Did dinosaurs ever exist?

[laptoppop]

Except that's not what young earth creationists say. Pretty much ever.

Oh? What books or articles have you been reading? YECs have been talking like that since the 1970's. Check out one of the very early works "Scientific Creationism" by Dr. Henry Morris.

They start with a belief in a young earth and then move on to find evidence that supports their claim, ignoring that which doesn't.

Once someone is a proponent of a particular model, that is a common problem -- for BOTH sides of the discussion. It is up to each individual to try to cultivate the intellectual honesty to keep an open mind and investigate the evidence. With creationism, there is a secondary effect due to people holding religious positions as well as scientific ones. Of course, there are also examples of atheists holding evolutionary perspectives for similar reasons.

That's why the entire scientific community disagrees with young earth creationists.

That's just plain wrong, elitist and dismisses any research that disagrees with your point of view. That's not the way to conduct scientific investigation. For example, check out the work being done by the graduate school at ICR.

If you really used the same method as the scientific community, you would be led to the same results as the millions of scientists doing work in these fields. You're right in that science isn't decided by vote or by consensus, but it is decided by repeated testing and results from different fields and different scientists that confirm the same conclusion.

Scientists disagree all the time. It is a part of science. I work for an organization that publishes journals of peer-reviewed research. The way someone makes their mark in science is to propose and successfully defend a unique interpretation and cause others to adopt it. Actually, when it comes to a scientific examination of historical issues, such as origins, we are dealing with theories - with models. It is impossible to "prove" an event in the past. We can come close, using more of a judicial model (beyond a reasonable doubt), but cannot prove things like we do with physical laws. There are commonly held theories - but that does not make them fact. The fossil record is fact. How we interpret it is not.
-lee-

 

[Mallon]

Please be careful not to construct a straw man argument. Most young earth creationists that I deal with would not use the argument as you stated it.

It's not a straw man argument if it happens all the time. The very book you cited above, Morris' Scientific Creation, makes the claim that interpreting the past is not scientific (in fact, he spends quite a bit of time making the case that neither evolution nor creationism are sciences, and then has the tenacity to call his book "Scientific Creation").
More support for my point here:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=455
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Radiodating.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4059.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=670

 

[steen]

You remind me of a story about some cave paintings in Rhodesia. It was believed that they were paintings of Brontosaurus. There was a local paleontologist who was asked to investigate. He refused to even go look because the paintings could not be a brontosaurus because the brontosaurus died out 70 million years ago. (http://www.parentcompany.com/great_dinosaur_mistake/tgdm17.htm)

(1) It is not the job of others to prove anything. If the person wanted proof, he should document the finding like everybody else does. (2) Do you have any evidence about this other than from a biased, creationist site. All they list are "just because I say so" claims, of which I have unfortunately seen to many creationist outright false ones.

Just proclaiming young earth creationism is not "scientific" does not make it so.

Correct. Finding that YEC claims are not admitted to evaluation through the Scientific Method IS, however. When creationists make claims that the Scientific Method showed inaccurate, then repeating that same claim merely shows IN SCIENCE, a willful goal of deception and lies, which is not science. If creationists want to be part of science, then they have to follow the rules of science. If you can't prove your claim, and especially if your claim is proven false, then that's it, your claim is gone. Resurrecting it unchanged is dishonest in science and makes you unscientific. So as long as creationists refuse to be scientific, their work is not science. It is that simple.

Can you complain about that? Sure. Lots of people who have had their claims refuted and dumped are complaining about that. But it keeps the crackpot claims out of science. The "Piltdown man" never made it into established science because it couldn't be verified through the Scientific Method. This is also what so far has happened to YEC.

Scientific truth is not determined by vote, or even by consensus, but rather by investigation, research, and discourse.

Correct. It is decided by the evidence.

Just about every major commonly accepted scientific theory or even fact was at one time held by a minority, sometimes a minority of one. This did not make it untrue. The earth is not flat, the earth revolves around the sun.

And when the evidence was presented, this became established science. So go get the evidence. Stop insisting that YEC is taken serious on "just because we claim so" postulations.

Please tell the researchers at the graduate school at ICR that they might as well go home because you have declared their work "unscientific"... without even looking at it.

Well, what work have been independently confirmed and withstood the peer-review of methodology? Show it to me, why don't you?

 

[laptoppop]

There is a huge difference between pointing out that many evolutionists hold to the theory because of philisophical bias, and trying to say that there is no scientific inquiry in support of it.

However, I would agree that the rhetoric sometimes (often?) gets inflated on both sides. Not everyone who holds the theory of evolution is a godless atheist, and not everyone who holds to young earth creationism is a mindless non-scientific lemming.

Again, this can be a difficult topic as people mix their philosophy and religion with their interpretation of science. In one sense, this is not bad, in that our faith should inform and affect everything we do or say. However, sometimes it can impede a more generic scientific discussion.

There is often no winning. For example proponents of Intelligent Design are often criticized from both sides -- from people in the scientific community who disagree with them, and from Christians who want them to take a more creationistic stand.

Creation reveals some of the Creator - but certainly not all. I believe it reveals enough to support catastrophism, and design. For more than that, we need to see if the God who is there has spoken to humanity.

It is helpful to use non-theological scientific methodology to discuss geology and interpretation of the fossil record. Determining Truth is a different matter.
-lee-

 

[laptoppop]

Tell you what -- check out this PDF book:
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

Here's the first paragraph of the preface:
Contrary to the claims of some, creationists are not anti-science, nor are they afraid of scientific data. While no generalization can characterize all individuals who believe in Creation any more than one statement can describe all who believe in evolution, all knowledgable, scientifically-minded creationists fully welcome new scientific data. Every scientist worthy of the name should always be willing to adjust his thinking as new data come in, continually striving for a more complete understanding of reality.

-lee-

 

[Dannager]

Once someone is a proponent of a particular model, that is a common problem -- for BOTH sides of the discussion. It is up to each individual to try to cultivate the intellectual honesty to keep an open mind and investigate the evidence. With creationism, there is a secondary effect due to people holding religious positions as well as scientific ones. Of course, there are also examples of atheists holding evolutionary perspectives for similar reasons.

And yet, proportionally speaking, 99% of young earth creationists are (and already were) devout Christians, whereas evolution proponents come from all walks of life and religion in a rather diverse spread. This indicates that young earth creationism has a direct correlation with religious belief - a distinction that evolutionary theory does not hold.

That's just plain wrong, elitist and dismisses any research that disagrees with your point of view.

You know, I don't think "disagrees" is a strong enough word to describe exactly how I view creationist research. First off, I can't call it research to begin with, without feeling intellectually dishonest. It isn't research. It's a process of selective fact-finding and skewing the truth to make it appear as though their idea holds some scientific merit. I can't say I disagree with it either, because that makes it appear as though creationism is a valid scientific opinion to hold. It isn't. I don't disagree with creationism. I reject it.

And for the record, I've gone over the "research" for creationism. All of us here have. None of us find it compelling in the least, especially when we have access to scientific explanations and refutations for every single creationist claim.

That's not the way to conduct scientific investigation. For example, check out the work being done by the graduate school at ICR.

We've already established that creationists are not familiar with the correct way to conduct scientific investigation.

Scientists disagree all the time. It is a part of science.

Yes it is, but scientists do not disagree about the validity of the primary tenets of evolutionary theory. To do so in light of the enormous amounts of supporting evidence, that would be foolish.

I work for an organization that publishes journals of peer-reviewed research. The way someone makes their mark in science is to propose and successfully defend a unique interpretation and cause others to adopt it. Actually, when it comes to a scientific examination of historical issues, such as origins, we are dealing with theories - with models. It is impossible to "prove" an event in the past. We can come close, using more of a judicial model (beyond a reasonable doubt), but cannot prove things like we do with physical laws. There are commonly held theories - but that does not make them fact. The fossil record is fact. How we interpret it is not.
-lee-

Very good, you're a step ahead of the game. However, the point of reasonable doubt of evolutionary theory was passed long ago. Scientists no longer debate the validity of evolutionary theory, but rather the individual details of it.

 

[Mallon]

Here's the first paragraph of the preface:
Contrary to the claims of some, creationists are not anti-science, nor are they afraid of scientific data. While no generalization can characterize all individuals who believe in Creation any more than one statement can describe all who believe in evolution, all knowledgable, scientifically-minded creationists fully welcome new scientific data. Every scientist worthy of the name should always be willing to adjust his thinking as new data come in, continually striving for a more complete understanding of reality.

I wish your quote had merit, Lee, but I honestly feel that it does not. Of course creationists are afraid of scientific data -- specifically, that data that contradicts their literalist interpretation of the Scriptures. If this weren't true, they wouldn't be denying things like plate tectonics, biological evolution, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, etc, etc, etc. These are all well-respected, long-established disciplines of science that yield results, but creationists refuse to adopt them, not because of faulty science, but because it does not fit their agenda. As Dannager already pointed out, 99% of creationists are Christians. They have a motive. They have something to protect: their weak faiths. Many a creationist has said that the book of Genesis is "foundational to our faith" and that if it is not literally true, then we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater and give up our faiths. If you don't believe me, have a look at this crap!
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=type&ID=1
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4315
http://straitway.org/2001/04012001.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0511letter.asp
Of course there is no science for a young earth. If there was, we would be reading about it in science journals (but according to the creationists, there is a conspiracy plot set against them that automatically rejects submitted papers). I agree with Dannager that there is not one, single creationist evidence for a young earth that holds water in light of scientific scrutiny. Take that as a challenge, if you will, but I guarantee you beforehand that anything you bring to the table will likely have been turned inside out here, if not elsewhere.

 

[steen]

There is a huge difference between pointing out that many evolutionists hold to the theory because of philisophical bias, and trying to say that there is no scientific inquiry in support of it.

Ah, but science is not philosophy. It is about the data and the evidence.

However, I would agree that the rhetoric sometimes (often?) gets inflated on both sides. Not everyone who holds the theory of evolution is a godless atheist, and not everyone who holds to young earth creationism is a mindless non-scientific lemming.

true. But when YEC starts spouting stuff that not only has been proven false previous, but also is a flat-out false claim about evolution, then it becomes very clear that they are indeed "lemmings" who merely read the arguments off creationist lie-sites. If creationists want to make arguments about evolution, they at least should know what evolution is to begin with.

..There is often no winning. For example proponents of Intelligent Design are often criticized from both sides -- from people in the scientific community who disagree with them, and from Christians who want them to take a more creationistic stand.

That's the problem when people invent a claim solely to get by federal legislation, it simply has no relevance anywhere.

It is helpful to use non-theological scientific methodology to discuss geology and interpretation of the fossil record. Determining Truth is a different matter.
-lee-

Indeed, as 'truth" is the individual person's subjective view of reality, as differentiated by "facts" which are the same regardless of who views them. That's why science deals with facts rather than truths.

 

[gluadys]

God's primary revelation is through His Word, but we can also learn of Him through His creation.
-lee-

Depends on the meaning you give to "primary". In terms of chronology, creation existed before any scripture was written and before the incarnation, so creation is "primary" in the sense of being the first revelation in time.

It is also "primary" in the sense of being the most basic revelation i.e. the general revelation given to all humanity everywhere. But precisely because it is basic, a sort of primer, it is limited.

Scripture is secondary in terms of time, but it outweighs general revelation in importance when it comes to speaking of our relationship to the Creator. It is scripture that provides a record of the special revelation God has given to chosen witnesses through time. It is largely through scripture that we learn of sin and salvation--matters which created nature does not address.

Of course if one wishes to define "primary" as "pre-eminent" or "most important" then THE primary revelation is Jesus of Nazareth, the Incarnate Word, the appearance of the one eternal Word of God in human flesh. Both creation and scripture are rooted in the eternal Word made known to us in Jesus. In relation to Jesus himself, both creation and scripture are secondary revelations.

 

[gluadys]

Just about every major commonly accepted scientific theory or even fact was at one time held by a minority, sometimes a minority of one. This did not make it untrue. The earth is not flat, the earth revolves around the sun.

Please tell the researchers at the graduate school at ICR that they might as well go home because you have declared their work "unscientific"... without even looking at it.

-lee-
[/SIZE]

Indeed the earth is not flat and the earth revolves around the sun. And, you may notice, no one in the scientific community is trying to reverse those findings.

For exactly the same reason, there will be no scientific resurrection of the global flood hypothesis or the young earth hypothesis, because scientifically they have been as thoroughly falsified as the flat earth and the Ptolemaic cosmology.

Any new idea will be held by a minority until it proves its worth. Then it will be adopted by the majority and become part of science. This is what happened with big bang theory and plate tectonics.

But a global flood and a young earth are not new ideas. They are old ideas long since rejected on the basis of observed evidence showing they cannot be true. They belong in the scientific waste-basket with other old ideas like a flat earth and a geo-centric universe. And the minorities that cling to them are just like the minorities who cling to flat-earthism and geo-centrism--people who refuse to accept the truth for emotional and/or religious reasons that have nothing to do with science.

 

[shernren]

But back to the OP, I'm interested in a response from creationists about this in particular:

The medieval theologians argued from God's perfect design to fixity of species and hence the impossibility of extinction. Do you think that this logical chain is valid? And if not, why not?

 

[chaoschristian]

Welcome to the forum Je5u5luvzu. I hope your stay here is both enjoyable and prosperous.

Please take a moment to read the profiles of the folks you are responding to, I think that you will discover that it helps you to understand what you are reading (or not reading, as the case may be) in a post.

I note that you are a creationist from your first post over in the Creationist sub-forum. Would it surprise you to know that laptoppop is also a creationist?

And regardless, don't you think it's rather heavy-handed, to say the least, to call someone an 'empty soul-less vessel'?

 

[laptoppop]

I've been called worse <grin>.

FYI, Je5u5luvzu, I am a radical young-earth creationist. I believe the Bible is perfect and inspired in the original autographs. I also believe that the first chapters in Genesis are as historical as the rest of the book. I believe that while the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it talks about scientific things.

I also believe that Truth can stand up under any level or type of examination. Even if I were a non-Christian, I would probably be a global catastrophist. I welcome open honest discussions between people who hold other positions on the methodologies of creation because 1) it helps me sharpen and understand and grow in my own knowledge and 2) I'm just a person -- sometimes I'm mistaken, and it is good for me to be challenged. (guys, PLEASE don't take that "sometimes I'm mistaken" out of context! )

I believe that a young earth and a global flood fits the observable fossil record and other evidence better than any other explanation.

-lee-

 

[Cyberdyne1]

And regardless, don't you think it's rather heavy-handed, to say the least, to call someone an 'empty soul-less vessel'?

Affirmative...

 

[laptoppop]

But back to the OP, I'm interested in a response from creationists about this in particular:

The medieval theologians argued from God's perfect design to fixity of species and hence the impossibility of extinction. Do you think that this logical chain is valid? And if not, why not?

No, I do not believe this is a valid logical argument. God's designs are absolutely amazing in a multitude of ways. From the largest galaxy to the smallest cell to the atom itself, His creation is beautiful. At the ecosystem and even in climatology, there are a number of great feedback mechanisms which help to stabilize the systems and adjust and correct for variations.

But (yah, you knew it was coming)... We do not live in the garden of Eden, but rather in a fallen world, with pain, suffering, and death. While the animal species have shown a remarkable resilience, the current planet is under sin.

But even in a "perfect" creation - it is up to the designer to decide how that creation will age over time. Certain conditions that are appropriate at one stage may very well not be appropriate at another stage. As a child in my mother's womb, I swam in a sack of fluid. Now I walk outside, and the support mechanisms that were appropriate for me earlier in my life no longer exist.
-lee-

 

[chaoschristian]

Affirmative...

Ahh, K-9, I'd wondered where you wandered to. Can you fetch the TARDIS key? I've seem to have misplaced it.

 

[chaoschristian]

We do not live in the garden of Eden, but rather in a fallen world, with pain, suffering, and death. While the animal species have shown a remarkable resilience, the current planet is under sin.

Just the planet? How about the solar system? The galaxy? The galactice cluster? To the ends of space/time itself?

How far is the reach of the sin of Adam&Eve if they alone were the root cause of creation's fall?

​

 

[laptoppop]

Great question! Offhand, I would refer to Romans 8:22 ("the whole creation groans") and so I would say it would include this entire multidimensional universe -- everything.

As for Adam & Eve being the root cause -- first, Eve is mostly let off the hook as being deceived, but Adam is condemmed because he knew what he was doing. Also, Satan is condemmed for his part in the whole affair as well.
-lee-

 

[Assyrian]

Given that light that light has a finite speed and when we look in space we see stars as there were many years ago, shouldn't we be able to see prefall as well as postfall stars and galaxies? Do creationists have any idea which ones are are prefall, and are prefall galaxies free from evidence of decay like supernovas?

Just a thought.

 

[theFijian]

What really surprises me sometimes is TEs are accused of not believing the Bible yet we have Creationists coming out with some really strange theological statements.

Eve is mostly let off the hook as being deceived

In what way was Eve 'mostly' let off the hook? She was thrown out of the garden just like Adam; woman-kind, as well as man-kind is subject to the curse of the fall. In what way does she get off lightly?

but Adam is condemmed because he knew what he was doing

Eve was aware of what God had commanded them regarding the tree (Gen 3:2,3) so in what way did Eve not know what she was doing?