"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[lasthero]

Yes, but the designer chose not to.

Then common design isn't proof of a common designer. It wouldn't matter if the designs were all different - you could still claim the same thing.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

So creationists have no money to do research with?

What is the point of engaging in such research if your chances of getting published is zero?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Then common design isn't proof of a common designer.

Instead of proof I suggest we use the word evidence. We are surrounded by evidence of design in nature.

 

[lasthero]

What is the point of engaging in such research if your chances of getting published is zero?

And creationists don't have their own journals to publish in? They don't have ways of getting their research out to the public?

There's nothing stopping them from using creationism to do research. They have the money. Even if they couldn't get it published in a scientific journal, it's not like they're banned from presenting their findings to the public.

But they don't. Instead, they make theme parks with animatronics.

Why is that?

 

[lasthero]

Instead of proof I suggest we use the word evidence. We are surrounded by evidence of design in nature.

What would it look like if it weren't designed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists have closed the door to a major portion of reality. Even Richard Dawkins admits that the scientific evidence suggests that there is an appearance of design in nature. I believe that we are surrounded by such evidence.

Sorry, but you have it backwards. If you ever see the employment requirements for Answers in Genesis or other such sites you will see that they order their employees to abandon the scientific method. They have to assume that the Bible is right no matter what the evidence says. That is not how science is done. You don't get to tell people the answer first.

When scientists explore an ancient cave and find some drawings that cannot be attributed to chance, they have no problem admitting that some intelligent creature was responsible for said drawings.

That is because we know how paintings are made.

This morning I was watching a video showing how flowers grow. When humans manufacture a contraption mimicking life, we have no problem admitting that intelligent action was responsible for this.

Evolutionists refuse to use the same logic when dealing with evidence of design in nature because admitting design leads to the recognition that an intelligent designer might be responsible for such evidence.

That is not "logic". You are assuming an answer and trying to force the evidence to fit it. In the scientific method first there is observation. Then one makes a "guess". Now this may seem to be bad, but it is an educated guess and the next steps are the all important ones. That guess is then formed into a testable idea and tested. If it is wrong it is corrected. If it passes more tests are done. At this point it is a scientific hypothesis. Then the scientist publishes his idea and lets others all around the world test his idea. Again, if it is wrong, and it usually will be in some way, it is corrected. If it is horribly wrong it is dropped. But once it is corrected it is tested again and again. Once a hypothesis s passes all of the tests thrown at it by scientists from all over the world and it is well accepted as correct it becomes a theory. It will still continue to be tested and reformulated as time goes by.

Creationists are afraid to take even that first step of making a testable hypothesis.

 

[RickG]

I believe that when compared with the evolutionary theory’s millions of years alternative, life on earth is relatively young.

People working in the area of biological evolution have nothing to do with geochemistry/geochronology, therefore dating methods. Now I have to ask, do you question dating methods used by geochemist/geochronologist. If so why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Instead of proof I suggest we use the word evidence. We are surrounded by evidence of design in nature.

Yes, evidence is the correct word since no idea is ever "proven" in science. In the colloquial sense the theory of evolution could be said to be proven, but we are trying to have a scientific debate here. And when it comes to evidence in a scientific debate the best evidence to use is obviously scientific evidence. And sadly there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[RickG]

Because evolutionists have a monopoly on scientific research dealing with origins.

Come on Nic, that simply is not true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People working in the area of biological evolution have nothing to do with geochemistry/geochronology, therefore dating methods. Now I have to ask, do you question dating methods used by geochemist/geochronologist. If so why?

Correct, as you are well aware the knowledge that the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old at the very least predates the theory of evolution. Quite often I see creationists get it backwards and claim the reason deep time exists was due to the theory of evolution.

 

[RickG]

Correct, as you are well aware the knowledge that the Earth was hundreds of millions of years old at the very least predates the theory of evolution. Quite often I see creationists get it backwards and claim the reason deep time exists was due to the theory of evolution.

I find it quite troubling when those who do not accept ToE throw all of the physical sciences under the misnomer of "evolutionists". It is totally unjustified.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it quite troubling when those who do not accept ToE throw all of the physical sciences under the misnomer of "evolutionists". It is totally unjustified.

I agree, but in some ways it pleases me. It soon becomes obvious that to maintain their beliefs they have to reject all of science. They can never reject just biology. Biology sooner or later requires them to reject chemistry. Of course rejecting evolution means that one has to reject geology and from there it is obvious that they have to reject physics in fairly short order.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

That's absurd.

Absurd is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[RickG]

Absurd is in the eyes of the beholder.

Good morning Nic. Would you mind putting that into context or provide the post number where I said that so I may understand the context? What did I say was absurd? I just want to be able to respond properly. Thanks.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

17

provide the post number where I said

# 172

 

[Nic Samojluk]

The Cambrian explosion is thought to have occurred because the oxygen content of the atmosphere finally rose to a high enough level so that calcium carbonate was able to be produced by organisms and fossilization of hard body parts became possible.

Do we have any independent way of verifying the claim that the oxygen content of the atmosphere was lower before the Cambrian Explosion took place?

 

[RickG]

# 172

Thanks Nic. Here's my comment from that post, so we can all see the context of what I thought was absurd.

Post #172: Nic said: "Peer reviewed often means reviewed by evolutionists."
My response to that was: "That's absurd. The fields of geochemistry and geochronology have nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with chemistry and physics. Peer review means reviewed by experts in specific fields."​

The context of the discussion at that point was about dating methods. As everyone can see from my response, I specifically made it clear that the scientific fields involving the expertise of dating rocks, sediments, etc., is not that of evolution, rather geochemistry and geochronology. Therefore, in the context of which I was speaking, your comment was incorrect. Perhaps I should have said "incorrect" instead of absurd. And I disagree with the idea that it is the eye of the beholder as that is not factual.

Again, as I have previously conveyed to you, I do not wish to change any of your religious beliefs based on faith. What I wish to do is show where specific claims made about science in the creation science community are simply not true, rather misrepresentations.

 

[RickG]

Do we have any independent way of verifying the claim that the oxygen content of the atmosphere was lower before the Cambrian Explosion took place?

Absolutely, it is seen in the rocks of that time demonstrated by isotope chemistry. I can provide links to a number of research papers if you wish.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Are you aware that there are mainstream denominations that either accept or have no problem with the theory of evolution?

Yes, but I am not willing to go that far!

 

[RickG]

Yes, but I am not willing to go that far!

I respect that.