Creation Science

[Loudmouth]

Not really when leading evolutionary scientists are writing books teaching that DNA is the language of God.

Does that scientist think that species were separately created by divine acts?

 

[RickG]

Not really when leading evolutionary scientists are writing books teaching that DNA is the language of God.

Then why do we not see the same thing from these same "leading evolutionary scientists" in the scientific literature?

 

[juvenissun]

I listed 25 different places and the references from which they came. The thing is, you did not comprehend my post concerning Woodmorappe's description of the geologic column. Woodmorappe's geologic column doesn't exist because it isn't the same geologic column as described by geologist, i.e., the International Commission on Stratigraphy. He misrepresents what it actually is and you and the entire creation science community has latched onto his misrepresented description of it, and that is what this thread is about, it's not a different view (creation sciences) of the same evidence, it's a misrepresentation as to what the evidence actually is.

You quote: "Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists."
And you criticize: This statement is a dishonest misrepresentation.

So you think the (complete) geological column actually exists.

My question to you is: can you show ONE place where this column exists? Then you gave me a bunch of places. What is shown at this places? Does any one of them show a strata go from Cambrian to Pleistocene?

If not why do you suggest it actually exists?

Please do not smoke the screen by given un-necessary information. You may fully answer this question in one or two lines.

 

[MikeEnders]

It is also asserted in the article that it is not found complete anywhere on earth. Well, that is just false, it is known to be complete in 25 different locations globally. Understand that that does not mean that it is the same exact layers of strata like an onion. It is only a representation of a complete set of chronological layers of strata representing the sedimentary layers of the geologic column....................................... The only true thing described by Woodmorappe is that the geologic column "as described by Woodmorappe" does not exist, because the geologic column described by Woodmorappe and that by Geology are not the same.

As I would suspect seeing you start this thread - you are attempting to have your cake and eat it at the same time. IF he is defining it differently then it being different does not a lie make. For example in your quote above he makes it pretty obvious what he means by complete. Its in the very first paragraph!! His definition of complete is not merely the existing stratas but their own completeness. I don't really follow him closely but if he lays out what he means theres no solid basis for claiming he is lying nor distorting. So as far as I can tell you started the thread with a fail as your first example

Note to creation science proponents

. This is not the thread to post false claims that have been made in the mainstream scientific literature. They are well known, routed out by mainstream science, and not tolerated by the scientific community in the least, which is the direct opposite of creation science which does not expose or discipline such actions.

Well as I read it this thread is supposed to exclusively be about deliberate dishonesty. I would think creationists proponent wold be happy to discuss that but I suspect the above directive to the extent it has any authority (pretty close to nil given its one sideness) would be in curtailing both sides from discussing anything except what relates to deliberate dishonesty.

 

[MikeEnders]

One of the examples I have often used is this article on ERV's.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html

In the article, it makes a lot of claims, one of which is this one:

"Out of tens of thousands of ERV elements in the human genome, roughly how many are known to occupy the same sites in humans and chimpanzees? According to this Talk-Origins article, at least seven. Let's call it less than a dozen.

lol.......and how is that a deliberate misrepresentation? That part is entirely accurate or did your eyes miss the bolded (in my quote) section? So you are claiming they are deliberately misrepresenting science by quoting from your beloved talk Origins (which does in fact say at least seven)? I'd agree they shouldn't quote from TO but then again you often do as well so you hardly would have a point if they were even relying on TO and were wrong to do so.

 

[MikeEnders]

What he endorses is basically theistic evolution. The thing 97% of Christians believe, outside of the United States.

Made up stat of the week???? If not...links please

 

[RickG]

As I would suspect seeing you start this thread - you are attempting to have your cake and eat it at the same time. IF he is defining it differently then it being different does not a lie make. For example in your quote above he makes it pretty obvious what he means by complete. Its in the very first paragraph!! His definition of complete is not merely the existing stratas but their own completeness. I don't really follow him closely but if he lays out what he means theres no solid basis for claiming he is lying nor distorting. So as far as I can tell you started the thread with a fail as your first example

You are entirely wrong. He is saying that the geologic column does not exist. He then goes on to describe the geologic column in a manner that is not the way it is described by geologists. Please reread my post on that and try to understand my context. I agree completely agree that Woodmorappe's geologic column doesn't exist, geology doesn't describe it that way. Do you not see the difference? He is not using the same evidence with a different interpretation. He is using different evidence, which is a misrepresentation of what he is criticizing.

Well as I read it this thread is supposed to exclusively be about deliberate dishonesty. I would think creationists proponent wold be happy to discuss that but I suspect the above directive to the extent it has any authority (pretty close to nil given its one sideness) would be in curtailing both sides from discussing anything except what relates to deliberate dishonesty.

You or anyone (including Woodmorappe) is entitled to disagree with me. In doing so I expect credible evidence to be presented in support of that. Again, the simple fact is that his description of the geologic column is not the same as that of geology, and there lies the problem, not the same evidence.

 

[RickG]

You quote: "Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists."
And you criticize: This statement is a dishonest misrepresentation..

You need to read his entire article, which I linked. He is not criticizing the geologic column that is describe by mainstream geology, he is criticizing what he says geology says it is, which isn't what geology says. That is using different evidence, not the same evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

You need to read his entire article, which I linked. He is not criticizing the geologic column that is describe by mainstream geology, he is criticizing what he says geology says it is, which isn't what geology says. That is using different evidence, not the same evidence.

I do not read the article. I only read what you quoted. If what you quoted does not reflect what the article said, then you made a wrong quote right from the beginning.

 

[MikeEnders]

You are entirely wrong. He is saying that the geologic column does not exist. He then goes on to describe the geologic column in a manner that is not the way it is described by geologists. Please reread my post on that and try to understand my context.

actually thats my point. Your context is irrelevant to your OP. You specified the scope of this thread yourself

is a deliberate dishonest misrepresentation of the same evidence.

In this thread I would like to see specific examples showing this.

So what it is that YOU have to prove is a deliberate dishonesty and saying that neither you nor even secular geologists describe the column a particular way is meaningless because he sets the context of what he means in the very first paragraph. Again the charge you made is HIS dishonesty and deliberateness not whether he is confused or he sees it differently than you or even me. (actually I think I saw in a mod post making such accusations against any known person has limits in the rules but thats their call).

So whats really on trial would be HIS context not yours. Heres a key early paragraph where he admits to the column being present

It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunal succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing.

Now your objection would be the portion in red however yes as a point of fact I have heard people claim that we have unbroken record of the past in the geologic column almost as if there are distinctive layers across all continent. I remember years and years ago being surprised to find that that was a lot more spotty than previously suggested. Now of course given erosion etc Geologist would not be surprised but the problem is that a lot of popularizers have used some suspect over statements. He makes it clear as well that he is not referring just to Geologists

Recently however, there have been a number of recurrent claims that the geological column is more than a hypothetical concept and that it actually exists.4 Some of these claims have been made on the Internet and, as an active creationist scientist

So your claim he must be limited to what geologists state, say in published papers, is inaccurate

You or anyone (including Woodmorappe) is entitled to disagree with me. In doing so I expect credible evidence to be presented in support of that. Again, the simple fact is that his description of the geologic column is not the same as that of geology, and there lies the problem, not the same evidence.

Unfortunately for you I don't think you knew what you were getting into when you started this thread. If your charge is deliberate dishonesty then we don't have to show a single thing YOU do. Its your premise and claim. YOU have to show clear evidence of deliberate dishonesty as you claimed in the OP and you haven't because he specifies what he is talking about and even claims some of the claims being made are related to the internet not scientific papers.

SO cease trying to dictate what will and will not go on in this thread and what evidence you find credible etc because this is not about us proving to you anything. This is about you having the umpph and the goods to prove deliberate dishonesty which YOU MADE THE SUBJECT and your first example doesn't cut it.

 

[MikeEnders]

The key being that they all have to be found at the same archeological dig, just as creationists expect the entire geologic column to be found at one site. Everything from the Exodus to King David to the early church have to be found in one hole no bigger than 5m by 5m.

though I have no great stake in the geological column not being present i have to point out the sheer ridiculousness of the comparison here particularly since you consider it "key". Its silliness comes down to three points

A) no creationists I know claims that the geologic column must be present at a site of their choosing limited by geography. you can choose anywhere on earth.
B) The geologic column unlike the history of Israel in the Bible is not limited to a single geographic zone
C) the geologic column is not limited to a particular time where biblical archaeology is limited to when Israel is present

So saying that they equate much less is key is really quite ridiculous. Even more so when the nature of occupation at a site tends to remove or entirely erase the archaeological evidence of the occupation before it. The analogy breaks apart in so many areas its embarrassing to present it as a weak one much less a key one.

 

[lesliedellow]

Does that scientist think that species were separately created by divine acts?

No he doesn't. The name of that scientist is Francis Collins.

 

[SkyWriting]

Uh... SkyWriting... Have you ever tried living as though you lived in 500 BC? I guarantee you'll be able to measure a change in what we know!

You mean camping? As a pre-teenage scout we camped a lot, even sleeping outdoors and fishing for food.
On TV there's a show where people survive the wild with no clothes.
Today, one of four people do not have access to electricity.

 

[SkyWriting]

You're talking to someone halfway across the world on a machine made up of millions of tiny switches in a house built from futuristic materials that are stable enough to weather all but the very strongest of storms.

My day without the internet is like a day without white noise.
My house is "stick-built" made from trees, just as most every house has ever been.
The roof is covered with tar paper. That's Tar plus wood fiber.
Closing the tab on the chat forum is not an emotional letdown for me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is said we may have documented half of the species on our planet.
We are not sure what is at the core of our planet.

But for the sake of argument, we can measure from the center of earth to the surface
and know all there is to know......then measure from there to the edge of the known Cosmos

then what we know has not changed...measurably.

This response seems as random as it gets as a reply to what I stated.

I literally see no relation whatsoever. It makes me even wonder if you hit the correct reply button and that your post is really a reply to someone else's post or something.

 

[The Cadet]

You mean camping? As a pre-teenage scout we camped a lot, even sleeping outdoors and fishing for food.

Did you build your own fishing rod, or did you buy one from a store? Did you have a tent? Did you have a sleeping bag? A bedroll? Clean water? A first aid kit? You do not understand how deep this goes; how many of the things you absolutely take for granted in your life that modern science made possible and without which you'd stand a good chance of dying. Case in point:

My house is "stick-built" made from trees, just as most every house has ever been.

Oh? Does it have any insulation? Does it have running water? Electricity?

The roof is covered with tar paper. That's Tar plus wood fiber.

Tar paper is a very new invention. We're talking late 1800s here. I don't think you know how to make it, or paper in general, from scratch.

You take so many things for granted in your life. Sometimes I wish I could go to every internet commentator who proudly proclaims how meaningless science is, and just take everything in their lives that science provided to them away. You know, sort of like one of those old movies where a person is taught a lesson by angels or something.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Did you build your own fishing rod, or did you buy one from a store? Did you have a tent? Did you have a sleeping bag? A bedroll? Clean water? A first aid kit? You do not understand how deep this goes; how many of the things you absolutely take for granted in your life that modern science made possible and without which you'd stand a good chance of dying.

Not to mention that even if we are talking about dropping a couple of 21st century people on a deserted island with no clothes or any posessions whatsoever, they'ld still have the knowledge of the 21st century.

For example, they'ld understand how germs and bacteria are dangerous. They'ld understand the importance of cooking water and food to kill those germs and bacteria.

And that's just one example, obviously.
I'm not even talking about simple things like lightning. Imagine how frightening a big storm must have been in a time where nobody really knew anything about climate, air pressure, electric discharge, etc etc etc.

Sky clearly has no idea how much he takes such things for granted and how "normal" and "trivial" things today really, really, REALLY weren't "normal" and "trivial" in those days.


Indeed, it goes SO DEEP that I'ld even dare to say that none of us can actually really imagine what it must have been like without such knowledge and technology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

We know more then we did 100 years ago and parts of the world are just now starting to catch up. Until we offered them a cell phone they were not all that much interested.

I'm not even talking about phones.
I'm talking about very basic things.

Medicine, basic knowledge of climate, wheater, geology, biology, chemistry, etc.
Even forget about high-tech stuff. Just the basic things themselves is MORE THEN ENOUGH to make my point.

The question is what application does a 2500 year old teaching have for us today.

No. The first question is "why this bronze age story and not some other bronze age story?"

Psalm 102:18 "This will be written for the generation to come, That a people yet to be created may praise the LORD."
Romans15:4 For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

David is aware that he is writting for a future generation. So 3,000 years ago, he knew he was talking to us today. Paul says this was written for our instruction. So does that boggle your mind that someone 3,000 years ago is talking to you today and trying to instruct you in the way of righteousness?

Not any more then it boggles YOUR mind that Mohammed did pretty much the same thing.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that I know David and David knows me.

Because David firstly is a mythological figure.
And secondly because, even if he was real, he would have lived thousands of years ago.

So, in essence, it's just as "difficult for me to understand" that as it is to you to understand a "medium" that speaks with the ghost of Elvis Presley.

Even though we have not yet met in person but someday we will. It was the 119 psalm where David really opened my understanding. When David talks about his love for the law and the ordinances of God. They were given to guide us and teach us, also to preserve and keep us strong and healthy.

Yeah... I'm not really concerned with your particular religious beliefs.
Do you also have a real argument? Because all this preaching is getting a bit boring.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No. The first question is "why this bronze age story and not some other bronze age story?"

For the same reason science is science, peer review.
Although with the Bible they use the word canon.

Because David firstly is a mythological figure.

Not at all, this just shows how little you know. The foundation for his temple is still there in Jerusalem. Called the wailing wall. David gathered the materials for the building and his son Solomon actually did the construction work. Even though there was no sound of a hammer because all the pieces were already made and the building was ready to assemble. This has a lot of application for the church today, but you say your bored with the actual practical application of the Bible in our lives today.

all this preaching is getting a bit boring.

Why? Because your dogma can not stand up to the truth?

 

[RickG]

So what it is that YOU have to prove is a deliberate dishonesty and saying that neither you nor even secular geologists describe the column a particular way is meaningless because he sets the context of what he means in the very first paragraph. Again the charge you made is HIS dishonesty and deliberateness not whether he is confused or he sees it differently than you or even me. (actually I think I saw in a mod post making such accusations against any known person has limits in the rules but thats their call).

You are describing what he actually does, but you don't see it. Once again. He is presenting his view of the geologic column and claiming that it is the geologists view of it. He is misrepresenting their view. GEOLOGISTS DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN IS NOT WHAT WOODMORAPPE SAYS IT IS. He then goes on with his version as if it were that of geologists. Put another way, he is making up his own version and saying it is the geologists version.

So whats really on trial would be HIS context not yours. Heres a key early paragraph where he admits to the column being present

"It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunal succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing."​

​

I have previously listed, with references, a list of 25 locations on earth in which the column is complete, you are free to source those. From the quote above, "has been claimed" by whom? And there are 12 Systems that make up the Phanerozoic, not 10, never mind what he means by "represented by sedimentary-thickness". Thickness has nothing to do with what geologic system in the column is. It can be from a few inches to more than a mile.

Now your objection would be the portion in red however yes as a point of fact I have heard people claim that we have unbroken record of the past in the geologic column almost as if there are distinctive layers across all continent. I remember years and years ago being surprised to find that that was a lot more spotty than previously suggested.

And by stating that you are latching onto his view of the column, one where all layers are supposed to be the same globally like in a layered onion. True that there are formations found on different continents that are the same, which is due to continental drift. But the idea that geology says it is like an onion layer around the world is wrong.

Unfortunately for you I don't think you knew what you were getting into when you started this thread. If your charge is deliberate dishonesty then we don't have to show a single thing YOU do. Its your premise and claim. YOU have to show clear evidence of deliberate dishonesty as you claimed in the OP and you haven't because he specifies what he is talking about and even claims some of the claims being made are related to the internet not scientific papers.

The claim is that the geologic column does not exist. And it doesn't in the way Woodmorappre describes it. Are you saying the geologic column doesn't exist? He is not describing the same geologic column geologist describe.