young creation?

[Bread_of_Life]

they arn't scientists, they're barely Christians I would argue, and they can disagree just as much as they like, they're still wrong I'm afraid.

[nebula]

2. They don't always present the evidence accurately, but often twist it to mean things it doesn't.

For those wondering why I have rejected ICR and AIG - this is why.

You wouldn't understand this unless you have actually heard/ read the accounts, but these guys seriously do not things accurately. I mean, in these debates I was in, several "Creationists" would present the arguments offered by these web pages, and the non-Creationists (many Athiests, some not so but just not "Creationists") would begin by explaining how wrong these sites presented what mainstream science actually said!

Do you have any idea how humiliating this felt?

How can we present believable arguments if we can't even accurately explain what the other side is saying?

they arn't scientists, they're barely Christians I would argue,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you say they are "barely Christians"?

[Bread_of_Life]

"Christian" means "Christ Like", literally. Christ is the truth, according the Christianity, and Satan is the author of lies. The number of those I've seen from creationists doesn't bear thinking.

[Botz]

SA...You might like to use the colour system as the quote feature seems to be rather tempramental at the moment...don't you just love the hackers.

Yes Richard Dawkins is readable which is always an advantage.

I see what you mean about the Piltdown man hoax...interesting site...thanks.

Interesting about the Coelacanths...I never realised there were so many different types indentified or that some were able to survive in shallower water.

I am sure some Creationists have jumped to certain conclusions before and maybe there are several bad'uns amongst them...but it would be pretty self-defeating for them to present easily disprovable evidence and think that Christians are going to believe it lock stock and barrel just because they themselves are Christians...or Fundamentalist if you like....we are not all brain dead...and we do weigh up the evidence as well as we are able.

I would agree, but for a few reasons:

1. They don't always present all the evidence, in fact, they rarely do. They are expert at cutting and pasting out of context.

2. They don't always present the evidence accurately, but often twist it to mean things it doesn't.

I saw Nebulas comment about this as well and will naturally bear it all in mind ...I have not been to any of these debates although there was a rather good one on TV a couple of years ago and the boot was very much on the other foot.

3. They are working with a public at large that knows almost nothing about the evidence, and hasn't done its research - and also have an in-built attraction to their theory through belief in the bible.

How much research into any of this does a layman do whatever beliefs or lack of them he holds? I mean before I became a Believer I didn't actually put faith in evolution...I just naturally thought it must be true because those that educated us taught it as true...and I would say the vast majority of people are in the same boat...for most it is a non-issue...but for many Christians it appears to be used as an Atheistic assault against the integrity of the Bible...so we try to get informed.

It would be natural for Christians to listen to Scientists that they trusted because they shared the same faith and understood the biblical implications of certain evolutionary theories...and it would also be natural for them to be rather wary of hearing thories about the age of the earth and the origin of mankind from the lips of those who had proved that they had no time for either G-d or the Bible.

You must understand that many Christians will always weigh the evidence before them through the words of the biblical accounts and the wisdom of G-d in as far as they are able....and that it is impossible for us all to become qualified Scientists in order to formulate a proper and more informed and scientific answer to these things...but as has been established that in no way means closing ones mind to reasonable evidence that might seem to contradict previously held ideas.

You may think by 3 that I'm insulting you all. I'm not. But I've never ever met an "amateur" creationist on a bulletin board, or IRL, that can accurately describe the evidence for evolution. Indeed, I've never met any creationist that has. What that suggests is that creationists are not selling to experts, they're selling to non-experts.

Hmmm (see above)...but I would warrant that there are more Christians with some idea of evolutionary theory than there are others...because it involves at some stage the nature of belief.

I don't know each and every creationist ever to live, so I couldn't tell you. What I can say is that my experience of them and their methods has been extremely negative. I have repeatedly found them to lie, or deliberately twist evidence, or ignore it, or quote scientists wildly out of context.

WHat is most concerning to me Botz, is that just one instance of the above would lead to rejection from the scientific community. Yet, I have seen multiple instance of each of these from creationists, and yet they are not dealt with. They are not ejected from the community. This makes me very suspicious, as well as many other things that I have mentioned here and above.

It would worry me too if what you say is an accurate picture about some of the antics of Creationists....for me listening to you it makes me a little more careful in double checking all information...and having a closer look at some of the ways Creationists might not measure up....I'm not trying to justify them or make excuses...but I have been a Christian for a while now and have seen all sorts come out of the woodwork...I have learnt not to place my trust in men whatever they may say they believe.

Does part of the Scientific method mean leaving out G-d ?

The scientific method is about coming to conclusions about natural causes and natural history. Therefore God is outside of remit.

That doesn't mean that God is left out of it, Scientists can also be theists - and believe that God was constantly involved in shaping the natural world. But when they go to work, they don't talk about divine causes, but rather natural causes, not because divine causes don't exist, but because they are outwith the remit of science.

Now, what creationists want you to believe is that they are talking about divine causes. Actually, they're not, they're making testable claims about nature and natural history. They're not just saying "god created the earth", otherwise science would have nothing to say about this statement. Science can neither prove or disprove it.

Rather creationists are saying "the earth is so-and-so years old, the animals were created in so-and-so order, and the animals are unrelated, and man isn't related to apes". These arn't commenting on the divine at all. They are testable scientific hypotheses for which empirical evidence can be gathered, and therefore they are falsifiable. Science therefore has something to say about them.

I don't really see this.

How can G-d be left outside of creation...it is like looking at an abstract painting and discussing its various merits but never asking the artist what he intended or reading anything up about his life and what influenced his style.

From my perspective in this instance natural causes are designed by G-d ...and man has used Science to discover what has already been set in motion...and to define and correlate the evidence as they see it...I cannot see how G-d can be left out even if you don't believe in Him surely the possibility of divine cause/initiation is of paramount importance especially if you tell me that theories are only good until something better comes along.

If you told me that we were learning French and that the question of the divine is not in the remit...then I would have no trouble in agreeing with you...but I cannot understand the stance taken it doesn't make sense to me.

What I am saying is that they all have the same prejudice and the same bias toward the data. They admit it, they stick by it, they even deliberately put the bias before the data.

Compare this to the scientific community, a massive entity full of different biases, different prejudices, where people actively try to put the data, the evidence BEFORE the bias. Sure, they're not always able to - but at least if there are enough different biases when they come to a conclusion it's unlikely to be biased

I think the non-Creationist scientific community must be somewhat larger than the Creationist community of scientists and therefore will always appear more diverse and liberal in their presentation...do you know what the ratio is per evolutionist against creationist?

I believe a certain ideology prevalent amongst scientists in this and several instances leads them to the wrong conclusions.

I think you'd find, in a sample of scientists, that the only common ideology is that of the scientific method.

My Uni, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, was essentially, as the name suggests, sci and tech only. I was in the physics department. I've never seen more Chrsitians per square yard. And muslims. No kidding, the place was just full of them.

There were actually 4 seperate Christian Unions. They even had competing events. There were 2 versions of the alpha course running there. Seriously, the place was full of religious people. Lots of sikhs and hindus too.

That is enlightening.. and heartening.

I don't believe automatically what any Scientist says...and as you pointed out previously their theories only last until they are disproved...so Science is perfect but Scientists are not because by nature they interpret.

Firstly, I have never asked you to believe something because a scientist said it.

Secondly, the problem isn't interpretation - all theories are interpretations, the problem is incomplete evidence. That is why theories are overturned, not because they are interpretive. There is a way of getting to the right interpretation of the evidence, it's called "testing predictions". Sure, all theories are interpretations of the evidence, but only one is right, so only one is likely to get its predictions right.

So what you are indicating to me is that scientists are apt to jump to the wrong conclusions until they have all the evidence...but we don't ever know when we can really say they have all the evidence?

Personally I would have thought there were a number of things that could lead to a mis-leading diagnostic...such as

1. Personal bias/belief/indoctrination/agenda

2. Insufficient Data.

3. Misinterpretation.

4. Pressure to produce a result.

I dare say there are others...I expect you will say that this is not true Science...and it isn't but it is this very human element that seems to give even the exactitude of Science a certain je ne sais quoi and make the results less predictable than we like to think.

The flaw in the scientific method lies with the interpretation of the evidence from what I have seen and tried hard to understand.

Really, it doesn't. The reason science keeps changing is because new evidence is constantly found. Interpretation is pretty black and white when you make a prediction and it doesn't come true.

(Please see above) I would think that some predictions are fairly safe as there is no way of finding out how true they really are in our life-time...maybe even for eons...but this is just me speculating.

I'm not quite sure what you mean SA I am not a closet Twilight-Zoner and I will always consider any argument or theory in as far as I am capable...and I am not in the habit of telling someone they are of the Devil.

Good, then I take it you will take tested or testable, and very specific predictions as good evidence of a theory, whatever that theory, because people can't see into the future. Excellent. I think you and I need to have a chat then. I'll set up a new thread when I have time

Looking forward to it mate.

[Bread_of_Life]

Botz,

The colour system sounds good, although I don't know how to use it properly. So for now I'll use emboldening.

I see what you mean about the Piltdown man hoax...interesting site...thanks.

It's my pleasure, you will find many answers to questions on the talk origins site.

Interesting about the Coelacanths...I never realised there were so many different types indentified or that some were able to survive in shallower water.

Many people make the mistake of thinking of Coelacanth's a a species of fish - rather they are more a genus - marked out by the distinctive lobed-fin structure. Most though have become extinct.

By the way, on a side point, creationists usually explain the fossil record in terms of a flood. I have always wondered how they explain marine extinctions in this way, or extinctions at all in the fossil record! Anyway.

I saw Nebulas comment about this as well and will naturally bear it all in mind ...I have not been to any of these debates although there was a rather good one on TV a couple of years ago and the boot was very much on the other foot.

I have never been to a creationist vs evolutionist debate either. I am basing what I say on my extensive reading of creationist literature and web-resources.

How much research into any of this does a layman do whatever beliefs or lack of them he holds? I mean before I became a Believer I didn't actually put faith in evolution...I just naturally thought it must be true because those that educated us taught it as true...and I would say the vast majority of people are in the same boat...

I agree, Jo. Public knows very little whatever faith he's at about science. Most people just have to take what they are taught at school on little more than trust, because they do not have the time, skills or inclination to learn more.

This is an unfortunate failing of our education system, and more especially in scientific education.

but for many Christians it appears to be used as an Atheistic assault against the integrity of the Bible...so we try to get informed.

I question how hard you try Botz. Not just you, but all creationists I've met. Look at yomotalking as a prime example, I could give many many more.

You could argue that he had tried to get informed, but actually, he'd just looked at a popular creationist site, believed what he saw, and quite deliberately never bothered checking on the other side of the fence. This left him rather exposed, because he didn't know that magnetic field reversals have been common in the fossil record, or that we had good readings of the recent magnetic field of the earth.

This exposure blew his argument out of the water, just as it did for creationists in the early 80's, when this "proof" was first formally rebutted and proved false. In fact, the first documented instance of the rebuttal to this argument I can find is from 3 months before I was born. I'm now 23, ask yourself Botz, why am I still rebutting it? Why do creationists persist in printing it? And why given the plentiful information on the internet do people like yomotalking, as well as so many other fellow religionists, still believe it, when you claim they do their research?

Also, and I don't want to get too personal here, but the Coelacanth is a fairly famous fossil. There are web resources all over the internet that are simply to find on google that would have told you the full story behind this amazing discovery. If you had really been dedicated, even in a small way, to getting yourself informed, you could easily have done so. I suggest therefore that you were really interested in getting yourself armed against evolution, at the expense of being informed properly.

To your credit, you are reading a book by Richard Dawkins (although I would have recommended starting with the easier "River out of Eden", I did). Dawkins in one of his books even mentions Coelacanth, it's where I first heard of fossil animals.

It would be natural for Christians to listen to Scientists that they trusted because they shared the same faith and understood the biblical implications of certain evolutionary theories...and it would also be natural for them to be rather wary of hearing thories about the age of the earth and the origin of mankind from the lips of those who had proved that they had no time for either G-d or the Bible.

Agreed, but then there are websites dedicated to science from people who do believe the same as them. I don't know how many times I've posted this up, but here it is again:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

This is actually an account of radiometric dating from a Christian perspective. Surf to the homepage, and you'll find a whole organisation of scientific Christians in America and all sorts of topics including evolution.

I can say having read through this account that it is wholly accurate (actually, I have a single minor disagreement with the author, which I have discussed with him in an email, he seems like a real nice guy). However, the science here is absolutely accurate.

Question is, why is it that I managed to find this, and not you, or WhysoBlind who was my main opponent on the stuff about radiometric dating. I would suggest again that it's because neither of you have really looked very hard, especially WhysoBlind.

Suffice to say though, there are Christian scientists who actually propagate genuine science.

Hmmm (see above)...but I would warrant that there are more Christians with some idea of evolutionary theory than there are others...because it involves at some stage the nature of belief.

I disagree. I think that the average Christian is probably just as ignorant about science as the average atheist. The Christian though tends to think they know more, because they have been busy learning things from creationist websites.

Why else would Christians like WhysoBlind make wildly inaccurate comments about C14 dating and half lives in front a qualified physicist, unless they were pretty confident about what they knew?

It would worry me too if what you say is an accurate picture about some of the antics of Creationists....for me listening to you it makes me a little more careful in double checking all information..

I'm glad that I'm starting to at least instill enough doubt in you that you might double check what a creationist says against what science says.

Let me give you another example:

"we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information"

David M. Raup, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Vol. 50 #1

This is a favourite creationist misquote. I first heard of it when reading Science vs Creationism, a series of science essays compiles by Ashley Montagu in 1980, following the creationist defeat at Mclean vs Arkansas Board of Education.

This book, published over 24 years ago, showed how this was a quote completely out of context. "But it looks so good," I hear you say, "how could it possibly be a misquote"?

Lets give a little background. David Raup was one of the most emminent paleontologists ever. The late SJ Gould referred to him as "*The* paleontologist". So what is one of the greatest paleontologists ever, a good friend of Gould's, saying this about the fossil record for?

Well, the answer is fairly simple. This quote is taken from an essay on a theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium". Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory on the rate of evolutionary change. It says that evolution proceeds in fairly fast bursts (of tens to hundreds of thousands of years) followed by long periods of stasis, where little change occurs.

When Raup refers to "classic darwinian change", he is referring to gradual change, in other words he is implying that Darwin was a gradualist. When he says that there are less examples of gradual change than ever, especially with new evidence, he is also right. More transitional forms have been found in the North American Horse lineage which have seemed to confirm that the change was more punctuated than gradual.

But from the quote out of context, and without know what this "more detailed information" was, could you ever have guessed that Raup was taling about there being MORE transitional fossils, and that these indicated punctual change rather than gradual? Doesn't the quote look like it's saying that there is less evidence of evolutionary change, less transitional forms, not more?

Yes, it does. That's why creationists use it, because they are relying on people not actually looking up The Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin #50 at their local library, and finding out that Raup was talking about punctuated equilibria, and actually saying that more fossil discoveries had been found.

Now I want you to do some research. It's not going to be hard. I want you to take Raup's quote, type it into google with quotation marks round it, select 25 sites per page, and do a search. Out of the first 4 pages (100 results) I want you to tell me how many were creationist websites. Remember, it's been 24 years since this was unmasked as a misquote, that was before the web was even around. There's even a page on talkorigins dedicated to this quote, and unmasking it as a misquote.

I think this piece of research will make you shocked at creationist tactics and integrity.

How can G-d be left outside of creation...it is like looking at an abstract painting and discussing its various merits but never asking the artist what he intended or reading anything up about his life and what influenced his style.

God is outside of science's remit for 2 reasons:

1. Science is defined as an investigation of natural causes. The fact that God may be the author of these is by-the-by to science, it is an area for theology to cover.

2. The reason science only looks at natural causes rather than divine is that these causes are testable, repeatable, observable and we are able to make predictions about them. Therefore natural causes are such that the scientific method can easily be applied to them. Divine causes are not so - not only do they fall outwith the remit of science, they fall outside its capabilities.

I cannot see how G-d can be left out even if you don't believe in Him surely the possibility of divine cause/initiation is of paramount importance especially if you tell me that theories are only good until something better comes along.

Leaving God out doesn't clearly give you a full picture of the truth. That's for sure. That's why there are different branches of philosophy to find out the bits of the truth that science cannot.

Remember, science isn't meant to be the source of all knowledge and truth. Science is ONLY meant to be the source of knowledge and truth about natural causes and effects. It won't tell us why we are here, it won't tell us that we require salvation, it won't tell us about metaphysical concepts such as sin, and it won't tell us if God is acting in the natural world. It can't, it's impotent to. We have to rely on other strains of philosophy to tell us these things.

I think the non-Creationist scientific community must be somewhat larger than the Creationist community of scientists and therefore will always appear more diverse and liberal in their presentation

That isn't necessarily the case. Even a small group should statistically show variation, if not quite as inclusive variation as a large group. Now, I don't know the size of the actual scientific community as opposed to the creationist community, I would imagine it is several orders of magnitude different - but nevertheless, there ought still to be variation in the creationist community if it's not just a club for people with a very specific bias. There is no such variation however.

So what you are indicating to me is that scientists are apt to jump to the wrong conclusions until they have all the evidence...but we don't ever know when we can really say they have all the evidence?

No. What I am saying to you is that evidence can often be interpreted into several hypotheses. In other words, several hypotheses may well explain the evidence or characterise it well.

However, in science, every hypothesis has to make testable conclusions. A hypothesis does NOT become a theory until at least one prediction has been proven true. That means that, when you say later that many predictions may be impossible to test, were this true, a hypothesis would never become a theory. It has to make at least some testable predictions.

Now, these hypotheses may well be subject to internal bias of the htpothesiser (if that's a word). But, when we go and test the conclusions, it becomes fairly clear who was right (if anyone) and who was wrong (almost everyone). Hence the bias is filtered out.

1. Personal bias/belief/indoctrination/agenda

Dealt with above

2. Insufficient Data.

Science is tentative, and always searches for more data to better and better test a theory. However, a theory that gets many predictions right will very very rarely be found to be completely false, even with more data.

3. Misinterpretation.

Again, prediction should sort the wheat from the chaff.

4. Pressure to produce a result.

This is genuinely concerning, especially with drug companies et al more and more involved.

However, science also has to be repeatable. If people make findings up, or fudge them, whenever the experiment is independently repeated, the truth will come up.

I would think that some predictions are fairly safe as there is no way of finding out how true they really are in our life-time...maybe even for eons...but this is just me speculating.

Again, a theory cannot be a theory without having gotten at least one prediction right. In any event, well tested theories such as evolution have gotten many many predictions right. They continue to.

In fact, in the case of evolution, new predictions are found the more technology and knowledge advances, and then tested. When I get to writing my thread about a prediction of evolution, you will see what I mean.

Looking forward to it mate

As am I!

[nebula]

The colour system sounds good, although I don't know how to use it properly.

Elementary my dear Watson!

Highlight the portion you want to emphasize. Then above the box you are typing in, you see the "buttons"? One of them says "COLOR" with an down-arrow next to it. Click the arrow and a list of colors will appear. Click on the color you desire.

OR

Just as to bold an item you write (b)---(/b) - only with [] instead of () - to color an item blue, type (color=blue)---(/color) - again, with [] instead of ().

Hope this helps!

[Bread_of_Life]

Cheers Neb!

[ajesuschrist_mathetes]

2. They don't always present the evidence accurately, but often twist it to mean things it doesn't.

For those wondering why I have rejected ICR and AIG - this is why.

You wouldn't understand this unless you have actually heard/ read the accounts, but these guys seriously do not things accurately. I mean, in these debates I was in, several "Creationists" would present the arguments offered by these web pages, and the non-Creationists (many Athiests, some not so but just not "Creationists") would begin by explaining how wrong these sites presented what mainstream science actually said!

Do you have any idea how humiliating this felt?

How can we present believable arguments if we can't even accurately explain what the other side is saying?

they arn't scientists, they're barely Christians I would argue,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you say they are "barely Christians"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have tried very hard to listen to many things for a long time and be sparingly with replies. However, I see just too much of my old father the devil {in the sense that my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ defined him at <John 8:44} in -how shall I try to word it properly?-the "atmosphere" of this and some other chains.

I have a B.S. in Physics from 1965-somewhat atrophied. Have spent a substantial number of hours in www.icr.org as well as reading pro/con Evolution/Creation debates. The devil-translated from the Greek "diabolos"-means false accuser, slanderer. To me, when a worthywatchman as well as those like Scientific Atheist state things, they give the impression of knowledge that is-to me-not with meekness of wisdom. "we know in part and we prophecy in part". Read Henry Morris's book from www.icr.org-"God and The Nations" and maybe that will help.

Three times I have mentioned www.johnankerberg.org and the discussion/programs there re the top Christian scholars and what The Holy Bible and Science tell us today from the Creation. Sadly. the tone I find there [have followed www.johnankerberg.org for a number of years and judge the site highly] with loving and respectful presentations/disagreements too different from worthyboards-at times- to remain silent. I personally am looking for the truth and knowledge {not that everyone on worthyboards is not-don't get me wrong}-don't believe a worthywatchman or even George has the right to reject www.icr.org. There is just way too much quality Science there. As to Scientific Atheist stating-to me-that there is a "fact" of multiple magnetic reversals:saddens me. As much of a "fact" as Evolution-depends on the data you look at and the interpretation. ALL of the data.

Agape and peace.

[nebula]

Mathetes -

I speak of my experience.

When these sites begin their arguments by saying, "This is what mainstream science says. . . ."

And then the rebuttals begin with, "No, that is not what mainstream science says. Mainstream science actually says . . . ."

That's where I go .

I have seen this is debates time and time again.

It's one thing to disagree and present your case against what mainstream science says. It's another thing to claim they are making claims they are not making.

How can that be considered credible?

Please explain.

[Bread_of_Life]

Mathetes,

Perhaps you would like to contend the fact that numerous reversals of the earth's magnetic field have occured, by presenting evidence to the contrary?

Please include in your reply a description of what in fact caused the reversals in the fields of ferro-magnetic deposits in the fossil record, if it wasn't the magnetic field of the earth? Thankyou.