Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[Mr Strawberry]

A 1997 gallup poll determined 5% agreed "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
Other data shows 700 to 10,000 in the US.

You ought to read your links before posting them:

According to Newsweek in 1987:

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."
​

That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%

Then it examines another poll giving the optimistic 5% result:

The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, psychology, business administration, etc.

So, not 5% after all.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Again, it is a knowledge dependent comment.

Claiming to have evidence to support your theory that your invisible friend is real, but admitting that if you don't believe your invisible friend is real then the evidence will be invisible too, isn't knowledge dependent, it is belief dependent. Therefore it isn't evidence.

You claim to be some sort of science teacher, which, if it's true, means you shouldn't be making ridiculous statements like this.

 

[Davian]

Maybe juve thinks Star Wars was a documentary.

It is made by human and is interested by billions of audiences.
Is that a qualification for an "evidence" of something?

It certainly does. In this case, the popularity of fiction.

You would like to apply that to your religion?

 

[juvenissun]

Claiming to have evidence to support your theory that your invisible friend is real, but admitting that if you don't believe your invisible friend is real then the evidence will be invisible too, isn't knowledge dependent, it is belief dependent. Therefore it isn't evidence.

You claim to be some sort of science teacher, which, if it's true, means you shouldn't be making ridiculous statements like this.

I can see how was the earth like long time ago by the evidence shown in a rock. Can you see that evidence? Or that evidence does not exist at all?

 

[juvenissun]

It certainly does. In this case, the popularity of fiction.

You would like to apply that to your religion?

That means: there are evidences to any religion.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I can see how was the earth like long time ago by the evidence shown in a rock. Can you see that evidence? Or that evidence does not exist at all?

...you're going ahead with that as a comparison to prove that your invisible friend is real because you have special knowledge to allow you to see your invisible friend? Even though it isn't special knowledge that makes you think he's real, but belief? Sigh.

The geological evidence present in a rock can be demonstrated whether I know about it beforehand or not. You could even present the evidence in a paper if you really feel the need. The evidence for your invisible friend, however, cannot be presented, which is why your comparison doesn't work, as you know. Or should know. How is it possible to be what you claim to be and still insist on going down this route?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That means: there are evidences to any religion.

Lol. The popularity of Star Wars provides evidence to support religion?

Or are you claiming that all religions have supporting evidence because people like Star Wars?

Nope, it's just gibberish again.

edit: although that has reminded me of the very amusing fact that Jedi is the fourth largest religion in the UK according to the census. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

 

[juvenissun]

...you're going ahead with that as a comparison to prove that your invisible friend is real because you have special knowledge to allow you to see your invisible friend? Even though it isn't special knowledge that makes you think he's real, but belief? Sigh.

The geological evidence present in a rock can be demonstrated whether I know about it beforehand or not. You could even present the evidence in a paper if you really feel the need. The evidence for your invisible friend, however, cannot be presented, which is why your comparison doesn't work, as you know. Or should know. How is it possible to be what you claim to be and still insist on going down this route?

I see the evidences. You don't. Geology or religion, you understand neither.
So, evidence is knowledge based.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I see the evidences. You don't. Geology or religion. You understand neither.
So, evidence is knowledge based.

You're really going to persevere with this comparison of geology with faith? Seriously?

Mind you, I suppose claiming that geology works in the same way as faith might explain why real geologists find your posts so funny.

 

[juvenissun]

You're really going to persevere with this comparison of geology with faith? Seriously?

Mind you, I suppose claiming that geology works in the same way as faith might explain why real geologists find your posts so funny.

You do not have knowledge on either geology or theology, so any evidence in these two fields are useless to you. You are blind on any evidence to God.

If you like to see an example, then ask. I will give you one which combines the two together. You will have no clue on what the evidence is about.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You do not have knowledge on either geology or theology, so any evidence in these two fields are useless to you. You are blind on any evidence to God.

So not content with talking nonsense in general, you now you start making assertions, without any evidence (I'm seeing a pattern here), about what I do and don't know. Interesting approach you're taking.

If you like to see an example, then ask. I will give you one which combines the two together. You will have no clue on what the evidence is about.

Please, go ahead.

 

[juvenissun]

So not content with talking nonsense in general, you now you start making assertions, without any evidence (I'm seeing a pattern here), about what I do and don't know. Interesting approach you're taking.

Please, go ahead.

It is all related to what you know or not know.

You may think the Bible is man's words. But I think it God's words.
Evidence? The man who wrote the Bible said something only God knows at that time.

What is that? It is something described as the "springs of the sea"

Can you see this is an evidence of God? And an evidence of geological knowledge at ancient time?

Of course not. Because you knows nothing about both. So it is not an evidence of anything, but a few drunken words.

 

[Zaius137]

There are very competent geologists who are convinced in a young earth…

“A brightly painted sign in the state park explained that 450 million years ago these ancient creatures lived at the bottom of a warm, shallow sea during the Ordovician period. But none of these geologists believed it. As young-earth creationists, they think the earth is about 8,000 years old, give or take a few thousand years. That’s about the amount of time conventional geology says it can take to form one inch of limestone.
Creationist ideas about geology tend to appeal to overly zealous amateurs, but this was a gathering of elites, with an impressive wall of diplomas among them (Harvard, U.C.L.A., the Universities of Virginia, Washington and Rhode Island). They had spent years studying the geologic timetable, but they remained nevertheless deeply committed to a different version of history. “
Creationism - Geology - Rocks and Minerals - Science - Evolution - Earth - New York Times

 

[CabVet]

There are very competent geologists who are convinced in a young earth…

“A brightly painted sign in the state park explained that 450 million years ago these ancient creatures lived at the bottom of a warm, shallow sea during the Ordovician period. But none of these geologists believed it. As young-earth creationists, they think the earth is about 8,000 years old, give or take a few thousand years. That’s about the amount of time conventional geology says it can take to form one inch of limestone.
Creationist ideas about geology tend to appeal to overly zealous amateurs, but this was a gathering of elites, with an impressive wall of diplomas among them (Harvard, U.C.L.A., the Universities of Virginia, Washington and Rhode Island). They had spent years studying the geologic timetable, but they remained nevertheless deeply committed to a different version of history. “
Creationism - Geology - Rocks and Minerals - Science - Evolution - Earth - New York Times

From the article you quote:

"In a presentation at the conference, Wise showed a slide of a fossil sequence that moved from reptile to mammal, with some transitional fossils in between. He veered suddenly from his usual hyperactive mode to contemplative. “It’s a pain in the neck,” he said. “It fits the evolutionary prediction quite well.” Wise and others have come up with various theories explaining how the flood could have produced such perfect order. Wise is refining a theory, for example, that the order reflects how far the animals lived from the shore, so those living farthest from the water show up last in the record. But they haven’t settled on anything yet. "

 

[Zaius137]

From the article you quote:

"In a presentation at the conference, Wise showed a slide of a fossil sequence that moved from reptile to mammal, with some transitional fossils in between. He veered suddenly from his usual hyperactive mode to contemplative. “It’s a pain in the neck,” he said. “It fits the evolutionary prediction quite well.” Wise and others have come up with various theories explaining how the flood could have produced such perfect order. Wise is refining a theory, for example, that the order reflects how far the animals lived from the shore, so those living farthest from the water show up last in the record. But they haven’t settled on anything yet. "

Reptiles to Man? That is just funny, would have loved to see the slide. That must fit right in with the chimp human divergence some 20 million years ago… Oppps that will make common descent unworkable.

 

[Split Rock]

Reptiles to Man? That is just funny, would have loved to see the slide. That must fit right in with the chimp human divergence some 20 million years ago… Oppps that will make common descent unworkable.

He said reptiles to mammals, not to man. Ever heard of "mammal-like reptiles?" Can you guess why they are called that?

 

[Zaius137]

A final hope for the theory of evolution could rest on Bozo. He is the ideal example of natural selection, symbiosis, mutation, gene drift and horizontal gene transfer. The fossil record shows that Tiktaalik’s flippers explain Bozo’s flipper like feet in an amazing way. Fossil evidence may be somewhat lacking for his direct ancestry but that should not be considered an obstacle for traditional evolution. Although my right wing Christian friends have cast doubts that maybe Bozo is just some want to be actor dressed up as some freak.

What do they know? They also consider evolution as want to be science.
My frustration here is not with the critics of evolution but the lack there of. The branches of that hominid family tree, according to the theory, should support the phylogenic tree. But these days’ recent findings in the fossils are causing an explosion of new supposed of hominids. You evolutionists have no reason for concern; evolution will just change its view (again).
Looking forward to the day when scientists wake up and views like mine are no longer considered as sacrilege under penalties of scientific heresy.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It is all related to what you know or not know.

You may think the Bible is man's words. But I think it God's words.
Evidence? The man who wrote the Bible said something only God knows at that time.

What is that? It is something described as the "springs of the sea"

Can you see this is an evidence of God? And an evidence of geological knowledge at ancient time?

Of course not. Because you knows nothing about both. So it is not an evidence of anything, but a few drunken words.

You offer evidence to support your theory that the bible is God's word by saying that the springs of the sea referred to can only mean the deep vents that weren't known about at the time. It is an interesting idea, and would fit in with your theory if we can be sure of 2 things: 1) the author specifically meant deep sea vents, and 2) the idea that the sea was supplied with water from beneath was not around at the time. The first point is uncertain, but I'll go with it. The second point is rather spoiled by dad from this very forum banging on about Noah's worldwide flood being supplied by water from underground and, if I'm not mistaken, quoting the Bible to prove it. So on the one hand you have a possible mention of deep sea vents, on the other indications that the author's grasp of hydrogeology was distictly shaky. On balance it is inconclusive.

But all this, interesting as it is, doesn't get round the problem of your theory of divine authorship being rather spoilt merely by opening the Bible and reading the nonsense in Genesis. As you know, evidence can't prove a theory, it can only support it, but evidence can disprove a theory. Your theory is gone before you've even started. But you did at least try, which was more than I expected, and provided a diverting few minutes.

 

[Split Rock]

A final hope for the theory of evolution could rest on Bozo. He is the ideal example of natural selection, symbiosis, mutation, gene drift and horizontal gene transfer. The fossil record shows that Tiktaalik’s flippers explain Bozo’s flipper like feet in an amazing way. Fossil evidence may be somewhat lacking for his direct ancestry but that should not be considered an obstacle for traditional evolution. Although my right wing Christian friends have cast doubts that maybe Bozo is just some want to be actor dressed up as some freak.

What do they know? They also consider evolution as want to be science.
My frustration here is not with the critics of evolution but the lack there of. The branches of that hominid family tree, according to the theory, should support the phylogenic tree. But these days’ recent findings in the fossils are causing an explosion of new supposed of hominids. You evolutionists have no reason for concern; evolution will just change its view (again).
Looking forward to the day when scientists wake up and views like mine are no longer considered as sacrilege under penalties of scientific heresy.

How surprising... all your much-vaunted arguments now all end up with a final ad hominem (associating Bozo with evolution) wrapped in another Special Pleading argument (hoping scientists give up one of their best supported theories just to make you feel better). Typical. I have one last piece of advice for you... Don't Hold Your Breath.

 

[RickG]

Zaius, I'm still eagerly waiting for your critique of the paper I cited showing a LARGE decay rate variation of 7Be. You also have seemed to have fallen silent with my assessment concerning your Antarctic glaciation citations. I had hoped our discussion could continue.