatural in a Creationist model, then perhaps you should think about the vast improbability of a dynamo being created from a solid core.

Second, the point I raised is that predictions are valuable in Science, successful predictions are more valuable. Certainly you agree with this. In fact, dead on predictions in physics is rare. Things rarely fall into place as well as Humphreys model did. He was wrong about Jupiter, okay, I'll give you that but I believe I explained why Jupiter is different quite well. Back to the second point again, Humphreys model did better than the secular model on every planet. I mean, Mercury was a disaster for the secular model since it was way too dense for a dynamo to occur. Again, the bottom line, predictions in Science has value, you have to admit that Humphreys predictions did better, and supernatural intervention was present in one planet, whereas your model counts on physics being defied on every planet. See what I am saying here?

Furthermore, and to expand to my third point. The Creation vs Evolution controversy is a large and heated one. There is so much disagreement that each side publishes work in their own journals. What Humphreys put forth was a Creationist model. He made his predictions for Creationist journals, not secular ones. Creationists were the primary audience he was aiming for. I sense this idea coming from many atheists I talk to that secular journals are better than Creationist journals. I disagree, because Creationists have been able to make accurate predictions based on scripture and have been validated by data in the future. When it comes to secular scientists and the origins of our universe, I do not really see this happen at all. I submit that the ability to make such predictions is evidence for the validity of The Bible and a young universe.


My reading shows evolutionists frankly admit problems with the dynamo theory. But to be consistent with the methods of science, they do not posit miraculous intervention to solve these problems, and they do not sweep aside evidence from many other independent areas about the great age of the solar system.

I do not really care about what secular scientists think(And by the way you may say they admit that the theory has flaws, but it doesn't seem to have been conveyed to the atheist republic, they act as if the models do not have any flaws whatsoever.), but I find it disturbing that they would knowingly use a highly flawed model and teach it in physics as if it were fact in classrooms. At the very least, since there is indeed a myriad of evidence for a young universe, they should include a section and present the possibility of a younger universe as a separate model without including God. After all, Humphreys predictions were dead on, barring Jupiter. But if we can excuse scientists being wrong about 9 out of 9 planets(at the time) in our solar system, surely if you are using consistent logic, being wrong about one planet in a young universe model would be excusable as well, just leave out the part about divine intervention or what-have-you, I would even let the scientists keep their idea of dynamos defying physics at mostly every planet formation.

Do you find your own beliefs to be scientific? What do you believe Seejay?

Thanks.

#52 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 26 May 2011 - 03:16 PM

To be clear, I am not denying that we can draw reasonable conclusions from Science, but the origins of our universe and a crime scene that was present 0-20 years ago are two different things. The old Earth model is just simply unfalsifiable. I only point this out because atheists seem to believe that God is unfalsifiable.

I raised magnetic fields as an argument against an old universe and as for evidence of a young universe.(Just because magnetic fields are not kosher with an old universe does not necessarily falsify it, but the fact that Scientists would reject a better model just because they believe the universe is old is pretty ludicrous in my opinion. I'll expand more on this later.) Evidence does not prove/disprove anything in Science as it is constantly "evolving." See what I did there? :D

So I'm really not sure where you stand on this point - either evidence can be used to falsify or confirm young/old earth ideas, or it cannot. If it can, its worthwhile looking into the evidence. If not, there's little point doing so, at least in my opinion.

Evidence could be used to support either view based on how you see the evidence. I simply believe that while it is impossible to prove or falsify the age of the Earth, that the evidence for a young universe is simply stronger than an old universe.


Hi Spectre -- Sorry for the delayed response.

If I may, allow me to wrap up this conversation. Clearly we have different worldview biases - just to explicate these, not in any way to criticise, here is the way I see these different biases:

The evolutionist worldview acknowledges all the evidence that we have - whether its old or new, near or far, microscopic or galaxy-size. They see that this evidence exhibits a common trend or correlation, pointing to an old universe conclusion, which forms a "background" against which new pieces of evidence must be evaluated.

When one points out some observation that, taken in isolation, might suggest a young universe, the evolutionist has at least two problems with that: (1) an apparent short-lived process (eg. young Neptune) only sets a lower limit on the universe's age, and logically of course the universe can be far older than some younger thing inside it; and (2) the evolutionist already has a "background" conclusion of old age based on the correlations of loads of other, independent evidence, and there's no epiistemic warrant to sweep all that under the rug due to an isolated or poorly understood anomaly.

Young earth proponents, on the other hand, appear to discount any evidence that indicates an ancient universe a priori, based on their Biblical understanding. Therefore, they lack the large "background" conclusion of old age that the evolutionist has. So when an apparent short-lived process is observed, it appears to have great significance.

So on the one hand we have young earth proponents pointing to things like planetary magnetic fields and saying "See, an old universe is refuted", whilst the evolutionists are saying "But what about all this other evidence over here?" and its like they're totally talking past each other!

...

With regard to planetary formation and the magnetic field data, I really don't want to go into that too much. The reason is, Humphrey's model is basically saying the planets look the way they do because God zapped them that way. To my mind this is essentially an "apparent age" argument - things look old because when God made them recently he gave them the appearance of a much greater age. This argument concedes that when scientists say "Golly, this looks really old" they are honestly presenting the fact of the matter - not because of evolutionist assumptions, but because that's what God created for them to see!

Anyway, my point is, that's a whole 'nother discussion, maybe for another thread.

Do you find your own beliefs to be scientific? What do you believe Seejay?


I believe the natural universe was created by God own hand, and thus it is a reflection of His nature (Romans 1:20). Accordingly, we can expect the natural world to be internally self-consistent and lawlike, and this is indeed what we find. It also means that when we see something in nature, it is not an illusion but truly an element of the creation intended by God in fulfilment of His plans. And when we find things we do not understand, it is not because the world is just random, but because there are deeper laws that God has put in place to govern such things that we have not yet discovered. This is not a scientific view, but a view on the philosophical foundations of science. If nature was chaotic, mischievous and illusory - rather than regular, lawlike and real as the Bible teaches - then science would not be possible (this is something atheists seem blind to!).

So that's my view on that.

Regards -- SeeJay

#53 Tirian

Tirian

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 26 May 2011 - 11:56 PM

If I may, allow me to wrap up this conversation. Clearly we have different worldview biases - just to explicate these, not in any way to criticise, here is the way I see these different biases:

The evolutionist worldview acknowledges all the evidence that we have - whether its old or new, near or far, microscopic or galaxy-size. They see that this evidence exhibits a common trend or correlation, pointing to an old universe conclusion, which forms a "background" against which new pieces of evidence must be evaluated.

When one points out some observation that, taken in isolation, might suggest a young universe, the evolutionist has at least two problems with that: (1) an apparent short-lived process (eg. young Neptune) only sets a lower limit on the universe's age, and logically of course the universe can be far older than some younger thing inside it; and (2) the evolutionist already has a "background" conclusion of old age based on the correlations of loads of other, independent evidence, and there's no epiistemic warrant to sweep all that under the rug due to an isolated or poorly understood anomaly.

Young earth proponents, on the other hand, appear to discount any evidence that indicates an ancient universe a priori, based on their Biblical understanding. Therefore, they lack the large "background" conclusion of old age that the evolutionist has. So when an apparent short-lived process is observed, it appears to have great significance.

So on the one hand we have young earth proponents pointing to things like planetary magnetic fields and saying "See, an old universe is refuted", whilst the evolutionists are saying "But what about all this other evidence over here?" and its like they're totally talking past each other!


This really begs some questions:

1 - What evidence are acknowledge by the evolutionist worldview and not by a creationist worldview? Do you have any example of that?

2 - Have the evolutionist worldview never discounted any evidence?

3 - Do the evolutionist worldview never use a priori reasoning, based on their understanding of the Darwinian theory?

4 - Are there always only two possibilities, either discount evidence or interpret it in one and only one way?

I think your statements above is really naive. You seem to belive that given a certain worldview you automatically always take account for all evidence and never do any mistakes. That seems like a really absurd thing to believe. What do you base that belief on?

What about people like Kuhn which points out that the scientific work is not performed in a vacuum and most scientist work within a paradigm. According to Kuhn when something fail to conform to the paradigm it is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher.

#54 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 27 May 2011 - 06:35 AM

This really begs some questions:

1 - What evidence are acknowledge by the evolutionist worldview and not by a creationist worldview? Do you have any example of that?

2 - Have the evolutionist worldview never discounted any evidence?

3 - Do the evolutionist worldview never use a priori reasoning, based on their understanding of the Darwinian theory?

4 - Are there always only two possibilities, either discount evidence or interpret it in one and only one way?

I think your statements above is really naive. You seem to belive that given a certain worldview you automatically always take account for all evidence and never do any mistakes. That seems like a really absurd thing to believe. What do you base that belief on?

What about people like Kuhn which points out that the scientific work is not performed in a vacuum and most scientist work within a paradigm. According to Kuhn when something fail to conform to the paradigm it is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher.

View Post


Hi Tirian

Hmm. I did come across a bit arrogant and naive. Sorry. I typed that last post very quickly with my laptop on my knees on a train, when I realised I hadn't responded to Spectre.

To answer your questions briefly:

1. Constant speed of light over the past billion years.

2. Individual evolutionists have discounted evidence. But the evolutionist worldview consists in the shared findings of hundreds of thousands of investigators of many different faiths and biases. Amongst this multitude, all the evidence we have ever had is being taken seriously by some group somewhere, and feeding it back into the worldwide community for review, retesting, reanalysis etc.

3. Of course. Every human being makes a priori assumptions as part of everyday living. Secular science strives to use only such assumptions as appear to be common to all people, and avoids those that are unique to specific groups with admitted bias.

4. Definitely not. There is plenty of evidence that is ambiguous, could be interpreted different ways etc. However, some conclusions, like a great age for the universe, are based on the correlation of a huge amount of evidence from independent areas. The stronger the correlations, the stronger the conclusion.

I agree with Kuhn, for the most part. In my view we shifted from a young earth paradigm to an old earth paradigm some hundreds of years ago according to the weight of evidence, which was an improvement in our understanding of reality, as Kuhn described.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

Cheers -- SeeJay

#55 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 27 May 2011 - 01:06 PM

Hi Spectre -- Sorry for the delayed response.

No problem, things happen.

If I may, allow me to wrap up this conversation. Clearly we have different worldview biases - just to explicate these, not in any way to criticise, here is the way I see these different biases:

The evolutionist worldview acknowledges all the evidence that we have - whether its old or new, near or far, microscopic or galaxy-size. They see that this evidence exhibits a common trend or correlation, pointing to an old universe conclusion, which forms a "background" against which new pieces of evidence must be evaluated.

What about the evidence that correlates with a young Earth? Evidence that we can observe such as carbon in coal and dinosaur bones, tissue on dinosaur bones, polystrata fossils, living fossils, The Bible, and helium in diamonds? There is a myriad of evidence for a young earth. To list them all here would be quite a task. Why not teach a model for a younger Earth next to the old Earth model and let the children and college students decide for themselves? Proponents of an old Earth are typically very protective of the model and will not allow any other competing model to surface.

When one points out some observation that, taken in isolation, might suggest a young universe, the evolutionist has at least two problems with that: (1) an apparent short-lived process (eg. young Neptune) only sets a lower limit on the universe's age, and logically of course the universe can be far older than some younger thing inside it; and (2) the evolutionist already has a "background" conclusion of old age based on the correlations of loads of other, independent evidence, and there's no epiistemic warrant to sweep all that under the rug due to an isolated or poorly understood anomaly.

The solar system is thought to be billions of years old in its entirety. The point of Neptune possibly being younger than the solar system would not support the secular model that you are advocating. In an old universe model(But there is not one to my knowledge that would say that Neptune is younger than the rest of the solar system), it is possible for Neptune to be younger than the rest of the solar system if the Biblical account of Creation were not true. As for your second point, secular cosmologist's evidence for an old universe is mostly either closed minded assertions of things they don't know about or are fabricated theories that make the "evidence" fit, such as inflation.

However, you completely bypassed and missed the point of my last post. Do you disagree that successful predictions have value in Science? If Humphreys is wrong about both the Biblical account of Creation and the age of the universe why was his predictions on every planet but Jupiter correct? And dont' forget, I already explained why Jupiter would be a special case. And to be honest, if I was alive to help him with that model he would of probably had that dead on too, because I would assume a better alignment of elements due to the immense pull of Jupiter's gravitational field.

Young earth proponents, on the other hand, appear to discount any evidence that indicates an ancient universe a priori, based on their Biblical understanding. Therefore, they lack the large "background" conclusion of old age that the evolutionist has. So when an apparent short-lived process is observed, it appears to have great significance.

There were thoughts that the universe may have been old before secular ideas of an old universe came about. There are different ways to interpret that Biblical Creation account, the reason why I accept a Young Universe is because there is just simply stronger evidence for it that need not have fabricated theories to adjust the numbers to fit our models. Secular scientists had an "a priori" assumption of an old universe before the "evidence" was found, I am afraid that the particular argument you are using fails at its premise.

So on the one hand we have young earth proponents pointing to things like planetary magnetic fields and saying "See, an old universe is refuted", whilst the evolutionists are saying "But what about all this other evidence over here?" and its like they're totally talking past each other!

Seejay, this is a strawman, I never claimed that this falsifies an old universe. I simply claimed that this is very strong evidence for a young universe. I told you at the beginning of our debate that an old universe is unfalsifiable. You have to take both models and build them, and so far, the young universe models are better. Magnetic fields are certainly not the only evidence for a young universe, but you must agree that for you who believes in an old universe that the accurate predictions of magnetic fields by young earth creationists must be disturbing. Why do you think that our models were correct while your scientists were completely wrong?



With regard to planetary formation and the magnetic field data, I really don't want to go into that too much. The reason is, Humphrey's model is basically saying the planets look the way they do because God zapped them that way. To my mind this is essentially an "apparent age" argument - things look old because when God made them recently he gave them the appearance of a much greater age. This argument concedes that when scientists say "Golly, this looks really old" they are honestly presenting the fact of the matter - not because of evolutionist assumptions, but because that's what God created for them to see!

You are again, bypassing the point Seejay. Predictions in Science, especially physics have value, in such a highly theoretical field of science such as any branch of physics, accurate predictions are rare. Humphreys prediction was correct, secular cosmologists were wrong. You are criticizing the logic for his model when it was the only one that matched the data. If his logic is flawed and the authority in which he set his model's data on is incorrect, why was he correct in nearly all of his predictions? If you continue the discussion, please answer the question as I believe I poised it in my last post.


I believe the natural universe was created by God own hand, and thus it is a reflection of His nature (Romans 1:20). Accordingly, we can expect the natural world to be internally self-consistent and lawlike, and this is indeed what we find. It also means that when we see something in nature, it is not an illusion but truly an element of the creation intended by God in fulfilment of His plans. And when we find things we do not understand, it is not because the world is just random, but because there are deeper laws that God has put in place to govern such things that we have not yet discovered. This is not a scientific view, but a view on the philosophical foundations of science. If nature was chaotic, mischievous and illusory - rather than regular, lawlike and real as the Bible teaches - then science would not be possible (this is something atheists seem blind to!).

So that's my view on that.

Regards -- SeeJay

Thank you for sharing your views, I was making sure you weren't a naturalism proponent poising as a theistic evolutionist. I get a lot of those, but I am satisfied with your answer.

#56 Tirian

Tirian

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 30 May 2011 - 12:48 AM

Hi Tirian

Hmm. I did come across a bit arrogant and naive. Sorry. I typed that last post very quickly with my laptop on my knees on a train, when I realised I hadn't responded to Spectre.

To answer your questions briefly:

1. Constant speed of light over the past billion years.

2. Individual evolutionists have discounted evidence. But the evolutionist worldview consists in the shared findings of hundreds of thousands of investigators of many different faiths and biases. Amongst this multitude, all the evidence we have ever had is being taken seriously by some group somewhere, and feeding it back into the worldwide community for review, retesting, reanalysis etc.

3. Of course. Every human being makes a priori assumptions as part of everyday living. Secular science strives to use only such assumptions as appear to be common to all people, and avoids those that are unique to specific groups with admitted bias.

4. Definitely not. There is plenty of evidence that is ambiguous, could be interpreted different ways etc. However, some conclusions, like a great age for the universe, are based on the correlation of a huge amount of evidence from independent areas. The stronger the correlations, the stronger the conclusion.

I agree with Kuhn, for the most part. In my view we shifted from a young earth paradigm to an old earth paradigm some hundreds of years ago according to the weight of evidence, which was an improvement in our understanding of reality, as Kuhn described.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

Cheers -- SeeJay


Hi SeeJay,

Thanks for the answer. I do have some more thoughts about my initial questions.

1 - Can you really prove (without any assumptions) that the speed of light has been constant over the past billion years. How do you accomplish this?

2 and 3 - My point was simply that the evolutionist worldview does not give you any advantages in interpreting the data. There are the same pitfalls and possibilities to discredit or do a priori reasoning. It all comes down to the individual researcher, how open minded are he or she to different interpretations of the data. And here I do believe an atheistic view hampers your options, and that is way they only believe in the evolutionist worldview. Giving that up means that atheist also have to give up their naturalistic beliefs, which few are willing to do.

4 - I simply disagree here. There are alot of facts that may be explained by the old age model. But the same facts can also be explained by young age models. So the only way to actually see which model might be better or worse is to compare how the models interpret different facts. And that is a huge undertaking. So these kind of sweeping statements about 'huge amounts of evidence' just makes me believe that you are trying to dodge the problem. Instead you could talk about examples of facts that are better explained using an old age model. Then we could have a proper discussion about it.

#57 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 May 2011 - 05:27 AM

There is one fact that is and always will be true: Creation and Evolution make completely opposite predictions, so there is no way that it could be a matter of interpretation; The evidence fits one or the other.

The question is: Which model has to keep changing it's hypothesis because the data doesn't fit it's predictions? It's certainly evolution.

Creation predicts abrupt appearance and stasis, so evolution changes to P.E.

Creation predicts a young age for dinosaurs, so evolution tries to explain away C14 and soft tissue in the bones.

Creation predicts a young age for the geologic column, so evolution is now a study of catastrophism.


Does anybody see the pattern?

#58 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 30 May 2011 - 09:50 AM

There is one fact that is and always will be true: Creation and Evolution make completely opposite predictions, so there is no way that it could be a matter of interpretation; The evidence fits one or the other.

The question is: Which model has to keep changing it's hypothesis because the data doesn't fit it's predictions? It's certainly evolution.

Creation predicts abrupt appearance and stasis, so evolution changes to P.E.

Creation predicts a young age for dinosaurs, so evolution tries to explain away C14 and soft tissue in the bones.

Creation predicts a young age for the geologic column, so evolution is now a study of catastrophism.
Does anybody see the pattern?

View Post

and they say science corrects itself. if they were really searching for the truth they would drop darwinism all together and state that the creation model is the closest theory to the truth. they often say evo is just a theory but often wont do what they preach. allow that to be faslefiable.

#59 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 30 May 2011 - 10:11 AM

There is one fact that is and always will be true: Creation and Evolution make completely opposite predictions, so there is no way that it could be a matter of interpretation; The evidence fits one or the other.

The question is: Which model has to keep changing it's hypothesis because the data doesn't fit it's predictions? It's certainly evolution.

Creation predicts abrupt appearance and stasis, so evolution changes to P.E.

Creation predicts a young age for dinosaurs, so evolution tries to explain away C14 and soft tissue in the bones.

Creation predicts a young age for the geologic column, so evolution is now a study of catastrophism.
Does anybody see the pattern?

View Post

That just....Wasn't fair. lol

#60 Newhope

Newhope

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Astronomy, soap making, bush walking, gym.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • NSW, Australia

Posted 11 June 2011 - 02:39 PM

There is one fact that is and always will be true: Creation and Evolution make completely opposite predictions, so there is no way that it could be a matter of interpretation; The evidence fits one or the other.

The question is: Which model has to keep changing it's hypothesis because the data doesn't fit it's predictions? It's certainly evolution.

Creation predicts abrupt appearance and stasis, so evolution changes to P.E.

Creation predicts a young age for dinosaurs, so evolution tries to explain away C14 and soft tissue in the bones.

Creation predicts a young age for the geologic column, so evolution is now a study of catastrophism.


Does anybody see the pattern?



Absolutely, I can see the pattern you speak to and what Fred says about dino soft tissue. Well stated.

Rather than admit they got it all wrong, evolutionary researchers make up a whole lot of theories as to why this flesh survived.

As for their carbon dating and models, they are becoming more unbelievable as time goes on.

http://www.scienceda...10217141307.htm

http://www.scienceda...10518121227.htm




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users