Creation vs. Evolution II

[Greg Jennings]

Well, indeed. But it applies just as well to the creationist mentality.

Stuart

I'm not overly anti-Trump or anything, but it is interesting that most of his supporters are....let's call it factually challenged. They either reject science/studies or haven't received the specific education necessary so that they can make informed decisions about them.

For example, global warming denial is highly accepted within the Trump fan base

 

[Greg Jennings]

For some reason you want to make this fraud? I didn't suggest that. The evolutionists sincerely believed the radiometric dating results of 200+ million years. *A few years later a skull was found and Leaky said that the tuff had to be less than 5 million. The *radiometeic results were ignored and the current date which is assigned by concensus is 1.82 million. It isn't fraud... but it does show how sometimes the data is ignored and dates are assigned to coincide with evolutionary beliefs.*
Which date do you think was improper...the radiometric date? Or the date assigned by concensus?*

This is from this link that you originally posted in reference to our discussion about Leakey's skull: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

From it: "Louis Leakey saw KNM-ER 1470 only days before his death, and, believing the skull to be a million years older than it was, classified it as an “indeterminate species of Homo.”"


From the second link you provided:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer

"The team's radiometric dating indicated that the fossils were 2.6 million years old. The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence. A later independent investigation revised the date to 1.9 mya."

That's not 200 million. Have you been exaggerating?

 

[redfern]

Oh silly humanist, the human didn't EVOLVE into salt. The being that made worlds out of nothing accomplished the task.

I am well aware of your belief in that matter. My bringing up this salt-lady question was occasioned by 6days’ frequent assertions that science confirms God’s Word. 6days has agreed that for science to confirm God’s Word, science must be allowed to be conducted free of religious conditions, and then the conclusions that science comes up with can then be compared with religious claims.

As you so pointedly affirm, you hold the lady to salt transformation to be a divine act, not something explainable by natural law. That lady to salt transformation not only is not explainable by science, but violates several of the most fundamental laws recognized in science. Even if the lady to salt transformation was accomplished as a divine act, it is ludicrous (or simply mindlessly dishonest) for 6days to make the claim that science supports God’s Word, when the salt-lady account in God’s word makes a mockery of fundamental parts of science.

 

[TIPlatypus]

You're simply wrong on this. If what you said were true, we wouldn't be able to convict anyone of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. Every jury would simply say "We are unable to reach any conclusions about the crime because it happened in the past and it is impossible to conduct any tests on past events".

Of course most of realize how ridiculous that is and understand that scientists conduct tests of past events all the time. Take archaeology for example....let's say someone hypothesizes that prior to European settlement, the Cheyenne Tribe traded and intermingled with the Chinook Tribe. According to you, we can never tell, right?

But in the real world there are lots of ways to test the hypothesis. We can carry out excavations of Cheyenne Tribal sites and look for Chinook artifacts. We can examine their languages and see if there are any indications that they influenced each other. We can examine the DNA of existing members and look for specific types of shared sequences that would indicate interbreeding.

I treat archaeological evidence the same way as manuscripts. They may not be eyewitnesses but they are witnesses. In these cases, science (and maybe other disciplines) is required to interpret the meaning of evidence of historical events. So, yes we can tell very easily. Witnesses do not have to be people. I hope this clears things up for you.

 

[TIPlatypus]

Was Noahs grandfather, Methuselah a fictitious character? Enoch? Cain?*
Why would you believe the virgin birth yet reject the lineage between Adam and Christ? If you reject the doctrine of original sin, then why was it necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin? And, why did Jesus need to suffer physical death?

If you accept the doctrine of original sin, then surely you agree that non-christian children who die go to hell. But my understanding, is that everyone sins one day, inevitably, due to living in the world, and usually this happens very early in life. In the end, the outcome is the same as the doctrine of original sin. That is, most of the conclusions you make are the ones I make.

 

[TIPlatypus]

I pointed out how you were misusing the word "Theory" as it pertains to science and your reply was: "Yes, but I was using the word "Theory" as it is used in common speech." Excuse me but what? A Theory in science is not meant in the same way as common speech, as I pointed out. If you're claiming that the Theory of Evolution is not a scientific Theory but a common theory then your gripe is with the science community, not with me.

I explained in simple terms how best to view a scientific Theory, and you reply was: "Well, that is not good enough. Scientific theory is more specific. You can get away with anything generalising like that."

Oh dear..... science does not deal in "perceived" absolute truths like religion. It generates Theories based on the available evidence. If new evidence comes to light and is meticulously examined and peer reviewed then the Theory may need to be edited to suit. Once an hypothesis becomes recognised as a Theory in science then it is at its most esteemed level, unless a better Theory is presented, again based on the evidence, rigorous testing and peer review.

Science is not perfect. It is generally laborious, messy and sometimes open to abused. But it is by far the most successful human endeavour there is when it comes to gaining real knowledge about the natural world. And it is by far the best known way to over come confirmation bias.

So no, I have no intention of quibbling back and forth for pages and pages over your misconceptions. Do your self a favour and do a little home work first, because as it is we're not even on the same page.

You must have misunderstood me somehow. I agree with everything you have said here.

 

[Jose Fly]

I treat archaeological evidence the same way as manuscripts. They may not be eyewitnesses but they are witnesses. In these cases, science (and maybe other disciplines) is required to interpret the meaning of evidence of historical events. So, yes we can tell very easily. Witnesses do not have to be people. I hope this clears things up for you.

So you agree that past events can be scientifically investigated and have conclusions drawn about them.

 

[TIPlatypus]

You're reading it wrong.

Mankind doesn't die because they know the difference between good and evil, nor does it say that. Read it carefully. Man chose between eternal life and the knowledge of good and evil. There's nothing wrong with man wanting to know good: Good would be life eternal. But man chose to know not just to know the good that was offered, but to know both good and evil. For that, mankind was cursed to die.

This is very interesting. But:
Gen 3:22
I daresay, that only God is allowed the knowledge of good and evil and living forever at the same time.

I imagine, usually, that a child finds out what is right and wrong because it has done something wrong and is punished, as Adam and Eve were. Therefore, sinning initially and acquiring the knowledge of good and evil are the same thing (for a child). Later on this changes because you now have wisdom. So you can see what is wrong without committing that wrong.

Our society and laws reflect the same concept. We are allowed certain freedoms, and there are good things provided for us. Some people, however, also choose that they want to determine for themselves what is "right" for them, and they also choose to have knowledge of evil. Our laws condemn these people to death. Those that choose knowledge of rape, murder, cannibalism, child molestation, and human trafficking are sentenced to death.

But we both know about all these crimes, although we have never committed them. That is the knowledge of evil. Knowing about it is enough.

 

[6days]

This is from this link that you originally posted in reference to our discussion about Leakey's skull: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470

From it: "Louis Leakey saw KNM-ER 1470 only days before his death, and, believing the skull to be a million years older than it was, classified it as an “indeterminate species of Homo.”"


From the second link you provided:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer

"The team's radiometric dating indicated that the fossils were 2.6 million years old. The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence. A later independent investigation revised the date to 1.9 mya."

That's not 200 million. Have you been exaggerating?

You might have ignored the pertinent paragraph in my post...much like the evolutionists ignored the lab results that didn't match their belief system.
I had said... "In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon) However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct."

 

[6days]

Equally amazing is that the vast majority of humanity couldn’t see even 1% of 1% of what you describe, and even today we have only surveyed a tiny bit of the universe that is close to us. God might have impressed Himself, but I can’t see much value in creating a universe so vast that almost no one knew how big, and the vastness itself means diddly-squat to how humans conduct their lives.

It's an exciting time to be a Christian. Not only are we realizing the vastness of space, but also the incredible complex sophistication within the cell. Many view science as a form of worship.*

"The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”*Henry “Fritz” Schaeffer, 5 time nobel nominee

*"Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”
Joseph H. Taylor, Jr.,**1993 Nobel Prize in Physics

"This sense of wonder leads most scientists to a Superior Being – der Alte, the Old One, as Einstein affectionately called the Deity – a Superior Intelligence, the Lord of all Creation and Natural Law.”Abdus Salam, 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics*

For myself, faith begins with a realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence—an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered—-‘In the beginning God.'”
Arthur Compton, 1927 Nobel Prize in Physics*

Also... not for you Redfern, but Chris Tomlin had a great worship song called 'How Great is our God'. Providing a beat for the song is the recorded sound from a Quasar. How cool!

 

[TIPlatypus]

So you agree that past events can be scientifically investigated and have conclusions drawn about them.

Oh yes, but not exclusively, and not always.
The point is, past events cannot be shown to be true exclusively using the scientific method as present events can be. In replacement for testing and repeated observation, you have to have witnesses. And historical events recorded by people cannot be proved or disproved by science at all.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You might have ignored the pertinent paragraph in my post...much like the evolutionists ignored the lab results that didn't match their belief system.
I had said... "In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon) However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct."

You did say that. And it was from only you. You had no source backing this up at all. Not even a shoddy one. You just made that up as far as I or anyone else can tell.

If you can provide some sort of citation to verify your claim, then please do

 

[Jose Fly]

The point is, past events cannot be shown to be true exclusively using the scientific method as present events can be.

It's not clear what you mean by that.

In replacement for testing and repeated observation, you have to have witnesses. And historical events recorded by people cannot be proved or disproved by science at all.

Sorry, but you're not making much sense. The fact is, scientists investigate, test, and draw conclusions about past events--some that were witnessed and some that weren't--all the time, every single day.

The only reason this even comes up is because creationists try and dishonestly/ignorantly argue that the parts of evolutionary theory that deal with past events are somehow unscientific, merely because they occurred in the past.

Hopefully we've now dispelled that idiotic talking point.

 

[Stuu]

Stuu, now be nice. Don’t post any words stronger than “darn”, don’t step on anyone’s toes, tread very gently when contesting belief of the locals, etc, etc, and maybe you can avoid your all-too-frequent enforced vacations.

I'm grateful for your undoubtedly sensible advice. I have never used language of the kind you mean, and I have never abused anyone personally. I have challenged beliefs. A complaint against me doing that says more about the complainant than it does about me.

When I signed up here eight years ago, and indeed probably it was the same when you signed up, the rules promised that enforcement would be arbitrary, and it is. And I entirely accept that the owners of this site can do what they like.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

evolutionists ignored the lab results that didn't match their belief system.

Scientists will ignore individual points that do not conform to an otherwise obvious trend that is supported by a large body of consistent data. Such rogue points are a normal outcome from processes such as radioisotope dating. As I understand it, great care has to be taken to select a dating sample that hasn't been contaminated with younger or older material but sometimes contamination happens.

An example is from the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. That had to be done carefully because of the 'greasy bishop' problem, in which the oils from the skin of those who had carried the mounted shroud by its edges had introduced a much 'newer' carbon isotope ratio to the cloth.

It is appropriate for scientists to ignore small numbers of outlying data. What is dishonest is creationists who cherry-pick those individual data that do not fit the obvious trend, and only talk about them.

Stuart

 

[6days]

*You did say that. And it was from only you. You had no source backing this up at all. Not even a shoddy one. You just made that up as far as I or anyone else can tell.*

Oh dear... I gave you the info and the authors. Why not try google it using atheist site 'Talkorigins' telling you how to defend against this. But even they admit that radiometric dating works but with certain caveats. If you can't find it in Talkorigins, I will give you the link.*

In any case it is an example of circular reasoning often employed in evolutionists dating methods. The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils... dates often assigned to fit evolutiinary beliefs. Agree?

 

[redfern]

I'm not defending Lisle's hypothesis. But I did ask if the one way speed of light is a convention. That MAY be part of the answer in how God created so that man could see stars which had been created two days earlier. The answer MAY lie in the speed God spread the heavens.

In science, when there are competing explanations proposed (like whether the light from M31 has been traveling towards earth for millions of years – or whether the light from M31 was created in-transit – or whether it traverses the distance almost instantly), then scientists look for ways to try and determine which of the explanations is most likely correct. That is what I was doing.

You already asserted that M31 is 3 million LY distant, and I agree. We disagree on how long it has existed so far away. My question was directed towards seeing if there is a scientifically reasonable explanation for how we see M31.

Repeating the question: About how long have the “M31” photons that arrive at my telescope tonight been travelling?

“I don’t know”, and “I am not qualified to engage this question” are both reasonable answers.

 

[6days]

Scientists will ignore individual points that do not conform to an otherwise obvious trend that is supported by a large body of consistent data. Such rogue points are a normal outcome from processes such as radioisotope dating. As I understand it, great care has to be taken to select a dating sample that hasn't been contaminated with younger or older material but sometimes contamination happens.

An example is from the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. That had to be done carefully because of the 'greasy bishop' problem, in which the oils from the skin of those who had carried the mounted shroud by its edges had introduced a much 'newer' carbon isotope ratio to the cloth.

It is appropriate for scientists to ignore small numbers of outlying data. What is dishonest is creationists who cherry-pick those individual data that do not fit the obvious trend, and only talk about them.

Good post Stuu. ....or, at least some of it is.

Often what happens though is that results that don't fit *within the expected range are dismissed as contaminated...or as an outlier....or an anomaly. *Some of the papers mention the difficulty in obtaining a good sample... IOW; a good sample is one that is consistent with the reseachers expected results. *Sometimes the assigned date is effected by the researchers hopes his find is significant, (insisting its a new species) so he, or she, is 'needing' a certain dating result. *And...as in the case of 1470 skull which was in 150 pieces, the reconstruction favored a more human like appearance. Over the course of time, *many have questioned the initial portrayal, and many now say 1470 appears similar to*australopithecines.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

Oh dear... I gave you the info and the authors. Why not try google it using atheist site 'Talkorigins' telling you how to defend against this. But even they admit that radiometric dating works but with certain caveats. If you can't find it in Talkorigins, I will give you the link.*

In any case it is an example of circular reasoning often employed in evolutionists dating methods. The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils... dates often assigned to fit evolutiinary beliefs. Agree?

I don't agree. If you showed me proof that you did not make your claim up then I might have to reconsider

 

[Stuu]

Good post Stuu. ....or, at least some of it is.

Often what happens though is that results that don't fit *within the expected range are dismissed as contaminated...or as an outlier....or an anomaly. *Some of the papers mention the difficulty in obtaining a good sample... IOW; a good sample is one that is consistent with the reseachers expected results. *Sometimes the assigned date is effected by the researchers hopes his find is significant, (insisting its a new species) so he, or she, is 'needing' a certain dating result. *And...as in the case of 1470 skull which was in 150 pieces, the reconstruction favored a more human like appearance. Over the course of time, *many have questioned the initial portrayal, and many now say 1470 appears similar to*australopithecines.*

There you go again, cherry-picking the outliers.

There is no difference between excluding a single dating outlier because it doesn't conform to the trend established by other dating results, and excluding a single dating outlier because it doesn't conform to trends in the morphology of the fossils associated with the particular dated strata. The overwhelming body of evidence that already establishes, for example, that bunny rabbits won't be found in Cambrian rock is itself just as valid for determining dating errors as are other dating data.

That's not to say a suspected Cambrian bunny rabbit femur would not be investigated further; these people aren't dogmatic or dishonest like creationists are.

Real science has mechanisms for correcting the errors induced by any individual who wants to promote a particular view by cherry-picking data. Peer review usually does the trick, and science is not dogmatic but always provisional so is permanently open to new evidence. But creationism has no correction mechanisms, and in fact doesn't even have any theories.

I note, by the way, that few creationists who question the reliability of dating techniques ever claim that the real ages of dated strata could in fact be much older than stated. In general, dating techniques claim accuracies of ±0.5%.

Your hilarious AiG material refers to 'evolutionary geologists'. Do they mean to say 'paleontologists'? Can you translate this term from creationist speak into something a real scientist would recognise?

Stuart