Science vs. Evolution

[Cabal]

I've heard this claim repeated so many times. You guys are parrots...

Do you not have anything else?

Do you want to have it explained again? You seem to be having trouble grasping the basic concept. You could grasp the concept and stop posting such obvious tripe like history being the only form of knowledge of the past and then we wouldn't have to keep repeating the basics to you.

The point is this - there is NO difference - zero, zip, zilch - between the methodologies of inferring a conclusion from empirical evidence in a forensic case and inferring a conclusion in a scientific case.

Again you change the topic. What does this have to do with age of the earth?

It's to show your inconsistency in accepting a standard of evidence for one scenario but arbitrarily discarding it for another because you feel your beliefs are threatened by it. I'm not surprised you keep avoiding this one, however, it shows your inconsistency up for what it is.

And if you want to complain about changing the subject, you posted six youtube videos entitled "evidence for a young earth" which spent the entire time presenting nothing of the kind. Practise what you preach, perhaps.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

There are thousands of paleontologists who believe in Young Earth Creation.

As far as I know the only Young Earth Creationist with significant credentials in Paloeontology is Kurt Wise. Who told you there are thousands? Let's see a list. There are also a few with credentials as geologists and I think I know who most of them are.

So since you say there are thousands of YEC paleontologists perhaps one of them has a reasonable answer to my question on geological strata and the fossil record that is not easily falsified. Let's see it.

Furthermore the modern founder of paleontology (Georges Cuvier) was a creationist.

Perhaps science has progressed since the early 19th century.

There is no evidence for evolution, just because you believe it doesn't make it a fact.

Your rejection of the evidence from Paleontology, anatomy and molecular biology won't make it go away.

 

[lucaspa]

As i said, we don't have a time-machine, therefore if you believe the earth is millions or billions or years, that is a statement of faith. Where you there to observe it?

Were you there to observe the impact that caused Meteor Crator? Do you have to be to know that Meteor Crator is the result of a meteor impact?

We don't need a "time machine", because there are things in the present that can be used to date the past. Because of that evidence, we are not dealing with "faith". We have falsified any age of the earth less than 4.55 billion years.

 

[Cabal]

This thread has run or for how many pages now?

Too many.

And no evidence has been provided for evolution.

No, plenty has, you just have ridiculous standards of evidence, and you've had it explained to you several time how they are not only ridiculous but you are inconsistent in how you apply them, and are also evasive when confronted on it.

All you guys have resorted to is attacking the Bible, the flood or pasting in nonsense about uniformatarian geology.

No, you have had your arguments refuted and either arbitrarily dismissed the refutations or just ignored them.

I don't think you realise how embarrassing you guys look to all the 'guests' who find this thread while websearching.

Trust me, Cass - your approach is two-a-penny on the internet, and it will get you nowhere; and you're by far from the only creationist who's had their backside handed to them on this board. There's a reason the term "PRATT" was coined.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

As i said, we don't have a time-machine, therefore if you believe the earth is millions or billions or years, that is a statement of faith. Where you there to observe it?

I base my acceptance of an old earth on overwhelming evidence that you can't refute. If you can come up with a logical scientific explanations for the earth's geology and paleontology and the genetic diversity of species that does not involve an earth that is millions or billions of year old let's hear it.

 

[lucaspa]

There are thousands of paleontologists who believe in Young Earth Creation.

I'm with Frumious. The only person with a degree in paleontology that I know of that is a YEC is Kurt Wise.

Furthermore the modern founder of paleontology (Georges Cuvier) was a creationist.

But he was not a "young earth" creationist. Cuvier thought the earth was tens or hundreds of millions of years old, because that is what the data at the time indicated.

Cuvier died before Origin of Species was published, so we will never know if he would have remained a creationist.

There is no evidence for evolution, just because you believe it doesn't make it a fact.

You have that backwards. Just because you deny it does not make it a fact. Casseterides, I've posted evidence supporting evolution. You refuse to read it. How can you honestly say there is no evidence if you won't look at the evidence.

But here, go to PubMed here: PubMed home and enter "evolution" as your search term. Notice the over 200,000 articles that come up. That's just a fraction of the evidence for evolution. Start reading. Have fun.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This thread has run or for how many pages now?

And no evidence has been provided for evolution. All you guys have resorted to is attacking the Bible, the flood or pasting in nonsense about uniformatarian geology.

I don't think you realise how embarrassing you guys look to all the 'guests' who find this thread while websearching.

Oh please. There are ten pieces of evidence cited per page, you just refuse to acknowledge them. Fossils are presented, and you reject them as supporting evolution because you don't believe their age. Why? Because the age is given by evolutionists.
You literally reject the evidence for supporting evolution because it supports evolution. Ipso facto, there is literally nothing we can present that you won't reject.

So I have nothing more to gain by lurking.
Tara.

/thread

 

[lucaspa]

This thread has run or for how many pages now?

And no evidence has been provided for evolution. All you guys have resorted to is attacking the Bible, the flood or pasting in nonsense about uniformatarian geology.

Not really. Remember my posts on transitional fossils, transitional fossils in the hominid lineage, and phylogenetic analysis? No attack on the Bible, no attack on the flood, and nothing about geology. What is your response? You refused to read the evidence because supposedly I had not read creationist literature!

But I have read creationist literature. Lots of it. Probably more than you.

I don't think you realise how embarrassing you guys look to all the 'guests' who find this thread while websearching.

I think you ought to remember a famous parable by Jesus. It concerns dust motes, beams, and eyes. I think you might want to look to your own embarrassment before you comment on ours.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'm with Frumious. The only person with a degree in paleontology that I know of that is a YEC is Kurt Wise.



But he was not a "young earth" creationist. Cuvier thought the earth was tens or hundreds of millions of years old, because that is what the data at the time indicated.

Cuvier died before Origin of Species was published, so we will never know if he would have remained a creationist.

This is interesting about Cuvier
Georges Cuvier

Perhaps Cuvier's most crucial and longest-lasting contribution to biology was establishing extinction as a fact. ........

What had happened to these great beasts of the past? Cuvier believed that the Earth was immensely old, and that for most of its history conditions had been more or less like those of the present. However, periodic "revolutions", or catastrophes (a word which Cuvier avoided because of its quasi-supernatural overtones) had befallen the Earth; each one wiped out a number of species. Cuvier regarded these "revolutions" as events with natural causes, and considered their causes and natures to be an important geological problem. Although he was a lifelong Protestant, Cuvier did not explicitly identify any of these "revolutions" with Biblical or historical events. However, some later geologists, notably Rev. William Buckland in England, suggested that the most recent revolution was the Biblical Flood. This remained a popular hypothesis until Louis Agassiz (who had studied with Cuvier) showed that the "flood deposits" were actually formed by glaciers.

 

[tanzanos]

Of course it is not. That would be 1611. That may be when the King James Version was translated from the Hebrew and Greek into English, but the various books of the Bible were written from 1500 to 2300 years before that. And some of the oral traditions behind the first written version go back even further.

I was only reflecting AV's beliefs the KJV is not a translated work and that it is the only Bible that is the true Bible. I was speaking in sarcasm in case you missed it!

Not only is science in question by YECs but the very notion that the KJV was translated from Hebrew and Greek is anathema to many of them who worship the KJV as the only Bible born purely from God's grace in the year of our lord 1611.

 

[lucaspa]

Firstly, dragons don't just appear in 'legends', but actual chronicles and historical writings.

Please cite some. Beowulf and St. George are not "actual chronicles.

You might be a biologist, but i highly doubt you have a history degree or any education in history.

First, your video lecturers do not have science degrees yet you never question their "knowledge" of science. Sauce for the goose.

Second, you are wrong about that education in history. It was my minor in college and is still a very strong hobby of mine. I'm reading Garrett Mattingly's The Armada currently.

 

[lucaspa]

I was only reflecting AV's beliefs the KJV is not a translated work and that it is the only Bible that is the true Bible.

AV holds that opinion? Wow. I've never seen it.

I was speaking in sarcasm in case you missed it!

We need a sarcasm icon.

Not only is science in question by YECs but the very notion that the KJV was translated from Hebrew and Greek is anathema to many of them who worship the KJV as the only Bible born purely from God's grace in the year of our lord 1611.

I know some Biblical literalists hold that opinion of the Bible, but I've never seen any of the professional creationists state it. Of course, I may have missed it. No, Morris talks about the Hebrew. So does Ham.

 

[lucaspa]

This is interesting about Cuvier
Georges Cuvier

Buckland was the latest in excluding strata that could have been formed by a world-wide Flood. Buckland wrote his book in the 1820s. Previous to all the deeper layers of sediments had been excluded from any possibility of being deposited by the Flood. Buckland only ascribed the most superficial gravels and morraines as being deposited by a world-wide flood. Which meant, of course, that all those fossil dinos were not deposited by the Flood.

It was not only Agassiz, but Lyell, Sedgwick, and others that refuted Buckland's claims and put the final nail in the coffin of Flood Geology.

 

[Hespera]

This thread has run or for how many pages now?

And no evidence has been provided for evolution. All you guys have resorted to is attacking the Bible, the flood or pasting in nonsense about uniformatarian geology.

I don't think you realise how embarrassing you guys look to all the 'guests' who find this thread while websearching.

Well, as we said in grade school, Im rubber, you are glue. it bounces off me and sticks to you.

The ones in places like China, of course, people are aware that there is a cult that thinks the world is only a few thousand years old, but you know... there's also people who think there is a B17 bomber that landed on the moon.

Your statement here is a falsehood. We have observed of course, that every statement ever made by a creo in an effort to falsify evolution is a falsehood of some sort. Usually tho, they are not quite so black and white false as this one.

We would be interested to see if you will accept that this is stated in error.
it is extraordinarily rare for a creo to admit to any error of any sort; something about the mindset, perhaps. Maybe you could explain it?

In any case, see if you can do something to salvage yourself from the embarrassment of posting this nonsense:

(keeping in mind of course, the rule about bearing false witness)

Originally Posted by Cassiterides

There are thousands of paleontologists who believe in Young Earth Creation.





​

 

[Split Rock]

I find it amusing that you guys haven't figured out why Cassiterides is really here. If you just stop feeding him, he will likely leave.

 

[tanzanos]

Before the Tower of Babel, everyone wrote and spoke the same language.

Genesis 11: 1

''And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech''

Different languages, cultures etc are a product of the scattering from Babel.

Let me guess; they spoke the Queen's English!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I find it amusing that you guys haven't figured out why Cassiterides is really here. If you just stop feeding him, he will likely leave.

Ya Think?​

 

[Cassiterides]

This: you do not have to be present in the past to know what happened in the past.

Because you have a time-machine right?

Give me: The age of the earth, by exact date, including the hour and second it was created. Good luck

 

[tanzanos]

AV holds that opinion? Wow. I've never seen it.

I could not find it but here is a referrence:
If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right. AV1611VET, Christian Forums [Comments (109)] [2006-Jul-20] Submitted by Ash

and here is where he does not accept the original Greek as having any importance to the Bible : http://www.christianforums.com/t7470589-32/#post55017420

 

[Hespera]

I find it amusing that you guys haven't figured out why Cassiterides is really here. If you just stop feeding him, he will likely leave.

lets see. One reason theocreos do this is to be able to go back to creoland, and report that they stood their ground, argued for the faith in the face of a pack of snarling evos, and argued them to a standstill.

another is to provoke people to say impolite things to them, which they can then compile, and take for show and tell in creoland, their display of evidence about how nasty them evos are.

So you have some other reason in mind?