From land animal to ocean-dweller

[Jfrsmth]

No, if data doesn't fit the theory, the theory is re-examined and can be modified or discarded, the data isn't ignored and discarded because the theory is beyond reproach.

So do you accept what Cadet stated about Creationist organizations? Your question above suggests you do.

Again, the same could be said for those scientists who have a YEC perspective. why is that comment inclusive only of evolutionary scientists?

"The theory is beyond reproach"? That is a very exclusive statement, almost a belief; very much like YECs have in the bible, the word of God; yet, the theory you may be referring to, was made by fallible people.

"So do you accept what Cadet stated about Creationist organizations?" I accept it to the extent that I replied to it in my response to Cadet.

 

[Jimmy D]

Again, the same could be said for those scientists who have a YEC perspective. why is that comment inclusive only of evolutionary scientists?

"The theory is beyond reproach"? That is a very exclusive statement, almost a belief; very much like YECs have in the bible, the word of God; yet, the theory you may be referring to, was made by fallible people.

First, I'd like to say your profile picture always cheers me up when I see it

Now, back to business....

I'm not sure if you understood what I wrote (maybe my fault). I didn't say that the TOE is beyond reproach, quite the opposite - I said that there's a willingness for scientists to re examine their theories if they find data that doesn't fit the model.

On the other hand sites like AiG openly state that they don't (edit)consider evidence that doesn't fit with the Bible....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

I know you won't agree with me, but I hope you can see the difference between the methods and why people can't take the 'science' done by Creationists seriously. They admit to ignoring valid, objective evidence to fit their beliefs (which cannot change), more or less the opposite of the scientific method.

You seem quite sure of that. . . so, there is no room for error from an evolutionary science perspective? There is no room for bias? Are evolutionists open to supernatural origins? What if the evidence suggests that purely natural processes could not account for the diversity in nature, the information found in DNA, the laws of nature, and so on - would an evolutionist "follow that evidence"?

I don't know how many times it needs to be said The Theory of Evolution is not atheism.

I'm sure there are 'evolutionists' who would scoff at the idea of supernatural interventions into their theory just as there are many Christian ones who would welcome it. The fact is that presently there is no evidence though. It's only hypothetical, but I should imagine that if any scientist could publish verifiable evidence of a supernatural influence that they would be as highly regarded as Einstein or Newton and the theory would change.

 

[Loudmouth]

You seem quite sure of that. . . so, there is no room for error from an evolutionary science perspective? There is no room for bias? Are evolutionists open to supernatural origins? What if the evidence suggests that purely natural processes could not account for the diversity in nature, the information found in DNA, the laws of nature, and so on - would an evolutionist "follow that evidence"?

Follow what evidence?

If you are going to claim that scientists are wrong, THEN SHOW HOW THEY ARE WRONG.

If you are going to claim that scientists are biased, THEN SHOW HOW THEY ARE BIASED.

If you are going to claim that scientists are ignoring evidence, THEN SHOW US THAT EVIDENCE.

Either back your allegations with facts or withdraw them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, the same could be said for those scientists who have a YEC perspective. why is that comment inclusive only of evolutionary scientists?

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

"The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological."--Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/tenets

Those are two of the largest creationist organizations, and they both openly admit that they will refuse to change their minds, no matter what the evidence is.

"The theory is beyond reproach"? That is a very exclusive statement, almost a belief; very much like YECs have in the bible, the word of God; yet, the theory you may be referring to, was made by fallible people.

We have mountains of evidence. It isn't our problem that you refuse to address that evidence.

 

[Jfrsmth]

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis

Because it contradicts the Word of God, who cannot lie (and same with the ICR statement). This is the "belief" of YECs. What are the beliefs of evolutionists? Maybe, everything must have naturalistic explanations or it is not valid evidence??

"Those are two of the largest creationist organizations, and they both openly admit that they will refuse to change their minds, no matter what the evidence is."

It looks like you are putting words in their mouths / adding to, or changing their statements. That is NOT what they are saying. They are stating that evidence, which conflicts with the Scriptures, is going to be fallacious. It is more of a prediction I would think.

"We have mountains of evidence. It isn't our problem that you refuse to address that evidence."

Yep, YECs could say the same thing. We are just going around in circles with this one.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Follow what evidence?

If you are going to claim that scientists are wrong, THEN SHOW HOW THEY ARE WRONG.
If you are going to claim that scientists are biased, THEN SHOW HOW THEY ARE BIASED.
If you are going to claim that scientists are ignoring evidence, THEN SHOW US THAT EVIDENCE.
Either back your allegations with facts or withdraw them.

Did I claim that scientists are wrong? I think YECs are very accurate.

 

[Jfrsmth]

First, I'd like to say your profile picture always cheers me up when I see it

Now, back to business....

I'm not sure if you understood what I wrote (maybe my fault). I didn't say that the TOE is beyond reproach, quite the opposite - I said that there's a willingness for scientists to re examine their theories if they find data that doesn't fit the model.

On the other hand sites like AiG openly state that they don't (edit)consider evidence that doesn't fit with the Bible....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

I know you won't agree with me, but I hope you can see the difference between the methods and why people can't take the 'science' done by Creationists seriously. They admit to ignoring valid, objective evidence to fit their beliefs (which cannot change), more or less the opposite of the scientific method.

I don't know how many times it needs to be said The Theory of Evolution is not atheism.

I'm sure there are 'evolutionists' who would scoff at the idea of supernatural interventions into their theory just as there are many Christian ones who would welcome it. The fact is that presently there is no evidence though. It's only hypothetical, but I should imagine that if any scientist could publish verifiable evidence of a supernatural influence that they would be as highly regarded as Einstein or Newton and the theory would change.

Thanks! I'm glad that my image makes you smile.

"I said that there's a willingness for scientists to re examine their theories if they find data that doesn't fit the model."

An evolutionary scientist by the name of Mary Schweitzer, discovered soft tissue and blood cells from I believe a T-Rex bone. This obviously indicates a relatively recent death. This was a great joy for YECs that saw it as even more evidence of the biblical account of a recent creation. However, after the discovery, rather than changing her paradigm, as well as other evolutionary scientists, the comment was made:

"After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory..."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/#HzyesillKzjMCPG5.99

You and others are commenting about YECs not wanting to change their views, but how about this find which contradicts the "millions of years" idea? Rather than saying, wow, dinosaurs lived recently, evolutionists would rather say, hmmm, how could it have been preserved for millions of years? They stick die-hardedly to their presuppositions, even when scientific observation smacks them right in the face. I see very little difference in what you are suggesting with AiG's statement and this case.

 

[Jimmy D]

You and others are commenting about YECs not wanting to change their views, but how about this find which contradicts the "millions of years" idea? Rather than saying, wow, dinosaurs lived recently, evolutionists would rather say, hmmm, how could it have been preserved for millions of years?

But it was preserved for millions of years, as Schweitzer (a christian I believe) insists.

From your article:

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science.

To be honest your whole point is a PRATT and not worth really worth arguing with any further. I will say though that thanks to her research we've learnt about the process of preservation of these tissues. On the other hand, the YEC's trying to jump on the discovery to claim dinosaurs are more recent are completely ignoring the evidence dating the Hell Creek formation in which it was found.

 

[Jfrsmth]

But it was preserved for millions of years, as Schweitzer (a christian I believe) insists.

From your article:

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science.

To be honest your whole point is a PRATT and not worth really worth arguing with any further. I will say though that thanks to her research we've learnt about the process of preservation of these tissues. On the other hand, the YEC's trying to jump on the discovery to claim dinosaurs are more recent are completely ignoring the evidence dating the Hell Creek formation in which it was found.

Yes, she claims to be a Christian, but it is clear, not a YEC, which would have some bearing on her comments about millions of years and her opposition to the YEC comments that her find is “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.” The obvious, at least to me, conclusion, is that those bones are relatively "fresh." But, because of her belief in "millions of years" of evolution, she has concluded a most unlikely occurrence, at least for me, that they somehow stayed "fresh" for millions of years.

"I will say though that thanks to her research we've learnt about the process of preservation of these tissues." Oh, please tell me, maybe I missed something about that. . . how does it show preservation over millions of years? You as well as she are assuming the rock layers are millions of years old based on a preconception of an old earth.

The question of dating is being discussed in other threads #519.

What is with you guys and the evolutionist(?) / anti-creationist(?) coding, i.e. PRATT? Is that supposed to be of some contribution to the discussion? Why do you have to be like that? Who's arguing? Are you? I'm not. I'm looking for good, healthy discussion of the OP. If you thought that way, why did it even deserve a response with the detail you provided? Nevertheless, if you don't like my comments, I can think of at least two options: (1) ignore me, or (2) move on. But, I would appreciate it if you would not use such comments with me.

 

[Jimmy D]

Firstly, I mean no offence by 'PRATT', it's a common term for a 'point refuted a thousand times', which is what the whole Schweitzer issue is.

Why do you think you can pick and choose what to accept on this.... If Schweitzer says she's found preserved cells, it confirms your beliefs so it's great. If Schweitzer says they're 65 million years old, it goes against your beliefs so she's wrong. Can you refute the dating in this case? Are you better qualified than Schweitzer to make a judgement?

She has assumed nothing and for you to suggest you know better is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because it contradicts the Word of God, who cannot lie (and same with the ICR statement). This is the "belief" of YECs.

More to the point, it is a dogmatic belief, one that can't be changed by evidence. It is the creationists who are closed minded and refuse to accept evidence.

What are the beliefs of evolutionists? Maybe, everything must have naturalistic explanations or it is not valid evidence??

False. Evidence is not an explanation. You seemed to have your wires crossed.

It looks like you are putting words in their mouths / adding to, or changing their statements.

BALONEY!!!

They directly state that no evidence will be considered if it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible.

That is NOT what they are saying. They are stating that evidence, which conflicts with the Scriptures, is going to be fallacious. It is more of a prediction I would think.

No, it is a dogmatic denial of the facts.

Yep, YECs could say the same thing. We are just going around in circles with this one.

The only difference is that I can back it up.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, she claims to be a Christian, but it is clear, not a YEC, which would have some bearing on her comments about millions of years and her opposition to the YEC comments that her find is “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.” The obvious, at least to me, conclusion, is that those bones are relatively "fresh."

Not at all. Fresh fossils do not find themselves under 65 million year old rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did I claim that scientists are wrong?

Yes. Back up your claims or withdraw them.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Not at all. Fresh fossils do not find themselves under 65 million year old rocks.

If these bones were anything else except dinosaurs, the person who found them might think they were recent. But, in order to keep evolution alive, and instead of changing the paradigm, evolutionists must ask the unrealistic question: "How could it have been preserved for millions of years?"

 

[Jfrsmth]

More to the point, it is a dogmatic belief, one that can't be changed by evidence. It is the creationists who are closed minded and refuse to accept evidence.

False. Evidence is not an explanation. You seemed to have your wires crossed.

BALONEY!!!

They directly state that no evidence will be considered if it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible.

No, it is a dogmatic denial of the facts.

The only difference is that I can back it up.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Here we go again . . . I already said what I have to say about it, but you just want to argue. I really don't have the time or inclination to repeat it.

I can back it up too. Round and round we go. . .

 

[Jimmy D]

If these bones were anything else except dinosaurs, the person who found them might think they were recent. But, in order to keep evolution alive, and instead of changing the paradigm, evolutionists must ask the unrealistic question: "How could it have been preserved for millions of years?"

Now you are talking utter nonsense I'm afraid. I can't accept that you actually believe that, so I'm out.

 

[Loudmouth]

If these bones were anything else except dinosaurs, the person who found them might think they were recent.

No, they wouldn't. Any fossil of any species group found under rocks that are 65 million years old are accepted as being at least 65 million years old.

But, in order to keep evolution alive, and instead of changing the paradigm, evolutionists must ask the unrealistic question: "How could it have been preserved for millions of years?"

You haven't shown that it is unrealistic for these features to have been preserved for 65 million years. You are begging the question.

The facts are this. Dinosaurs are ALWAYS found below rocks that are at least 65 million years old. It is the ROCKS that give the fossils their age.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here we go again . . . I already said what I have to say about it, but you just want to argue. I really don't have the time or inclination to repeat it.

I can back it up too. Round and round we go. . .

And yet you don't back it up.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is not all, Jfrmth, how scientist work with the fossils and dating.

 

[Jfrsmth]

And yet you don't back it up.

I have, and I won't go back and do it again. That's gonna end this line of comments.