Appearance of Age and Evidence for Special Creation

[StanJ]

USincognito posted the link with and interview with Dr Schweitzer about that topic, which was posted practically just as I was typing out my post, funnily enough. Although whether she contacted creation.com about the subject, we don't know since nothing's been said. Although it probably hasn't since the article is still up.
And it's not really sensational since we have both the original article on the internet and a website using that article to say something that original article does not say.

Yes I have now read it and posted my comment as I'm sure you will now note.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes I have now read it and posted my comment as I'm sure you will now note.

I did. And the point still stands: Dr Mary Schweitzer's study does not invalidate an old Earth, nor does it invalidate the fact that dinosaurs lived over 64 million years ago.

 

[StanJ]

I did. And the point still stands: Dr Mary Schweitzer's study does not invalidate an old Earth, nor does it invalidate the fact that dinosaurs lived over 64 million years ago.

Well all I can say is read it again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well all I can say is read it again.

I have read the original article several times, and I can see that her findings do not invalidate the fact of an old Earth and that dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago.
Tell me: what am I missing?

 

[bhsmte]

So, then, you should be ready to carry on, to learn the next level of intelligence. Why do you turn a blind eye to what is unavoidable and haunts your soul?

Show us this next level exists.

 

[bhsmte]

The evidence has indeed been presented. I rest my case.

This will be the quickest deliberation ever.

 

[bhsmte]

And yet nobody seems to be able to point out where exactly in this quote that was posted she said that? Extracting something from nothing is a pretty magical feet but it doesn't exist in reality. There was nothing wrong with her warning and it should have been taken to heart. You have to show where it was not taken to heart and where it actually was fallacious.

And you stated i was in denial?

Serious projection.

 

[RickG]

The actual link would be better than you attempting to quote her. However it would be even more relevant if she or you showed what was the misquote or misrepresentation of the data. In any event I'm sure she could have had an exchange with the people that apparently miss-quoted her or misrepresented her data. Just like all stories there are two sides to them but we seem to just get the sensational side here.

Ask and ye shall receive. Creation.com claims that they found dino DNA. Well, from her published research we have the following:

"These data are not sufficient to support the claim that DNA visual-
ized in these cells is dinosaurian in origin;"
​

Source: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mhschwei/Research_files/SchweitzerEtAl2012.pdf

Page 8 under "Evidence for DNA", 2nd paragraph.​

 

[RickG]

Hmmmm. Kind of silent all of a sudden.

Like my signature suggests. Fact check the original source to see if it says what they (creation.com) claim it says.

 

[pat34lee]

They openly demand that anyone working for them avoid using the scientific method.

I still haven't seen your proof of that. Do not use
it again without proof, or I will report for libel.

 

[pat34lee]

...I guess some people never learn.

No, you don't seem to. I have shown you several
times where you take quotes out of context and
seem to have no idea what they meant. And it
keeps happening.

 

[RickG]

I still haven't seen your proof of that. Do not use
it again without proof, or I will report for libel.

Here is where "creation science" abandons the scientific method and makes their own up.
http://www.icr.org/article/hijacking-scientific-method/

 

[lesliedellow]

I still haven't seen your proof of that. Do not use
it again without proof, or I will report for libel.

From the creation.com website:

"Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

In other words they are telling people that they are not allowed to come to any conclusions, except those which have been settled upon in advance. That may be how so called creation science is done - in fact I am sure it is - but it is not how science is done.

The medieval Catholic Church would be proud of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I still haven't seen your proof of that. Do not use
it again without proof, or I will report for libel.

I offered to show you "proof" of it. There was a question that you were supposed to answer and you ran away from By doing so you as much as admitted that I was right. Are you ready to answer my question? If not you have no excuse for reporting me for anything.

Here is the question again:

If a place ordered its workers that no matter what evidence they found the theory of evolution was still correct, would those workers have been ordered not to use the scientific method?

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the creation.com website:

"Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

In other words they are telling people that they are not allowed to come to any conclusions, except those which have been settled upon in advance. That may be how so called creation science is done - in fact I am sure it is - but it is not how science is done.

The medieval Catholic Church would be proud of them.

Oh come on! Doesn't anyone know how to use the phrase "spoiler alert"?

Actually they go so far as to put that in their "Statement of Faith" and to work their one must agree with that statement:

http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

Answers in Genesis makes it even more obvious:

https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

 

[bhsmte]

I still haven't seen your proof of that. Do not use
it again without proof, or I will report for libel.

LOL

 

[pat34lee]

Here is where "creation science" abandons the scientific method and makes their own up.
http://www.icr.org/article/hijacking-scientific-method/

There is a difference between proving that evolutionists
have misused the scientific method and abandoning it.
Your assertion is not valid.


"Observation and reproducible experimentation are the foundations of science and as such are the established facts upon which the various hypotheses, theories, and natural laws rest. To portray any hypothesis or theory as fact is a clear misapplication of the scientific method.

Hypotheses must be verifiable or falsifiable through observation and reproducible experimentation to be considered a legitimate participant in the scientific method. Various hypotheses concerning the age and formation of our universe (the Big Bang and multiverse hypotheses) and the development of living systems (the Darwinian evolution hypothesis) are routinely taught in Western school systems as scientific fact, but none of these hypotheses have been confirmed through observation or experimentation. Alternate hypotheses are often not allowed to be even whispered.

We need to reclaim the scientific method and teach it correctly."

 

[pat34lee]

Oh come on! Doesn't anyone know how to use the phrase "spoiler alert"?

And what happens when an unfossilized dinosaur
bone is found? There will be new theories, maybe
of wormholes to explain how it could be, because
they will not accept the age as young.

 

[AV1611VET]

And what happens when an unfossilized dinosaur
bone is found?

The same as when they found a ... what was it ... Tiktaalik rosae, after declaring them extinct: nothing.

They'll just move the goalposts.

If you Google "rabbits in the precambrian" on Wikipedia, even some scientists say that won't invalidate evolution.

They make the rules.

And when those rules are broken, they just write new ones.

 

[pat34lee]

From the creation.com website:

"Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

In other words they are telling people that they are not allowed to come to any conclusions, except those which have been settled upon in advance. That may be how so called creation science is done - in fact I am sure it is - but it is not how science is done.

The medieval Catholic Church would be proud of them.

Prove them wrong, if you think they are.
How can you show God to be wrong and
science correct? By definition, if a fact
contradicts truth (or seems to), the fact
is wrong, or your interpretation of the
fact is wrong.