What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

There you go again thinking insult is a substitute for evidence. Where's your cite for the claim that they take an oath not to do science?

Please, quoting out of context is almost always dishonest. You have a tendency to do that when the answer you are looking for is in the next sentence.

If you are at all familiar with most creationist sites they all tend to have a "Statement of Faith" that their workers have to swear to. Part of it is a statement that the Bible is literally true and that if evidence goes against it the evidence is wrong. One cannot do that in the sciences. Science follows the evidence. If one declares that the evidence is wrong ahead of time one is not doing science. If one says "This is the answer no matter what" one is not doing science. Here is a link to ICR's statement of faith:

Foundational Principles

They have toned down the language a bit over the years, but if someone swears to the following they are presuming an answer. By definition that is not science:

"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."

The theory of evolution could be shown to be wrong today. If strong evidence was unearthed. One has to be willing to say that to be doing science, and say it honestly. When one says "this is right no matter what" one is no longer doing science. One is trying to support dogma.

Also scientific evidence, which allows one to say that one has evidence for one's ideas, depends upon willing to be shown to be wrong. Scientific theories and hypotheses need to be testable. There needs to be a reasonable test, based on the concept's own merits that could refute it. If one is not willing to take that step then one only has an ad hoc explanation, again not science. What possible test could show creationism to be wrong? And please no "change of kind" claims since creationists do not even have a working definition of "kind". The lack of an ability to test the creationism beliefs is another reason why it is not science .

 

[Subduction Zone]

The idea that the shells remained laying undisturbed and free on the top of the mountain as it shot up from the seabed to 22k feet is quite frankly, preposterous. I doubt you could ever reproduce such a thing occurring in any sort of experiment. The basic laws of physics exclude it. Just the water draining off the new material would wash such loose debris off as it initially rose out of the ocean.

But they don't. That is a strawman. You do not understand what is observed.

Unlike what a worldwide flood would deposit, one poorly sorted relatively thin layer all around the world, the mountains are made of sediments that were deposited over many millions of years. Therefore the fossils are all through the rock. Not just on top. The fossils that we see on top of mountains would be there even if only the last remnant of that strata was all that we left after erosion.

Mountains are the product of both uplift and erosion. Without erosion there would only be a very high flat plane.

 

[MIDutch]

The idea that the shells remained laying undisturbed and free on the top of the mountain as it shot up from the seabed to 22k feet is quite frankly, preposterous. I doubt you could ever reproduce such a thing occurring in any sort of experiment. The basic laws of physics exclude it. Just the water draining off the new material would wash such loose debris off as it initially rose out of the ocean.

Exactly! Now your getting it.

Which makes the seashells INSIDE, and part of, the Qomolanga sedimentary layer at the top of Mt Everest impossible to explain with the Noachian flood geology model. The seashells are inside and part of the rock that makes up the uppermost part of Mt. Everest, not just a few shells sitting on the surface that would have been washed off during the draining of the Noachian flood.

Also, how fast do you think Mt Everest took to get to it's present height of 29,029 feet? Your post makes it sound like you think it "shot up" in a few days or so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like to argue FOR God,,,,
but am not willing to do this for persons that are not truly interested. It becomes a waste of time since the mind and heart are closed.

I no longer wish to be on this thread because I find some persons here rather insulting...very bad models for the science community.

I find John Lennox to be a much nicer person than Lawrence Krauss, for instance. I find the Christians that have responded to you to be much nicer persons than some of the agnostics/atheists that have contributed and have told me I'm ignorant.

I may be ignorant,,,I really don't care what anyone on here believes ---- but if you could look around you and think all this came from some source other than an intelligent source, then that's how it is for YOU.

For me and other Christians that have known God there is no need for us to prove His existence to anyone.

And being, apparently, in the field of science, you must surely know that there can be no proof for God.
God has always made Himself be known to man....even this simple statement, which is true, caused controversy....bringing about the discussion of different gods and deities. My simple statement was THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD...is that so difficult to understand? The bias is disheartening.

God is like the wind...
It cannot be seen,
but one knows it is present
because of its effects.

Evolution is neither an argument for or against God. So that makes the rest of your post rather pointless. Evolution only refutes your personal interpretation of God. It does not refute God. And when you argue for the creation stories you are not arguing for God. You are arguing for your interpretation of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly! Now your getting it.

Which makes the seashells INSIDE, and part of, the Qomolanga sedimentary layer at the top of Mt Everest impossible to explain with the Noachian flood geology model. The seashells are inside and part of the rock that makes up the uppermost part of Mt. Everest, not just a few shells sitting on the surface that would have been washed off during the draining of the Noachian flood.

Also, how fast do you think Mt Everest took to get to it's present height of 29,029 feet? Your post makes it sound like you think it "shot up" in a few days or so.

Also he assumed that the sediments were unconsolidated. Something that I should have noted. By the time that they arose from the ocean they were well indurated (cemented) sedimentary rock. It was not a matter of loose sediments rising.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And speaking of erosion of sedimentary rock. Here is an image that refutes the flood story all on its own:

Young Earth Creationists need unconsolidated sediments for their "Flood" claim. The problem is that geologic features such as this one cannot be formed quickly. This had to be formed over millions of years.

 

[Al Touthentop]

There were not even any scientists at that time. What we call "science" is a relatively modern invention. Think Galileo and later. And yes, people tended to believe in deities back then. So what? Not then but earlier many believed the Earth to be Flat. How does a lack of knowledge support your claim about the translation? Where is it "too scientific"? And you missed the authors point. Believing in God does not believing the Bible literally. Such beliefs are harmful to religion.

Look at the atheist telling people what the bible means and doesn't mean.

You've acknowledged here enough evidence that would call this quote into serious question. It refers to a controversy that didn't exist during the time he wrote it. And then you ask: So what?

So what: is that somebody who claims to be a skeptic won't look at a quote like this and fail to notice it has serious problems. Your approach to these arguments is not to consider the facts and make a decision but to make a decision and ignore any facts that might call that into question. You're not scientific.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Also he assumed that the sediments were unconsolidated. Something that I should have noted. By the time that they arose from the ocean they were well indurated (cemented) sedimentary rock. It was not a matter of loose sediments rising.

You didn't note it because you had no idea until you went and found some article that said something about it.

 

[HitchSlap]

The idea that the shells remained laying undisturbed and free on the top of the mountain as it shot up from the seabed to 22k feet is quite frankly, preposterous. I doubt you could ever reproduce such a thing occurring in any sort of experiment. The basic laws of physics exclude it. Just the water draining off the new material would wash such loose debris off as it initially rose out of the ocean.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look at the atheist telling people what the bible means and doesn't mean.

You've acknowledged here enough evidence that would call this quote into serious question. It refers to a controversy that didn't exist during the time he wrote it. And then you ask: So what?

So what: is that somebody who claims to be a skeptic won't look at a quote like this and fail to notice it has serious problems. Your approach to these arguments is not to consider the facts and make a decision but to make a decision and ignore any facts that might call that into question. You're not scientific.

No, we are discussing the translation. Are you claiming that the speaker of that line was an atheist?

And you appear to have forgotten that the reason many people are atheists is due to a superior understanding of the Bible.

And yes, even then there were zealots that abused religious texts. Please note, Augustine was not a skeptic in the poor sense that you used the term. He was a Christian. He did not think that the Bible should be always interpreted literally.

And you are accusing others of your sins. You had this so backwards that you accused me of telling people what the Bible means. Where on Earth did you get that from?

By the way, you were given a link. You can get the book and run it through a Latin translator if you do not understand the language yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't note it because you had no idea until you went and found some article that said something about it.

No, I should have made a comment but did not. It was an obvious error on your part. But there are so many it is hard to address them all. Please, don't assume that others know as little as you do. I am sure that there are things you know far more about that I do. You need to accept that others have knowledge that you lack too.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Exactly! Now your getting it.

Which makes the seashells INSIDE, and part of, the Qomolanga sedimentary layer at the top of Mt Everest impossible to explain with the Noachian flood geology model. The seashells are inside and part of the rock that makes up the uppermost part of Mt. Everest, not just a few shells sitting on the surface that would have been washed off during the draining of the Noachian flood.

Also, how fast do you think Mt Everest took to get to it's present height of 29,029 feet? Your post makes it sound like you think it "shot up" in a few days or so.

It had to have happened relatively quickly. I don't necessarily mean in a few days or anything but geological events have to happen faster than some might assume in order to produce the sort of heat and destruction proposed. But there are plenty of loose shells on very high mountains which indicates that they were deposited there after they grew up rather than before. Glaciation could explain some (not all obviously) embedded shells depending on the type of rock we're talking about.

Again though, I aint a geologist. I've read McPhee and he won a Pulitzer for his books on geology but that still doesn't make me any sort of expert.

 

[MIDutch]

There were not even any scientists at that time. What we call "science" is a relatively modern invention. Think Galileo and later. And yes, people tended to believe in deities back then. So what? Not then but earlier many believed the Earth to be Flat. How does a lack of knowledge support your claim about the translation? Where is it "too scientific"? And you missed the authors point. Believing in God does not believing the Bible literally. Such beliefs are harmful to religion.

All of this is true, but there were people who knew things about subjects that would latter be called science, even way back then. Don't forget, Eratosthenes had a rough calculation of the circumference of the the Earth in 240 BC and the Phoenicians had real world experience with the Earth being a sphere going all the way back to the 5th century BC, some 800 years before Augustine.

In other words, there probably were probably people walking around in Augustine's time that had knowledge, that would later be called scientific, that contradicted a literal and inerrant reading of the Bible, such as a flat Earth. Which is exactly what Augustine was addressing in his De Genesi ad litteram.

 

[Al Touthentop]

No, we are discussing the translation. Are you claiming that the speaker of that line was an atheist?

That you could ask this question means that you haven't at all paid attention to content of what I wrote other than to quickly hit the send button and post nonsense in response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The one thing that @MIDutch could have done was to include a link with his quote. But Google makes finding sources easy. Here is a link to St. Augustine's quote:

Quote by Augustine of Hippo: “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something a...”

And another:

Saint Augustine

And another, it appears to be a Christian one:

History

How many more are needed?

 

[MIDutch]

It had to have happened relatively quickly.

Do you think 65 million years is "relatively quickly"?

 

[MIDutch]

Again though, I aint a geologist. I've read McPhee and he won a Pulitzer for his books on geology but that still doesn't make me any sort of expert.

I have not read that book.

Does he reference the Noachian flood anywhere in it as a driver of the geological formations we see on the planet Earth?

 

[MIDutch]

That you could ask this question means that you haven't at all paid attention to content of what I wrote other than to quickly hit the send button and post nonsense in response.

The "content" of what you wrote said you thought my quotation of Augustine was a fake.

 

[Al Touthentop]

All of this is true, but there were people who knew things about subjects that would latter be called science, even way back then. Don't forget, Eratosthenes had a rough calculation of the circumference of the the Earth in 240 BC and the Phoenicians had real world experience with the Earth being a sphere going all the way back to the 5th century BC, some 800 years before Augustine.

It wasn't rough. It was within 24 miles of being perfect. Not only that, he proves that flat earthers were something that came afterward. The bible in no way teaches a flat earth. Flat earthers did not get their information from the bible.

Which is exactly what Augustine was addressing in his De Genesi ad litteram.

I don't think the translation is even remotely accurate. There was no controversy between science and religion in 430 AD that favored "science." I quote that because that word didn't even come into use until the 19th century.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That you could ask this question means that you haven't at all paid attention to content of what I wrote other than to quickly hit the send button and post nonsense in response.

No, you simply failed with false claims and personal attacks again. I have known of St. Augustine's beliefs for some time. That is not just accepting the quote whole cloth.

But why didn't you do what I did? I searched the quote and found a slew of sources that use the same interpretation, including Christian ones. All you could do was to deny a quote that went contrary to your beliefs from one of the early church fathers. I think we can see who is not being rational here. You denied without any evidence a quote that you had not heard before. I heard a quote that I had heard before and simply agreed with it. But when you kept challenging it I found several sources for you on it.

I should have included a link to the search as well, but that can be a bit too insulting.