Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[Jazer]

pssssst... Lucy was bipedal.

R U sure she was not TriPedal?

 

[Valkhorn]

R U sure she was not TriPedal?

Are you (or Zaius) at all any of the following:

• Open to a serious discussion
• Open to the possibility that you are wrong

If you are neither, then it is a waste of time for you to post and a waste of time for us to respond.

 

[Jazer]

If there is a 'hall of shame' for evolution, then there is an entire annex devoted to the hall of shame for creationism. How many times have you gotten it dead wrong or continue to get it dead wrong?

Let me ask you what I asked Zaius - what would show creationism to be wrong? What would show that there never was a global flood and that the earth is far greater than 6,000 years old?

If you cannot answer those questions, then your positions are dogmatic and you won't ever change your mind anyway - no matter how much evidence is shown. So, will you answer those questions or not?

Do you know who you are talking to? You accuse me of getting it dead wrong and then you proceed to get it dead wrong. Creationism is more then just yec, it is also GAP and OEC. I am ready to defend GAP got a question?

 

[Jazer]

[*]Open to a serious discussion

No I am not, I have had the conversation to many times. I already said all I have to say. They make Lucy look more Bi pedal then she really is. Evos have to fabricate their evidence to get it to fit their theory. That is just the way it is, they can not back down because they would have to admit they just use creative writting to make stuff up as they go along. Don't get me wrong, I am very gratefull for the hard work they put into gathering the data and the fossils and all the rest of what we call the natural record. But just because they gather the evidence does not give them the right to make up stories about it. Or if you do then admit like Sykes does that your story is fiction and should not be confused with facts. Or like with Cheddar man he admits it was just a publicity stunt to promote his books. At least he is honest about it.

 

[Valkhorn]

No I am not, I have had the conversation to many times. I already said all I have to say. They make Lucy look more Bi pedal then she really is. Evos have to fabricate their evidence to get it to fit their theory. That is just the way it is, they can not back down because they would have to admit they just use creative writting to make stuff up as they go along. Don't get me wrong, I am very gratefull for the hard work they put into gathering the data and the fossils and all the rest of what we call the natural record. But just because they gather the evidence does not give them the right to make up stories about it. Or if you do then admit like Sykes does that your story is fiction and should not be confused with facts. Or like with Cheddar man he admits it was just a publicity stunt to promote his books. At least he is honest about it.

Are you at all:

• Open to the possibility that you are wrong

(Funny how you ignored that)

It's also rather strange that you point out the few times that there have been non creationist hoaxes (which were uncovered by scientists) yet completely ignore all of the erroneous data and arguments repeatedly put forth by creationists - including quote mining, dishonest data, ignoring data, etc.

Those that study evolution have got nothing on creationists in terms of fudging/ignoring data, making up things, or simply shoehorning anything they want in order to make their story fit. Why criticize known hoaxes that were decades ago while you completely ignore horrible arguments and known hoaxes by creationists?

 

[Split Rock]

Let me ask you what I asked Zaius - what would show creationism to be wrong? What would show that there never was a global flood and that the earth is far greater than 6,000 years old?

Do you know who you are talking to? You accuse me of getting it dead wrong and then you proceed to get it dead wrong. Creationism is more then just yec, it is also GAP and OEC. I am ready to defend GAP got a question?

He is correct about this part. Jazer has been very consistant about being a GAP creationist, and has no problem with an earth older than 6,000 years.

 

[Split Rock]

No I am not, I have had the conversation to many times. I already said all I have to say. They make Lucy look more Bi pedal then she really is. Evos have to fabricate their evidence to get it to fit their theory. That is just the way it is, they can not back down because they would have to admit they just use creative writting to make stuff up as they go along. Don't get me wrong, I am very gratefull for the hard work they put into gathering the data and the fossils and all the rest of what we call the natural record. But just because they gather the evidence does not give them the right to make up stories about it. Or if you do then admit like Sykes does that your story is fiction and should not be confused with facts. Or like with Cheddar man he admits it was just a publicity stunt to promote his books. At least he is honest about it.

This is quite frankly Libel. The vast majority of scientists working in this field are not deliberatly misrepresenting their findings. Its always oh so easy for you guys to make such baseless and insulting claims to hand wave away the scientific findings... Ninth Commandment be damned. Shame on you.

 

[Valkhorn]

He is correct about this part. Jazer has been very consistant about being a GAP creationist, and has no problem with an earth older than 6,000 years.

I stand corrected - but I still like to know if Jazer is open at all to the possibility that he is wrong.

 

[Valkhorn]

This is quite frankly Libel. The vast majority of scientists working in this field are not deliberatly misrepresenting their findings. Its always oh so easy for you guys to make such baseless and insulting claims to hand wave away the scientific findings... Ninth Commandment be damned. Shame on you.

And creationists NEVER misrepresent what they find....

Hah.

 

[SkyWriting]

You ought to read your links before posting them:

I avoid doing too much of that. My agenda is to at least correct people to the extent of what is published. I don't screen my links much.

 

[verysincere]

It's also rather strange that you point out the few times that there have been non creationist hoaxes (which were uncovered by scientists) yet completely ignore all of the erroneous data and arguments repeatedly put forth by creationists - including quote mining, dishonest data, ignoring data, etc.

Years ago I did a study of "creation science" hoaxes and found that even though most of them had been debunked many years before, various Young Earth Creationist speakers/writers and "ministries" were still claiming them as "proof" of various "creation science" dogma. If you go to one of their conferences or even one of them guest speaking at a church, visit their "book table" in the lobby and you will most likely find materials still gushing about Malachite Man/Moab Man, the Calaveras Skull, the Caldwell Track, and many more pseudo-science embarrassments.

But by far the most popular bogus, creationist "fossil evidence" fiasco among those who claim that "humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time" are the Paluxy River Tracks. (Answers in Genesis tries to tactfully disassociate themselves from the infamous human-footprints-inside-dinosaur-footprints hoaxes with delicately worded explanations on their website. They don't want to anger YEC donors who continue to trumpet the Paluxy River nonsense, even though everyone knows that the legitimate prints are solely of dinosaur origins and that many of the others were manufactured and sold to tourists by desperate Paluxy area citizens during the Depression.)

Now I suppose one could excuse untrained amateur "creation scientists" for being fooled by the Paluxy River Tracks. But continuing to parade them as "proof" of Young Earth Creationist claims so many decades after they were debunked (even by other creationists) leaves YECs in no position to whine about imagined "evilutionist hoaxes"!

Why criticize known hoaxes that were decades ago while you completely ignore horrible arguments and known hoaxes by creationists?

And among those who've actually studied the history of the Piltdown Man odyssey, it is hardly the fiasco which some imagine. Although many in the British scientific community at the time were anxious to claim an important fossil treasure for their country, the world paleontologist community a hundred years ago was often frustrated by the Piltdown find. The "discoverers" refused to freely share access to specimens and all of their data for peer view. And as the years went by, the Piltdown "evidence" became a frustrating anomaly that simply didn't make sense among those scientists actually doing research in that field. (For example, as early as 1923 Francis Edmonds shredded the basic geology claims of the Piltdown reports in a peer-reviewed journal.) Paleontology basically worked around the Piltdown anomaly and focused on new fossil finds that told a very different and more consistent story. Accordingly, those actually working inside that field were actually unsurprised when scientists eventually conclusively discredited the Piltdown Man "evidence". Accordingly, the Piltdown Man story is actually a great example of good science at work. And notice that it was NOT "creation scientists" who explained the mystery. (Indeed, to this day they continually fail to expose and admit even their own hoaxes!)

Of course, creationist whining about Piltdown Man also well illustrates the outrageous "logic" of a typical "creation science" argument. YECs are basically reasoning:

1) Over a hundred years ago some dishonest person (many point to non-scientist Arthur Conan Doyle or one of his assistants/associates) produced bogus "fossil evidence".

2) Even though actual trained paleontologists in those days were often frustrated and skeptical of the find, it took years for them to publish a formal and final overall denunciation of Piltdown Man and to provide detailed counter-arguments which officially confirmed the suspicions many had held from the beginning.

3) Therefore, "creation scientists" conclude that science in 1908 somehow "hopelessly failed" and we should ignore and dismiss ALL of the evidence for evolutionary processes and an old earth thereafter.

4) Far more numerous and serious "creation science" hoaxes don't count and will continue to be used for propaganda purposes with gullible audiences.

Yeah, that's great "logic" and the brilliance and integrity of true "creation science" at work!

It is bad enough that "creation science" continually fails to establish credibility in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. These pathetic attempts to discredit real science and the sometimes slow but sure forward-momentum of the scientific method will continue to bring scorn (and even amusement) from more honest observers who care about truth and integrity.

 

[verysincere]

Mr Strawberry had posted:
"You ought to read your links before posting them."

I avoid doing too much of that. My agenda is to at least correct people to the extent of what is published. I don't screen my links much.

I rest my case.

 

[Valkhorn]

Years ago I did a study of "creation science" hoaxes and found that even though most of them had been debunked many years before, various Young Earth Creationist speakers/writers and "ministries" were still claiming them as "proof" of various "creation science" dogma. If you go to one of their conferences or even one of them guest speaking at a church, visit their "book table" in the lobby and you will most likely find materials still gushing about Malachite Man/Moab Man, the Calaveras Skull, the Caldwell Track, and many more pseudo-science embarrassments.

But by far the most popular bogus, creationist "fossil evidence" fiasco among those who claim that "humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time" are the Paluxy River Tracks. (Answers in Genesis tries to tactfully disassociate themselves from the infamous human-footprints-inside-dinosaur-footprints hoaxes with delicately worded explanations on their website. They don't want to anger YEC donors who continue to trumpet the Paluxy River nonsense, even though everyone knows that the legitimate prints are solely of dinosaur origins and that many of the others were manufactured and sold to tourists by desperate Paluxy area citizens during the Depression.)

Now I suppose one could excuse untrained amateur "creation scientists" for being fooled by the Paluxy River Tracks. But continuing to parade them as "proof" of Young Earth Creationist claims so many decades after they were debunked (even by other creationists) leaves YECs in no position to whine about imagined "evilutionist hoaxes"!



And among those who've actually studied the history of the Piltdown Man odyssey, it is hardly the fiasco which some imagine. Although many in the British scientific community at the time were anxious to claim an important fossil treasure for their country, the world paleontologist community a hundred years ago was often frustrated by the Piltdown find. The "discoverers" refused to freely share access to specimens and all of their data for peer view. And as the years went by, the Piltdown "evidence" became a frustrating anomaly that simply didn't make sense among those scientists actually doing research in that field. (For example, as early as 1923 Francis Edmonds shredded the basic geology claims of the Piltdown reports in a peer-reviewed journal.) Paleontology basically worked around the Piltdown anomaly and focused on new fossil finds that told a very different and more consistent story. Accordingly, those actually working inside that field were actually unsurprised when scientists eventually conclusively discredited the Piltdown Man "evidence". Accordingly, the Piltdown Man story is actually a great example of good science at work. And notice that it was NOT "creation scientists" who explained the mystery. (Indeed, to this day they continually fail to expose and admit even their own hoaxes!)

Of course, creationist whining about Piltdown Man also well illustrates the outrageous "logic" of a typical "creation science" argument. YECs are basically reasoning:

1) Over a hundred years ago some dishonest person (many point to non-scientist Arthur Conan Doyle or one of his assistants/associates) produced bogus "fossil evidence".

2) Even though actual trained paleontologists in those days were often frustrated and skeptical of the find, it took years for them to publish a formal and final overall denunciation of Piltdown Man and to provide detailed counter-arguments which officially confirmed the suspicions many had held from the beginning.

3) Therefore, "creation scientists" conclude that science in 1908 somehow "hopelessly failed" and we should ignore and dismiss ALL of the evidence for evolutionary processes and an old earth thereafter.

4) Far more numerous and serious "creation science" hoaxes don't count and will continue to be used for propaganda purposes with gullible audiences.

Yeah, that's great "logic" and the brilliance and integrity of true "creation science" at work!

It is bad enough that "creation science" continually fails to establish credibility in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. These pathetic attempts to discredit real science and the sometimes slow but sure forward-momentum of the scientific method will continue to bring scorn (and even amusement) from more honest observers who care about truth and integrity.

Well done. I couldn't have said it better. Hopefully you won't be ignored by the creationists here with that post, but I have a feeling they will fail to grasp it.

 

[verysincere]

Well done. I couldn't have said it better. Hopefully you won't be ignored by the creationists here with that post, but I have a feeling they will fail to grasp it.

The "creationist hoaxes vs. evilutionist hoaxes" retrospective seems to have resonated with many forum participants. I've already received a lot of feedback about it, especially when I re-posted it as an article to today's issue of the Bible.and.Science.Forum.


[And, as always, I emphasize that I am most definitely a Biblical creationist in the sense of the original definition of the term: one who affirms that God created the universe. But it pains me that the term "creationist" has become generally understood as a nearly pejorative synonym for what is more technically a Young Earth Creationist, especially one who considers the earth 6000 years old, deems evolution inherently atheistic, and insists on a planet-wide rather than regional Noah's Flood. So many people wrongly assume that these are the views of all "truly devout" Bible-believing Christ-followers, especially in the USA.]

 

[SkyWriting]

Mr Strawberry had posted:
"You ought to read your links before posting them."

I rest my case.

This isn't an actual peer review board. And my goal is not to change anyone's mind.
But I've been informed a lot of people care about my conversations. I'm honored.
I am not worthy.

 

[Zaius137]

(verysincere)… I always maintained that is good policy to be skeptical of claims by individuals with an agenda. This criterion excuses no one in science or organized religions.

Your long winded criticisms of creationism seem to ring of the same old vague intolerance of creation science. By the way there are very learned individuals in creation science who posses high levels of scholastic achievement and are simply not published by peer review because of scientific community biases.

Your use of the term “hoax” is inappropriate because you can not prove every one of your broad sweeping examples was deliberate. You are completely ignorant in that respect.

Noun1.hoax - something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage. The use of tricks to deceive someone (usually to extract money from them).

hoax - definition of hoax by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Personally I have always been uncomfortable as a Christian receiving support from the atheist camp… apparently you welcome it.

 

[Valkhorn]

(verysincere)… I always maintained that is good policy to be skeptical of claims by individuals with an agenda. This criterion excuses no one in science or organized religions.

You show absolutely no skepticism when it comes to creationism. If it's a creationist source, you have a history of not questioning it at all.

 

[USincognito]

And among those who've actually studied the history of the Piltdown Man odyssey, it is hardly the fiasco which some imagine.

It's such a pet peeve of mine I invited Creationists to a formal debate as to whether they should even mention it any more. Unfortunately the only taker had his own agenda and wanted to discuss every hominid fossil. I stand by my OP however.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2892470/

(The image links are broken, but they're basically a few fossils and a candlestick phone showing the "cutting edge" of communications technology in 1912 vs. 2006.)

 

[SkyWriting]

(verysincere)… I always maintained that is good policy to be skeptical of claims by individuals with an agenda. This criterion excuses no one in science or organized religions.

Your long winded criticisms of creationism seem to ring of the same old vague intolerance of creation science.

I no longer follow the teachings of "Creation Scientists" because they use a human based logic on the passage of time rather than a biblical one. Yet, I appreciate that they always claim that the scriptures are correct when read literally and naturally. When I do that I fail to see that the Creation Week resulted in a scientific or observed age of "zero" as they hold as a basis for their theology.

In order for the Creationist to pick up a metamorphic rock and conclude that it was at age "zero" it would have to be molten. I don't read that God rested on the 7th day while the lava was cooling. That's the Creation Science version of Creation Week. Logically, it's fine. It's just not what I read though.

 

[Zaius137]

I no longer follow the teachings of "Creation Scientists" because they use a human based logic on the passage of time rather than a biblical one. Yet, I appreciate that they always claim that the scriptures are correct when read literally and naturally. When I do that I fail to see that the Creation Week resulted in a scientific or observed age of "zero" as they hold as a basis for their theology.

In order for the Creationist to pick up a metamorphic rock and conclude that it was at age "zero" it would have to be molten. I don't read that God rested on the 7th day while the lava was cooling. That's the Creation Science version of Creation Week. Logically, it's fine. It's just not what I read though.

It is true that the Bible is not specific when the heavens and the earth were created…

Gen 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(ASV)

But I hold the 6 days of creation in a very literal sense. Some creation scientists use the six days of creation as a scientific scaffold to the understating of all the scientific disciplines (I accept that principle). Veering off the literal interpretation of Genesis is not something a Christian needs to accommodate because objective science is in fact very friendly to the Christian these days. The Bible is not just a religious dictate to me; I have come to believe in it with all my mind and heart. It is trustworthy and sound in every respect the word of God. When creation science becomes too materialistic I take on the same attitude of one respected participant in this forum… (Creation Science can take a hike)….