Creationism: Loudest in the Room or Increasing Extremism?

[horza66]

Apologies for the cross-post from Education, but this is a question more appropriate here:

The weird thing for me is the way YEC/ID/Biblical Literalism has taken over as the only form of religion discussed. Back in secondary school we had our mandated Religious Education class, where the various religions were discussed along with creation myths. I was already an atheist by then, and not greatly interested, but it was a balanced view. The teacher was the school Rector, who clearly didn't take the Bible literally, and nor did any Anglicans I encountered subsequently. The Bible, along with other religious texts were intended as some form of moral guidance through parable. That, to me, was religion. A bit wishy washy and well meaning, but essentially harmless. Biblical literalists were weirdos who lived in isolated commmunities.

Nowadays (ahem - get off my lawn) it seems like the weirdos are the only ones shouting. Has there really been a big shift of belief to YEC literalism from moderate interpretive views of the Bible? Are there studies or viable statistics to indicate whether this is just weirdos making noise, or genuine radicalisation?



To expand on the theme: it seems to me a lot of time is wasted in "discussions" with or about the weirdos and nutjobs of Creationism/ID/Literalists, who are essentially immune to rational argument. Have these extremists managed to make the debate about them? Shouldn't the rational approach be to seek common ground with the moderate religious majority, and push the extremists to the margins where they belong?

[TimCallahan]

What's unfortunate is that the debates are always about the validity of the theory of evolution, which automatically put us on the defensive. What I would like to see is a debate in which the merits of creationism as scientific theory are debated. Let them defend their turf for a change. Particularly when it comes to Intelligent Design, any such debate would show that there's no "there" there.

[Hux]

I know I am going back 40 odd years - probably longer, but I don't recall ridiculous Knowledge lessons being any more than a confirmation of protestantism. Having said that, literalism was not on the agenda of children then. We were not offered a creationist view of the world but then I don't recall being told anything about evolution in Biology lessons (and this is from the ages between 11 to 17).

Creationism is getting louder for Chrissake. It must be easier to understand stupidity than taking the time to consider something. I don't wish to overemphasise the situation but as far as I understand it, evolution, even now, is not dwelt upon in any great measure, despite it being one of the most powerful and easily accessible ideas in modern times.

[Simon39759]

What's unfortunate is that the debates are always about the validity of the theory of evolution, which automatically put us on the defensive. What I would like to see is a debate in which the merits of creationism as scientific theory are debated. Let them defend their turf for a change. Particularly when it comes to Intelligent Design, any such debate would show that there's no "there" there.


That would require them to have an actual scientific theory to defend.
Hell; that'd require them to agree with each other!

[negativ]

Speculation:

Many religious people agree with Judge Jones' opinion that ID/Creationism is "breathtaking inanity". A case can be made that, in contrast with evolution, creationism actually denigrates the concept of a creator deity. However, telling the loud fundamentalist minority that their beliefs are stupid is considered intolerant and disrespectful. For non-fundies who are on board with evolution, it's like smiling and nodding at your crazy in-laws at Thanksgiving dinner while cringing on the inside. I think Sam Harris' view is essentially correct; that religious moderates effectively shelter fundamentalists from the normal criticisms we apply to every other form of opinion including politics, art, literature, and what to have for dinner this evening.

I don't think extremism is increasing. I think it's just getting louder lately, and while I don't want to hijack this into a political discussion, I think it has more than a little to do with the reactions to the 2008 US presidential election.

Of course, this is all just the ravings of a madman. I'm usually wrong about everything else.

[TimCallahan]

That would require them to have an actual scientific theory to defend.
Hell; that'd require them to agree with each other!

My point precisely.

[Hux]

I have heard it said many times (including Sam Harris) that loud fundamentalism, if not fundamentalism itself, is a pathetic response to the rise of secularism and reason. If that is true then all we have to do is ride out their death throes.

I cannot see fundies going away any time soon but of course, stupid is no way to go through life.

[Pure Argent]

To expand on the theme: it seems to me a lot of time is wasted in "discussions" with or about the weirdos and nutjobs of Creationism/ID/Literalists, who are essentially immune to rational argument. Have these extremists managed to make the debate about them? Shouldn't the rational approach be to seek common ground with the moderate religious majority, and push the extremists to the margins where they belong?

Increasing extremism. The ones who AREN'T extreme have long since converted. Therefore, to cover for this "moral backsliding", the remaining extremists have become increasingly vocal.
But yes, it would be logical to take the fight to creationism. But there's still the old prejudice remaining - namely that which states that religious claims have a special basis. You aren't ALLOWED to attack creationism on scientific grounds. Any time you try, you get shouted down. So even though it's logical, it isn't going to happen.

[Hux]

How can you seek a common ground with a moderate? Either they believe this tripe or they do not. It is for the moderate, who has some tenuous hold on reality, to challenge the extremists. They cannot be charged with ulterior motives. but in the end, even if we eradicated fundamentalism and even extremism, we would still be left with a core belief of ignorance which education finds difficult to undermine.

It is easier to attack creationism in the UK than the US. but the main strategy seems to have been that , in creationism, there is nothing there to attack.

[~enigma~]

What's unfortunate is that the debates are always about the validity of the theory of evolution, which automatically put us on the defensive. What I would like to see is a debate in which the merits of creationism as scientific theory are debated. Let them defend their turf for a change. Particularly when it comes to Intelligent Design, any such debate would show that there's no "there" there.
Uh...there is no debate whatsoever about evolution.

[Hux]

Creationism, as a hypothesis, was duly considered at one time. This is why we can safely dismiss it as rubbish. ANything is worthy of hypothesis but science has shown there is no debate worthy. its been done to death. its up to us and the scientific community to be more aggresive towards ignorance, not encourage it.

[~enigma~]

Creationism, as a hypothesis, was duly considered at one time. This is why we can safely dismiss it as rubbish. ANything is worthy of hypothesis but science has shown there is no debate worthy. its been done to death. its up to us and the scientific community to be more aggresive towards ignorance, not encourage it.
Creationism is magic not science. Never has been science and never will be science.

[Hux]

Nevertheless it had to be considered hypothetically. How else could science ever dismiss it? Even the blessed Dawkins states that.:D

I am not suggesting creationism is anything other than woo, nor do I think it deserves debate. But there had to be a basis to refute it entirely.

[~enigma~]

Nevertheless it had to be considered hypothetically. How else could science ever dismiss it? Even the blessed Dawkins states that.:D

I am not suggesting creationism is anything other than woo, nor do I think it deserves debate. But there had to be a basis to refute it entirely.
When creation can show a way it can be falsified and that it makes any testable predictions, then science has a need to refute it. That hasn't happened yet nor will it ever.

[Hux]

But it has been considered. Not greatly I grant you. Science is a process. How else but by scientific reason, can we rebutt it?

Of course creationism is an empty vessel that cannot be falsified; its very claims are ridiculous.

[~enigma~]

But it has been considered. Not greatly I grant you. Science is a process. How else but by scientific reason, can we rebutt it?

Of course creationism is an empty vessel that cannot be falsified; its very claims are ridiculous.
If it is an empty vessel that can't be falsified, what is the necessity for science to rebut it when it claims itself that it isn't scientific?

[Hux]

I am not claiming science has to do anything more. I am stating scientific process exposed creationism for what it is.

[~enigma~]

I am not claiming science has to do anything more. I am stating scientific process exposed creationism for what it is.
Correct yet it was not necessary since creation itself shows that it is unfalsifiable and not scientific.

[RecoveringYuppy]

When creation can show a way it can be falsified and that it makes any testable predictions, then science has a need to refute it. That hasn't happened yet nor will it ever.

Certain claims of creationism, flood geology comes to mind, can be and have been falsified. Of course, that doesn't stop some from trying to rescue it with "but maybe a few miracles happened during the flood" which can't be falsified, but many creationist claims can actually be falsified.

The flood created the Grand Canyon, Ken Hovinds incredibly stupid "the poles came from a frozen comet" theory can be refuted.

[Hux]

Let me put it another way.

Some idiot claims the Earth was made around about the time the Sumerians were brewing Beer. In an ideal world we just ignore it. But we point out, historically, Archaeologically and radio metrically they are wrong. These are all scientific process. I do not claim we did these things to rebut the emptiness that is creationism. However, even Ken Miller had to bring scientific knowledge to rebut the madness of Behe and his ID'ers. Somewhere along the line, a scientist had to take Creationism as a proposition in order to rebut it. Nothing at all wrong with that but there is no reason to suppose we should continue to do so. Even Darwin had to take his prevalent world view into consideration before he discovered the essential truth.

Im afraid all this is entirely necessary. Even now. Simple dismissal of a stupid idea just gives these pricks the idea that they might be onto something.

[Hux]

I cannot think of any portion of creationism that cannot be, in any essence, discarded.

[~enigma~]

Certain claims of creationism, flood geology comes to mind, can be and have been falsified. Of course, that doesn't stop some from trying to rescue it with "but maybe a few miracles happened during the flood" which can't be falsified, but many creationist claims can actually be falsified.

The flood created the Grand Canyon, Ken Hovinds incredibly stupid "the poles came from a frozen comet" theory can be refuted.
Creationism can not be falsified. Sure parts of creationism can be falsified yet creotards just claim god created things to appear as they are. I have even heard a creotard claim that Miller and Urey 'proved' creation takes intelligence...talk about being deluded. Debating creotards and their magical myth of creation is unnecessary and futile.

[Hux]

You should see what they say about Ardi on 'Rapture ready" and sites like it. These are twisted, sad and pathetic human beings.

[~enigma~]

Simple dismissal of a stupid idea just gives these pricks the idea that they might be onto something.
Not entirely true. Of course the creotards and IDiots will spin it to mean that but that is not at all what it means. Look up Joe Newman and his energy machine, look up the challenge he made for any PhD to debate him. read why they didn't and you will understand why debating magic is unnecessary and futile. A debate tends to elevate both sides to an intellectually equal level. If you really think that creation ever deserved that...

[~enigma~]

You should see what they say about Ardi on 'Rapture ready" and sites like it. These are twisted, sad and pathetic human beings.
Exactly why they are referred to as IDiots and creotards.

[Hux]

Not entirely true. Of course the creotards and IDiots will spin it to mean that but that is not at all what it means. Look up Joe Newman and his energy machine, look up the challenge he made for any PhD to debate him. read why they didn't and you will understand why debating magic is unnecessary and futile. A debate tends to elevate both sides to an intellectually equal level. If you really think that creation ever deserved that...

I have never made such a claim. We need not debate anyone. But we do - big style. The fact of the matter is that a Geologist refuted the notion that the Grand canyon sprang up on 40 days. That is rebuttal enough. But if science had not given some consideration - in the PAST - to some of the claims of creationism, we would not be in any postion to laugh it off. Its not enough, certainly to the creationists, to simply state they are feckwits. We have had to demonstrate it. You cannot do that without consideration of the claim.

I am not, and have not said that I advocate debating creationists on the basis of their current claims. I am stating that science has successfully thrown out all their claims but to do so they had to do more than simply bellow it from the rooftops. How else can science (Knowledge) progress?

[~enigma~]

I have never made such a claim. We need not debate anyone. But we do - big style. The fact of the matter is that a Geologist refuted the notion that the Grand canyon sprang up on 40 days. That is rebuttal enough. But if science had not given some consideration - in the PAST - to some of the claims of creationism, we would not be in any postion to laugh it off. Its not enough, certainly to the creationists, to simply state they are feckwits. We have had to demonstrate it. You cannot do that without consideration of the claim.

I am not, and have not said that I advocate debating creationists on the basis of their current claims. I am stating that science has successfully thrown out all their claims but to do so they had to do more than simply bellow it from the rooftops. How else can science (Knowledge) progress?Let me ask it a different way since you apparently didn't quite understand what i meant about Joe Newman. If science never refuted any aspect of creationism but totally ignored it, would it be a scientific theory? If not, how could science ever debating it be necessary?

ETA - the creotards and IDiots do enough damage to their own claims if left alone.

[Hux]

Nope it wouldn't be a theory. Never did claim that. But how then does science consider something worthy of consideration without somehow, at some stage, considering the principle?

Of course its not a theory. never was, never will be. And we have science to thank for that statement. Not just simple ridicule.

[~enigma~]

Nope it wouldn't be a theory. never did claim that.
Then there was no need for science to ever waste time and energy addressing it.

[Hux]

History shows us that conclusion. The fact of the matter is that it did.

[~enigma~]

History shows us that conclusion. The fact of the matter is that it did.
Yes science did yet it was unnecessary. How many advances in science were either never made or delayed because science was busy debating creotards and IDiots unnecessarily?

[Darth Rotor]

The weird thing for me is the way YEC/ID/Biblical Literalism has taken over as the only form of religion discussed

Where is this????

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think extremism is increasing. I think it's just getting louder lately, and while I don't want to hijack this into a political discussion, I think it has more than a little to do with the reactions to the 2008 US presidential election.

You may be right, but I don't think the US pres elections are that important to the volume. This Fundy vs other PoV bitter fight has gone on for five straight administrations that I have been aware of. What has differed is in how much play the media give it, and in the past decade, how much play the internet gives it.

DR

[steve s]

To expand on the theme: it seems to me a lot of time is wasted in "discussions" with or about the weirdos and nutjobs of Creationism/ID/Literalists, who are essentially immune to rational argument.

I disagree that it's a waste of time. Years ago the creationists wouldn't allow for any amount of evolutionary change. Now, most of them will admit that some amount of evolution occurs (microevolution as they call it) but that this evolution is being guided by an intelligent designer.

When confronted with fossils of whales with hind flippers and dinosaurs with feathers, I've had a few creationists admit that other animals may have evolved into new species, but that humans have always had the same form. We are gradually winning the war.

Steve S.

[Hux]

I disagree that it's a waste of time. Years ago the creationists wouldn't allow for any amount of evolutionary change. Now, most of them will admit that some amount of evolution occurs (microevolution as they call it) but that this evolution is being guided by an intelligent designer.

When confronted with fossils of whales with hind flippers and dinosaurs with feathers, I've had a few creationists admit that other animals may have evolved into new species, but that humans have always had the same form. We are gradually winning the war.

Steve S.

Steve you would not think that if you had some of the conversations I have recently had. The creationist just puts his fingers in ears and goes LALALALA I cant hear you!

I have been lectured on the nature of the fossil record, the 'fact' that Cetacians arrived fully aquatic, that genetic information gets lost(without being to explain if that makes any difference) where are the transitional creatures?, how human population growth confirms the Earth is only 6,000 years old yada yadda yadda. I've even been told Evolution is a faith.

I'm willing to bet there's not a person here who hasn't had the same experience with these Cretins. I don't think we are 'winning' at all.

[Hux]

Yes science did yet it was unnecessary. How many advances in science were either never made or delayed because science was busy debating creotards and IDiots unnecessarily?

Not many I would imagine. Its not as if the entire scientific community was exercised by it.

[hereisjoe]

Seven typical replies by Evolutionists to Creationists:
1. “They don’t understand science. They are faithers and they just believe that God did it.” Ie end of story.
2. Ask for proof of God (a variation of point 4). Not related in any way but ask them that anyway.
3. Don’t answer any scientific explanation offered by Creationism; just ask for “peer-reviewed” published support.
4. Steer the topic at hand away from what is asked: example: “What came before the Big Bang?” is answered by “Evolution is about origins of life, not about origins of the cosmos or universe”. Oh, really?
5. Twist a sentence, or quote out-of-context.
6. Quote the fossil “evidence”. Never mind that the fossils cannot conclusively prove association.
7. Simple denounce it as being crazy. OR: don’t ever admit that any point by a Creationist might have validity. OR: paint all Creationists with the same brush; don’t ever look closely enough to see that all Creationists don’t belong to the same ‘religious’ cult or group.

GUARANTEED: any reply by these people (evolutionists) will prove one or more of these above points, and they don't even have to use Science to do it, just their brilliant wits and genius. Whoopee!

[Glockjaw]

7. Simple denounce it as being crazy. OR: don’t ever admit that any point by a Creationist might have validity. OR: paint all Creationists with the same brush; don’t ever look closely enough to see that all Creationists don’t belong to the same ‘religious’ cult or group.


If creationism had validity, science would be inadvertently proving it. However, this is not the case. Science leads us to a more complex answer than goddidit.

So yes, no one is going to take those baseless goddidit claims as having validity. Its a mockery of our ability to utilize knowledge. The creationist is overlooking hard evidence to go with 'faith'.

And why shouldn't we paint all creationists under the same brush? If the question is how you believe existence started, they all have the same answer and thus have the same view. goddidit.

[Simon39759]

Seven typical replies by Evolutionists to Creationists:
1. “They don’t understand science. They are faithers and they just believe that God did it.” Ie end of story.

Well, they don't, most of the time. If not they would know that both ID and creationism, being unfalsifiable, can not be evaluated through the scientific method.


2. Ask for proof of God (a variation of point 4). Not related in any way but ask them that anyway.

It is, indeed, unrelated.
although, because we don't have any existence of God, any working hypothesis that do not require God will automatically be more parsimonious an explanation that one that does, and hence, preferred in term of logic and science.



3. Don’t answer any scientific explanation offered by Creationism; just ask for “peer-reviewed” published support.

Well; I am not aware of any scientific evidence ever produced by Creationist, so the point is a bit moot.

By the way, I discovered the Higs bozon. It was in my back pocket all along, now shut up and give me my Nobel prize already...
Of course, a good scientific evidence should be able to be examined by knowledgeable specialist before being admitted.



4. Steer the topic at hand away from what is asked: example: “What came before the Big Bang?” is answered by “Evolution is about origins of life, not about origins of the cosmos or universe”. Oh, really?

Yes, really.
Can you look back at your first point? See how this could explain it?

By the way, we don't know what came before the Big-bang, there is not even a reason to believe that there was a 'before the Big-bang'.



5. Twist a sentence, or quote out-of-context.

Ironic coming from a creationist. I remember, in the last podcast of the Skeptic zone, somebody checking a creationist pamphlet and realizing that 90% of the reference were, indeed, twisted and out of context quotes.

Here is the thing, though, 99.9% of the Biologist ARE "evolutionists" (personally, I am a gravito-germaist, if you are going to define me with what universally accepted scientific theory I accept, why not the theory of gravity and the germ theory?).
When bioligist quote somebody, it is almost always a peer-biologist...hence, most likely a fellow "Evolutionist" (and gravito-germaist). So, where is the need to twist his sentence coming from? That does not make sense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xywqv1cDH8&feature=related)!



6. Quote the fossil “evidence”. Never mind that the fossils cannot conclusively prove association.

There is no "proof" in science (see point 1) there is only evidences compatible with a theory (but always open to re-interpretation as more evidences come to light) or evidences disproving it.
The fossil record is only a few thousand of independent facts that happened to fit perfectly within the framework of the theory of Evolution's predictions.
If you are afraid of bones (that's what she said); there is always the molecular evidences. I like the Endogenous Retroviruses (http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-5-endogenous.html) and Chromosome 2 fusion (http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm) most, personally.



7. Simple denounce it as being crazy. OR: don’t ever admit that any point by a Creationist might have validity. OR: paint all Creationists with the same brush; don’t ever look closely enough to see that all Creationists don’t belong to the same ‘religious’ cult or group.

Indeed, not all creationists belong to the same group. Hell, the different creationists are just as incompatible with each other thant they are with evolution.
In more than 30 years of existence 'scientific' creationism has unable to produce a coherent scenario, let alone a scientific hypothesis, not to mention a testable theory.

Now, are the creationists crazy? Well, they do reject a vast amount of evidences that they happen not to like.
If a friend of mine was arguing that I flew through his window, even after being repeated and shown how me climbing his stairs are actually a much more likely scenario, even showing him my muddy footprints on most of the steps, I would indeed start to think that there is something wrong with him. He might not be 'crazy' but there is definitively something impairing his reasoning process.



GUARANTEED: any reply by these people (evolutionists) will prove one or more of these above points, and they don't even have to use Science to do it, just their brilliant wits and genius. Whoopee!

A little bit of training and you could apply for the MDC... Sadly, I did use a tiny bit of science.
I could have used more, but you don't use any yourself, so I am not sure it would be appropriate. It's like, I have this friend which is a really hot stripper, you know, but because the party is a kinder-gardener's birthday, I am not sure it would be appropriate to bring her. It would probably not be very appropriate. Also, my friend would likely got bored, and the cake is too small, anyway.

Your problem is more basic than science. It seems to me that you have a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method itself, which help explain your first point.
You know, if most 'evolutionists' you talk to mention your lack of understanding of science, to the point that it is the first thing that comes to your mind when you start complaining about them... There is a non-zero chance that, indeed, you do not understand the scientific method. Here is a short premium.

-Observe the world, each individual observation constitute a "fact".
-For example, an organism acquires a new characteristic, such as a bacterium developing a resistance to an antibiotic or learning how to digest a new substance, Nylon, let's say, or citric acid in the Lenski experiment.

-If all the facts fit a pattern, you can expect that all future facts you collect will fit the same pattern. Congratulation, you got yourself a "scientific law".
For example: the fossils record seem ordered into a gradual pattern. A species, within the statigraphic column, is surrounded by slightly different organisms, with the organism in the middle having an intermediate form between the two organism surrounding it. Constituting an intermediate morphological step between the two organisms.
Or, another exaple: organisms subjected to a given pressure or an alternative opportunity within their environment, will adapt to this pressure. Bacteria will "learn" how to resist to antibiotics or develop new pathways to take opportunity that were not previously available.

-Sometime, you won't have an explanation for a given scientific law. Sometime, it is not even certain that there is any reason, it is just the way Nature works (for example, the Laws of thermodynamics).
Other time, you will have an explanation to explain this scientific law, this explanation is a nascent 'scientific theory.
For example, this adaptation occurs because of the mutations we have observed (another observed fact). The mutations that give a competitive advantage are selected for, allowing the individual harboring them to become the rule (theory of natural selection and descent with mutation).

-Of course, it is always possible for any given explanation to get a new explanation that work equally well. In this case, the explanation that make the less new assumption (aka the most parsimonious one) should win.
For example, "the less fit organisms tend to be replaced but not because they will be out-bred, but because time travelling hunters are lazy" would also work, but is less parsimonious as we have no reason believe that time travelling hunters exist.
Similarly, "Natural selection does not work for macroevolution and God created everything, including a number of species (or fossils) that just happen to look exactly what all these transitional species would look like". Is much less parsimonious, it requires the existence of God, his interest in creating the whole she-bang and the amazing coincidence of creating a bunch of extinct species just where the gaps would be. So, all evidences being equal; creationist (or ID) would make a poorer scientific theory than the theory of evolution, but, that's not a problem, as you will see in the next point .

-Now that we have a theory (or a law), we can use them to make predictions to test it. It's a tough test, because, no matter how many facts you have, just one observation that would be incompatible with the theory would falsify it.
For example if the theory of evolution was correct, there should be transitional species between the current species and between the fossils. Not all of them might fossilize but there should still be plenty of them. For example, there should be a fish-tetrapod transitional organism within the devonian layers. check
Moreover, when lacking, the gaps themselves within the fossil record should be compatible with what we know of fossilization. There should be among the older and less fossilisable organisms. It wouldn't make sense to have a highly detailed record of Cambrian works and not find any transitional species within the equine fossil record check.
Another example: [i] if the theory of evolution was correct, a change in the environment, for example, the darkening of the landscape with soot during the industrial revolution, should lead to a difference in populations (the moths would become darker).Check.
Another example: if descent with modification was true, random individual incidents that left a mark in one organism genomic material, would leave marks in both descendant. For example, a retrovirus infecting the germ cells of a common ancestor of chimp and human would leave the same ERV in both genomes check.
Similarly if common ancestry was true, any difference could be traced back to a mutation. For example, the difference in chromosome numbers in chimp and humans could be traced back to a given mutation check.


And that's only a few, a tiny bit of the layer of frost forming from the morning dew at the top of the gigantonormous iceberg of evidences that support the theory of evolution.
Thousand upon thousand of individual facts that all are compatible with the theory and not a single onethat isn't.

by the way this is the reason why science does not have "proofs". Or that it is just the "theory" of evolution. Because one can never decide that a fact is not on its way to show up and disprove a theory.
Established theories are well explanations for a wide body of evidences that has been tested by a large number of observations and has yet to be refuted. They are the highest level of confidence science can ever achieve for an explanation.



In contrast Creationism and ID make what testable hypothesis?
None, ziltch, nada.
Light coming from more than 6000 years away? -> God created it 'en route'.
Civilization leaving through the global flood and not noticing it? -> They lie (I guess).
ERV? -> God put them here, we just don't know for what purpose...

And so on, and so on. God is infinite, he can do anything, therefore, by definition, not test can ever prove he did not do something. Hence, any 'theory" involving God can not, by definition, be tested through the scientific method and is, hence, not scientific.

[m_huber]

GUARANTEED: any reply by these people (evolutionists) will prove one or more of these above points, and they don't even have to use Science to do it, just their brilliant wits and genius. Whoopee!

If the conclusion does not follow from the premises, the argument can be discarded without further review. I have not seen any of your other posts, but you seem to be advocating some form of creationism. There are basically three varieties of creationism: YEC, old earth creationism, and intelligent design.

YEC usually calls for a global flood and the age of the earth being under 10,000 years. This can be shown to be false by the lack of any physical evidence for a flood, evidence for processes taking place over long periods of time (such as coral reefs preserved in limestone that would take thousands of years to develop, and then another coral reef stacked directly on top of it in another layer of limestone), and any dating method, including all radioisotope methods, dendrochronology (tree-ring dating), and ice core dating.

Old earth creationism often claims that the earth is old, but that evolution doesn't happen (or that we don't understand it), possibly because of multiple destruction-creation events in the history of time. While this is harder to discount, it can be put aside by comparing the background extinction rate of organisms to mass extinctions. Because of the "normal" rate of organisms going extinct and organisms appearing in geologic time, there is no reason to think that special creation is needed after each mass extinction.

Intelligent design is the hardest to discount, because it makes the weakest claim. All ID claims is that god guides evolution/god made life. The reason this isn't accepted as science is because it adds nothing to scientific understanding, but it adds an extra step that has no real evidence except that it serves as a sort of "god of the gaps" type idea. It is fine philosophically, but it doesn't do anything for the benefit of science.

If your beliefs differ from the categories described, please expand on them.

[pnerd]

1. “They don’t understand science. They are faithers and they just believe that God did it.” Ie end of story.
That is true in most of the cases. Creationists show a serious lack of understanding of evolution in particular; and science and scientific method in general.


2. Ask for proof of God (a variation of point 4). Not related in any way but ask them that anyway.
Why shouldn't we ask for a proof of the existence of god/gods?


3. Don’t answer any scientific explanation offered by Creationism; just ask for “peer-reviewed” published support.
If it's NOT published in a peer-reviewed journal, then the 'scientific' explanation has little or no reliability. So there's no point in answering those.


4. Steer the topic at hand away from what is asked: example: “What came before the Big Bang?” is answered by “Evolution is about origins of life, not about origins of the cosmos or universe”. Oh, really?
Yes, really.


5. Twist a sentence, or quote out-of-context.
Haha! That's actually a creationist ploy.


6. Quote the fossil “evidence”. Never mind that the fossils cannot conclusively prove association.
Fossil evidence is not the only evidence of evolution.

[Magyar]

Seven typical replies by Evolutionists to Creationists:
1. “They don’t understand science. They are faithers and they just believe that God did it.” Ie end of story.
2. Ask for proof of God (a variation of point 4). Not related in any way but ask them that anyway.
3. Don’t answer any scientific explanation offered by Creationism; just ask for “peer-reviewed” published support.
4. Steer the topic at hand away from what is asked: example: “What came before the Big Bang?” is answered by “Evolution is about origins of life, not about origins of the cosmos or universe”. Oh, really?
5. Twist a sentence, or quote out-of-context.
6. Quote the fossil “evidence”. Never mind that the fossils cannot conclusively prove association.
7. Simple denounce it as being crazy. OR: don’t ever admit that any point by a Creationist might have validity. OR: paint all Creationists with the same brush; don’t ever look closely enough to see that all Creationists don’t belong to the same ‘religious’ cult or group.

GUARANTEED: any reply by these people (evolutionists) will prove one or more of these above points, and they don't even have to use Science to do it, just their brilliant wits and genius. Whoopee!

YUP, TYPICAL batsh8 crazy, either wholly uneducated or JUST plain lying creationist crapola! As evidenced by;

1,3 & 4 - As clearly exemplified by your question/statements in 3,4 you have provided the evidence for statement #1. You are CLUELESS about what science is, what it does and how it works!

3, Well WHEN a creationist ACTUALLY writes a scientific paper I am sure the rest of the scientific community WILL consider it. Of course any paper written by such a person will no longer be considered a creationist by the creationists because they will be operating on this planet instead planet X - so we're sort of at an impasse.

4, AGAIN, just another example of how much of a wack job creationists are - Would you be surprised, upset or think it some kind of a conspiracy if you went to your car mechanic and asked if he knew anything about heart surgery? WHY NOT???? I mean after all carburetors have valves, hearts have valves SAME SAME right? Ditto with a plumber? I mean HEY pipes get clogged and arteries get clogged right?

Are creationists REALLY so stupid that they can not fathom that subject A does not offer answers to subject B. Or an expert in filed A does not necessarily know even the basic in field B OR are they just plain lying!


6, Prove association to what? As usual creationist refuse to define their terms vis a vis
KIND (after some 20 years of creationist BULL FLOP not a single IDoit has been able to give a simple clear definition of what they mean by this - but they expect the rest of the world to take their "science" seriously (Let me pause while I roll around the floor in howling laughter)


7, provide EVIDENCE to the contrary and we'll consired it. In a recent thread I jokingly commented that creationist come here to earn browny points for sexual favors. Poe's law proved me almost right. Someone posted a link from some xian fundy college (Roberts)were graduate students get 20% of their grade for starting stupid threads like this in atheist forums.


GUARANTEED any continued posts by one of these people (creationists) will prove that dozens of people will show patience and kindness, with utmost courtesy provide dozens of links and lines of evidence to prove evey one of you the creationist points WRONG. The creationist will IGNORE all of them in favor of "bbbbut the Jewish zombie says so" and then whine about how they were abused, insulted and persecuted by them eveeeeel god hating scientist atheists"

[Marius vanderLubbe]

You see, Joe, Its not just me.
Do you get why we are here? I thought you might be getting weary of me dropkicking your asinine arguments all over the yard time after time. Here, a whole stack of other folk can do it as well. And are, really well.

Give up, Joe, before a flood fill that verrrry deep hole you have dug yourself in.

Keep your faith, Joe. Wotan knows, you don't need me to tell you this. But don't demean it and yourself by attempting to justify it with "science".
To attempt to do so is a denial of your faith, and we all know where that will send you post mortem, don't we?

Stick with the talking snakes, Joe. Perhaps next time you are juggling live rattlers, you can ask one about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

[Hux]

Intelligent design is the easiest to discount for it is neither.

[Dr Adequate]

Seven typical replies by Evolutionists to Creationists:
1. “They don’t understand science. They are faithers and they just believe that God did it.” Ie end of story.
2. Ask for proof of God (a variation of point 4). Not related in any way but ask them that anyway.
3. Don’t answer any scientific explanation offered by Creationism; just ask for “peer-reviewed” published support.
4. Steer the topic at hand away from what is asked: example: “What came before the Big Bang?” is answered by “Evolution is about origins of life, not about origins of the cosmos or universe”. Oh, really?
5. Twist a sentence, or quote out-of-context.
6. Quote the fossil “evidence”. Never mind that the fossils cannot conclusively prove association.
7. Simple denounce it as being crazy. OR: don’t ever admit that any point by a Creationist might have validity. OR: paint all Creationists with the same brush; don’t ever look closely enough to see that all Creationists don’t belong to the same ‘religious’ cult or group.

GUARANTEED: any reply by these people (evolutionists) will prove one or more of these above points, and they don't even have to use Science to do it, just their brilliant wits and genius. Whoopee! Three typical replies of creationists to scientists:

1. Ignore reality.

2. Be too stupid to understand what scientists are trying to tell them.

3. Lie.

[pnerd]

Three typical replies of creationists to scientists:

1. Ignore reality.

2. Be too stupid to understand what scientists are trying to tell them.

3. Lie.
Ten typical replies by creationists to scientists:

1. Evolution is "just a theory".
2. Macroevolution has never been observed.
3. If men have descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
4. No intermediate forms have been found. "Show me your intermediates."
5. An eye couldn't have evolved fully formed just by random chance. What use is half an eye?
6. Belief in the theory of evolution leads to homosexuality, pornography, abortion and all that is evil and immoral.
7. Radiometric dating methods are unreliable.
8. Darwin said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
9. We didn't come from pond scum. God created us in his own image.
10. Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

[Hux]

Are creationists REALLY so stupid that they can not fathom that subject A does not offer answers to subject B.

Yes. They are.

[Dr Adequate]

Ten typical replies by creationists to scientists:

1. Evolution is "just a theory".
2. Macroevolution has never been observed.
3. If men have descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
4. No intermediate forms have been found. "Show me your intermediates."
5. An eye couldn't have evolved fully formed just by random chance. What use is half an eye?
6. Belief in the theory of evolution leads to homosexuality, pornography, abortion and all that is evil and immoral.
7. Radiometric dating methods are unreliable.
8. Darwin said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
9. We didn't come from pond scum. God created us in his own image.
10. Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. I think each of those fits into at least one of my three categories.

[pnerd]

I think each of those fits into at least one of my three categories.
Absolutely. I was just trying to provide specific examples (and having some fun in the process) to the three categories you mentioned. :)

[hereisjoe]

Bingo! You have pretty much answered my claims of how you would respond.

1. “Well, they don't (understand science), most of the time…”

Proof? You have read enough creationist viewpoints to make this claim? Where did I display dismal ignorance in science? Did you read my piece on Evolution? Where have I ever said ‘God did it, and that’s that’ etc? I know science and I use it too.

2. “because we don't have any existence of God”

Can you undisputedly prove that? I can show you the high probability of a God. But first you have to understand the difference between the origins via an Intelligent Designer (a God) and the rest of the story… science still plays its part, but it cannot, ever, explain the Beginning.

3. “Well; I am not aware of any scientific evidence ever produced by Creationist, so the point is a bit moot.”

Moot, is it? Try these:
• In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creation, 1996.
• Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Duane T. Gish, Master Books, 1985.
• Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, Harper and Row, 1986.*
• What Is Creation Science?, Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, Master Books, 1982.
• The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, William R. Fix, Macmillan Publishing Co., NY, 1984.*
*they are not creationists

4. “Can you look back at your first point? See how this could explain it?”

As I pointed out (and you Evolutionists keep ignoring), the reason or basis for an Origin in no way invalidates the science for what we now have. No Creationist (and especially me) ever said anything like this. You apparently don’t understand creationist claims (or my claims) enough to dispute them like thisl…

5. “Ironic coming from a creationist…”

You talk irony? - Ironic coming from one of the world’s leading atheists (Dawkins): he quotes many Bible verses out of context, and cannot substantiate his claims of warfare coming from anything except religionists. And there are plenty of responses to my posts at Skeptoin.com where I was completely quoted out of context and had my words twisted or inferred. A classic dodge by evolutionists.

6. “There is no "proof" in science … there is only evidences compatible with a theory (but always open to re-interpretation as more evidences come to light) or evidences disproving it…”

Changing, changing, ever changing: that’s evolutionary theory – never coming to a final conclusion. Let’s get this straight: fossils point to evolution? How? That assumption has always fascinated me. So… you pick up a bone or skeleton and say “it’s a mammal such-and-such, it’s umteen-years old etc etc”. Then you pick up another Thingie and see a slight change from the previous one, and Bingo! You got it! A transitional species. Is that somehow the way fossil evidence works? All from bones that in no sure way can be related. [yep, this is a rhetorical question – don’t answer it if you can’t]. This of course all leads to the false system of dating these alleged ‘linked’ fossils.

7. “In more than 30 years of existence 'scientific' creationism has been unable to produce a coherent scenario, let alone a scientific hypothesis, not to mention a testable theory…”

A totally bizarre quote/claim, considering every creationist view or publication I ever came across had used the exact same science and evidence as did the evolutionists. AND… theory is still theory, not fact. Read my essay on Evolution and pick at least one main point (I list about two dozen near the end) and talk about it, OK? I can use science as well as the next layperson, in many cases, at least. I promise, no ‘God Did It’ while I explain in my own words/understanding on these things. Are you by any chance confusing your convictions with the unproved convictions of others? In other words, are you thinking for yourself? That’s the byline (critical thinking in a friendly and lively way) of this whole JREF forum…

Finally, you ended with:
“In contrast Creationism and ID make what testable hypothesis?”

Well, the same sort of hypothesis as you do, but with different time-lines and different conclusions from fossil and biological evidences, for a start. Just ask me about geological aging, for example. It’s an interesting field to look at. You’d be surprised what the planet has to ‘say’ in its story of how long it has been in existence.

“Light coming from more than 6000 years away? -> God created it 'en route'.”

I have never personally stated that God created ‘old’ light. But I don’t discount the possibility. However, I don’t make a claim to ‘young’ light that appears old by a God-did-it hypothesis, either. There’s science behind every observable phenomena, believe me, and I am one of the creationists making this claim (that science as we understand it, so far, can or will explain these phenomena. On this topic, answer this question: has the speed of light always been constant from the start? Can it be proved, without any exceptions? Or is it possible light as we know it was different in the past? This also applies to other dating methods.

“Civilization leaving through the global flood and not noticing it?”

Who said nobody noticed? How accurate and unbiased is currently-accepted history?

“And so on, and so on. God is infinite, he can do anything, therefore, by definition, no test can ever prove he did not do something. Hence, any 'theory" involving God can not, by definition, be tested through the scientific method and is, hence, not scientific.”

This is true, I agree. BUT… I am not arguing evolution via God, nor am I arguing geology or a young earth via God.

Thanks, Simon39759.

This is my reply, in brief, to m Huber:

“…I have not seen any of your other posts, but you seem to be advocating some form of creationism…”

Yes, I am. But first, de-program your mind from the idea that a creationist doesn’t understand very much about the sciences. We certainly do understand science and accept all of it. We just don’t accept some of the theories out there (at least I don’t). Maybe you’re not one of those who ridicule and mock the creationist stand simply by trying to say we all stick to the God Did It thing. Not true. Creationism doesn’t defang science; it just offers an alternate origin for everything. And since evolution, for example, cannot be separated from origins of the universe, then a God cannot be realistically dismissed as a creator. I like the posting by somebody awhile ago (on Skeptoid) that said “OK guys, God created, and evolution/science shows the ongoing processes.” Sorta… The neat thing is, while science cannot explain a beginning, but God can (what other alternative but ID?), and God does not normally interfere or distort the processes of the natural world but Science can often explain them, what is the problem? A Science and a Nature, in all of the intricacies that we all see them in, created by a God and observed and enjoyed by us all. Quite a bargain, I think.

I’m a young earth creationist, in its most basic terms. 10,000 years or so. Yeah, about somewhere in that figure. This of course leads to the reasons for believing in a universe (let alone earth) that’s so ‘young’. And that depends on the veracity of dating methods. I have a pretty good handle on the atomic and electromagnetic theories of energy etc. I have had to study them many decades ago for my multiple (it seems) careers. Actually, they’re not theories, but proven things. However, the constancy of the universal physics are very much up for debate and nobody can say that light, for example, was always at the speed it is now at. There is no good scientific reason to believe that dating methods used by scientists at large are fool-proof. One reason is that the original state of an artifact is unknown. The original state of our known universe, including the distinct qualities of light itself, is unknown. To make a claim that a half-life of an isotope or carbon specimen is such-and-such and to leap ahead and predict its age is fallacious. But that’s what evolutionary scientists do all the time. If the decay rate of a supposed 10-million-year-old geological specimen had varied by any percentage, it would give a very different answer, depending on the deviation.

Current dating methods are interesting and maybe the best thing we have, but they are unverifiable and not accurate enough to make claims such as the ‘old earth’ evolutionists make. It’s all conjecture and best-guess stuff. Not fact, just theory. That’s fine. But it should not throw out the equally valid best-guess stuff of creation theory where it applied to the age of the earth. Every theory has its far-out wackos – I disassociate myself from those, or anybody who doesn’t stick to known science to explain something that we can observe. When you get a handle on that concept, you might actually agree that I have some scientific points to talk about, just as you do. The relevance of a possible God-created universe still stands, because to say otherwise (that it has to be purely scientifically-created, somehow, by some knowable process) is to argue that only science is real. Not knowing enough of that science (of beginnings) is not a good enough excuse to set aside special creation. Assuming that a god instead of science for a beginning is an ‘argument from ignorance’ is no different than saying that unknown science will explain everything, when that Unknown may never be opened up. One ignorance does not excuse another ignorance, so to speak. Both are valid theories, especially when special creation does not invalidate known science. Ignorance means ‘we don’t know’; it doesn’t mean ‘that cannot possibly be”. Trying to focus evolutionary science only on biological changes etc instead of the whole picture is a cop-out.

Finally, you also said “All ID claims is that god guides evolution/god made life…”

Well, I never made that claim. I accept that a God created, but I do not say that he guides evolution, against the processes of science. I have accepted a form of microevolution, but I don’t accept there is evidence to undeniably prove macro-evolution. I’m willing to bet that I fundamentally understand the concepts of evolutionary claims better than you fundamentally understand the claims of creationism. I’m also willing to ‘stand corrected’. When you say “The reason this (intelligent design) isn't accepted as science is because it adds nothing to scientific understanding…” I have to object that the design of something does not invalidate the thing itself. And since, as I pointed out, an origin is important and should be explained, especially when a theory like Evolution fails to explain universal origins yet it attempts to explain processes that are endemic to and part of the whole picture of existence. A favorite ploy of evolutionists is to try and remove cosmic origins from the equation. If you carry the evolutionary theory to its maximum (especially into the remote past) you cannot avoid the implications. And you know fully well that if it can be demonstrated that the universe does not have the eons of time that is attributed to it by evolutionary theory, then it pretty well destroys the theory as presented. That’s why I ask you to consider a discussion of dating methods, for example. Prove your timetable and you might get an ear from me. I sometimes wonder when and where did many atheists lobotomize their intellectual abilities, if they cannot or will not discuss Origins in light of a changing universe, and want to stick to the mere trivialities of biological alterations etc.

Thanks for your post. Looking forward to further discussions.

[Simon39759]

Bingo! You have pretty much answered my claims of how you would respond.

Why, yes.
But all that it proves is that you are familiar with that answer. The fact that us Gravity-germist react in a consistent manner is actually consistent with the idea of the diagnostic being accurate.



1. “Well, they don't (understand science), most of the time…”

Proof? You have read enough creationist viewpoints to make this claim? Where did I display dismal ignorance in science? Did you read my piece on Evolution? Where have I ever said ‘God did it, and that’s that’ etc? I know science and I use it too.

Yes, I have read quite a few creationists.
It is not too difficult either, they tend to revisit the same arguments time and time again.



2. “because we don't have any existence of God”

Can you undisputedly prove that? I can show you the high probability of a God. But first you have to understand the difference between the origins via an Intelligent Designer (a God) and the rest of the story… science still plays its part, but it cannot, ever, explain the Beginning.

That we don't have evidence for God?
I don't see any. I have not read any in the scientific literature. The whole creationism/ID movement seem a vast quest to prop-up the 'argument by design' and manufacture the appearance of such evidence.



3. “Well; I am not aware of any scientific evidence ever produced by Creationist, so the point is a bit moot.”

Moot, is it? Try these:
• In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creation, 1996.
• Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Duane T. Gish, Master Books, 1985.
• Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, Harper and Row, 1986.*
• What Is Creation Science?, Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, Master Books, 1982.
• The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, William R. Fix, Macmillan Publishing Co., NY, 1984.*
*they are not creationists

None of this is peer reviewed work.
Many of this is actually an attack on the scientific evidence for evidence and not the production of actual evidence (a big chunk of creationism is based on the false dichotomy fallacy 'either evolution or design' which lead the creationists to believe that by disproving evolution they would prove creationism. This idea is flawed at its root).
Many of these argument have been debunked.
All of these books are at least 13 years old, more often 20. In term of science, that's ancient. That's from before the genome project and the following DNA revolution, where most of the most solid evidences for Evolution now reside.



4. “Can you look back at your first point? See how this could explain it?”

As I pointed out (and you Evolutionists keep ignoring), the reason or basis for an Origin in no way invalidates the science for what we now have. No Creationist (and especially me) ever said anything like this. You apparently don’t understand creationist claims (or my claims) enough to dispute them like thisl…

I already told you, I was a gravity-germaist.
I am not sure what argument you are trying to make.
'In no way invalide the science for what we now have'? You mean, your personal version of creationism does not invalid the science of Evolution?
Good, congratulation, sincerely. But, I have to say, I believe that you are the one not understanding creationist claims, because most of their effort aim at doing just that, invaliding the theory of evolution.

If your is different, well, once again, congratulation.
So, what is your beef? Science is correct about Evolution? Is science also correct about abiogenesis? About the Big-Bang?
Is your creationism simply stating that God is hiding behind the Big-Bang?
Then, that's not a scientific claim, it's a religious and philosophical one. But it certainly has some validity as such and do not fly in the face of current scientific evidence the way creationism does and I'd have nothing to argue against that view. I don't see any reason to agree with it, but accept it as a perfectly valid philosophical-religious view (and one which is beyond the realm of science).



5. “Ironic coming from a creationist…”

You talk irony? - Ironic coming from one of the world’s leading atheists (Dawkins): he quotes many Bible verses out of context, and cannot substantiate his claims of warfare coming from anything except religionists. And there are plenty of responses to my posts at Skeptoin.com where I was completely quoted out of context and had my words twisted or inferred. A classic dodge by evolutionists.

Personally, I have never seen a scientist distort any creationist point.
There is no reason to do so because, as mentioned, scientific evidences are amassed by scientist, mostly biologists, 99.9% of which consider the theory of evolution as the best and only explanation.
If 99.9% of the people collecting the evidences find them convincing for 'our' side, why should we lie and distort the facts?



6. “There is no "proof" in science … there is only evidences compatible with a theory (but always open to re-interpretation as more evidences come to light) or evidences disproving it…”

Changing, changing, ever changing: that’s evolutionary theory – never coming to a final conclusion.

You see, you consider it as a problem of the evolutionary theory.
In reality, it's an integral part of the scientific method. It is at its core.

That you consider it as a problem, let alone a weakness, illustrates the point I was making in part one.
You are obviously not familiar with the scientific method, how could you, considering that you consider its core principle as a flaw?



Let’s get this straight: fossils point to evolution? How? That assumption has always fascinated me. So… you pick up a bone or skeleton and say “it’s a mammal such-and-such, it’s umteen-years old etc etc”. Then you pick up another Thingie and see a slight change from the previous one, and Bingo! You got it! A transitional species. Is that somehow the way fossil evidence works? All from bones that in no sure way can be related. [yep, this is a rhetorical question – don’t answer it if you can’t]. This of course all leads to the false system of dating these alleged ‘linked’ fossils.

Actually, the term 'transitional species' does not mean that it is an intermediate on the evolutionary line. Just that it 'seems to be'. That it has the features one would expect for such an intermediate. It's a common mistake, even among 'evolutionist'.
The relationship seems like a very reasonable hypothesis that closely similar individual are related, the same way it is a safe assumption when looking at a family picture.
It is also a very logical explanation as to why these similarities exist, that, in itself does not mean the interpretation is correct but no other explanation exist to be tested anyway.
But it is not a definitive prove (which does not exist in science) and is not treated as such [see, I could answer].

However, one must notice that evolution predicts that you'd find such transitional species. Indeed, when you get two species, you can even point out when the transitional form lived and one it would look like.
The theory makes a testable prediction, you go there and BINGO, the prediction comes true.
It's not a definitive proof (once again, these do not exist in science), but it thousand upon thousand of occasions to test the theory.

Imagine, if somebody was watching the lottery every day and was able to guess, time after time, the results in advance, never being proven wrong, for several years in a row, you'd assume he has a trick, a way of knowing the results in advance, and that this way was dependable and valid.


And, while I am on the subject, the fossil record is only one of the many independent dating method we currently use.
None of which have been proven to be 'false' (a common and well disproved claim by creationists) and all, independently, agreeing with each other.



7. “In more than 30 years of existence 'scientific' creationism has been unable to produce a coherent scenario, let alone a scientific hypothesis, not to mention a testable theory…”

So, is the earth 6000 years (AIG; ICR; CRS) old or not?
Did the global flood occur (YEC and Gap creationists) or not?
Were the species all created at once over the course of a week or were there multiple independant creation event (Hugh Ross)?
Were the species actually created in their current form or did evolution happen, just activelly shaped by God the unnamed intelligent designer (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

No scientific scenario.



A totally bizarre quote/claim, considering every creationist view or publication I ever came across had used the exact same science and evidence as did the evolutionists. AND… theory is still theory, not fact. Read my essay on Evolution and pick at least one main point (I list about two dozen near the end) and talk about it, OK? I can use science as well as the next layperson, in many cases, at least. I promise, no ‘God Did It’ while I explain in my own words/understanding on these things. Are you by any chance confusing your convictions with the unproved convictions of others? In other words, are you thinking for yourself? That’s the byline (critical thinking in a friendly and lively way) of this whole JREF forum…

“In contrast Creationism and ID make what testable hypothesis?”

Well, the same sort of hypothesis as you do, but with different time-lines and different conclusions from fossil and biological evidences, for a start. Just ask me about geological aging, for example. It’s an interesting field to look at. You’d be surprised what the planet has to ‘say’ in its story of how long it has been in existence.



Read my short overview of what the words "theory", "hypothesis" and "fact" actually mean.
http://www.everythingisdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/inconceivable.jpg


See, that's one of the reason people say you do not understand science.

If you want a testable hypothesis for creationism, you need to complete the sentence:
"If creationism was true, one would expect that... ".

It's easy for evolution, really.
"If the theory of evolution was true, one would expect that transitional fossils would be found"
"If the theory of evolution was true, one would expect that ERVs would be common between human and chimp and throughout the whole hominid genus"
"If the theory of evolution was true, one would expect that bacteria would develop resistance to antibiotics"


See, easy.
I can try, but you wouldn't like it.
"If creationism was true, one would expect that most of the star we actually see would be invisible".
"If creationism was true, one would expect that Lenski's experiment would have failed".
"If creationism was true, one would expect that evidences for the global flood would be freaking obvious everywhere".



Finally, you ended with:

“Light coming from more than 6000 years away? -> God created it 'en route'.”

I have never personally stated that God created ‘old’ light. But I don’t discount the possibility. However, I don’t make a claim to ‘young’ light that appears old by a God-did-it hypothesis, either. There’s science behind every observable phenomena, believe me, and I am one of the creationists making this claim (that science as we understand it, so far, can or will explain these phenomena. On this topic, answer this question: has the speed of light always been constant from the start? Can it be proved, without any exceptions? Or is it possible light as we know it was different in the past? This also applies to other dating methods.

“Civilization leaving through the global flood and not noticing it?”

Who said nobody noticed? How accurate and unbiased is currently-accepted history?

“And so on, and so on. God is infinite, he can do anything, therefore, by definition, no test can ever prove he did not do something. Hence, any 'theory" involving God can not, by definition, be tested through the scientific method and is, hence, not scientific.”

You seem to have missed the point.

A scientific theory makes testable hypothesis.
The theory of evolution makes plenty of such hypothesis and has never been proven wrong (so far).

Creationism is not very good at making testable hypothesis.
After all either such predictions are proven wrong, hence falsifying creationism (the night sky should be pretty dark) or the creationists make had-hoc excuses to wave the test results away when they are inconsistent with the 'predictions' of creationism.
Light from the star having travelled for more than 6,000 (or 10,000) years: obviously it must have changed speed/been created en route.
Dating shows old earth? Obviously, these dating methods must be wrong!
No accounts for the flood because these filthy pagans lied!
Which, in effect, make creationism in-falsifiable and un-scientific.



This is true, I agree. BUT… I am not arguing evolution via God, nor am I arguing geology or a young earth via God.

So, what are you arguing?

[m_huber]

This is my reply, in brief, to m Huber:

“…I have not seen any of your other posts, but you seem to be advocating some form of creationism…”

Yes, I am. But first, de-program your mind from the idea that a creationist doesn’t understand very much about the sciences. We certainly do understand science and accept all of it. We just don’t accept some of the theories out there (at least I don’t). Maybe you’re not one of those who ridicule and mock the creationist stand simply by trying to say we all stick to the God Did It thing. Not true. Creationism doesn’t defang science; it just offers an alternate origin for everything. And since evolution, for example, cannot be separated from origins of the universe, then a God cannot be realistically dismissed as a creator. I like the posting by somebody awhile ago (on Skeptoid) that said “OK guys, God created, and evolution/science shows the ongoing processes.” Sorta… The neat thing is, while science cannot explain a beginning, but God can (what other alternative but ID?), and God does not normally interfere or distort the processes of the natural world but Science can often explain them, what is the problem? A Science and a Nature, in all of the intricacies that we all see them in, created by a God and observed and enjoyed by us all. Quite a bargain, I think.

I’m a young earth creationist, in its most basic terms. 10,000 years or so. Yeah, about somewhere in that figure. This of course leads to the reasons for believing in a universe (let alone earth) that’s so ‘young’. And that depends on the veracity of dating methods. I have a pretty good handle on the atomic and electromagnetic theories of energy etc. I have had to study them many decades ago for my multiple (it seems) careers. Actually, they’re not theories, but proven things. However, the constancy of the universal physics are very much up for debate and nobody can say that light, for example, was always at the speed it is now at. There is no good scientific reason to believe that dating methods used by scientists at large are fool-proof. One reason is that the original state of an artifact is unknown. The original state of our known universe, including the distinct qualities of light itself, is unknown. To make a claim that a half-life of an isotope or carbon specimen is such-and-such and to leap ahead and predict its age is fallacious. But that’s what evolutionary scientists do all the time. If the decay rate of a supposed 10-million-year-old geological specimen had varied by any percentage, it would give a very different answer, depending on the deviation.

Current dating methods are interesting and maybe the best thing we have, but they are unverifiable and not accurate enough to make claims such as the ‘old earth’ evolutionists make. It’s all conjecture and best-guess stuff. Not fact, just theory. That’s fine. But it should not throw out the equally valid best-guess stuff of creation theory where it applied to the age of the earth. Every theory has its far-out wackos – I disassociate myself from those, or anybody who doesn’t stick to known science to explain something that we can observe. When you get a handle on that concept, you might actually agree that I have some scientific points to talk about, just as you do. The relevance of a possible God-created universe still stands, because to say otherwise (that it has to be purely scientifically-created, somehow, by some knowable process) is to argue that only science is real. Not knowing enough of that science (of beginnings) is not a good enough excuse to set aside special creation. Assuming that a god instead of science for a beginning is an ‘argument from ignorance’ is no different than saying that unknown science will explain everything, when that Unknown may never be opened up. One ignorance does not excuse another ignorance, so to speak. Both are valid theories, especially when special creation does not invalidate known science. Ignorance means ‘we don’t know’; it doesn’t mean ‘that cannot possibly be”. Trying to focus evolutionary science only on biological changes etc instead of the whole picture is a cop-out.

Finally, you also said “All ID claims is that god guides evolution/god made life…”

Well, I never made that claim. I accept that a God created, but I do not say that he guides evolution, against the processes of science. I have accepted a form of microevolution, but I don’t accept there is evidence to undeniably prove macro-evolution. I’m willing to bet that I fundamentally understand the concepts of evolutionary claims better than you fundamentally understand the claims of creationism. I’m also willing to ‘stand corrected’. When you say “The reason this (intelligent design) isn't accepted as science is because it adds nothing to scientific understanding…” I have to object that the design of something does not invalidate the thing itself. And since, as I pointed out, an origin is important and should be explained, especially when a theory like Evolution fails to explain universal origins yet it attempts to explain processes that are endemic to and part of the whole picture of existence. A favorite ploy of evolutionists is to try and remove cosmic origins from the equation. If you carry the evolutionary theory to its maximum (especially into the remote past) you cannot avoid the implications. And you know fully well that if it can be demonstrated that the universe does not have the eons of time that is attributed to it by evolutionary theory, then it pretty well destroys the theory as presented. That’s why I ask you to consider a discussion of dating methods, for example. Prove your timetable and you might get an ear from me. I sometimes wonder when and where did many atheists lobotomize their intellectual abilities, if they cannot or will not discuss Origins in light of a changing universe, and want to stick to the mere trivialities of biological alterations etc.

Thanks for your post. Looking forward to further discussions.

Wow, that's a long brief. I'm glad you didn't go with the long version :D

I don't have time for a full response right now, but I'll try to get back to you when I have more time. For the moment, let's just define a few terms.

Evolutionary theory is the theory that organisms change over time. When enough separation happens between two organisms that they can no longer make viable young, they have "speciated." This is all that evolution claims.

The theory of abiogenesis is the theory that life came from non-life. We can discuss some of the theories involved here, but please keep in mind that this is distinct from evolutionary theory.

The Big Bang theory is the origin of the universe. This is an astronomical event that set up everything in the universe.

The solar nebular theory is the origin of our solar system and planets. Planets grew through accretion.

"Deep time" or "geologic time" refer to the old age of the earth. The earth is dated at 4.56 billion years currently, an age that has not been significantly modified in over 50 years.

I offer these terms just so that we can have clarity on what we are discussing. I mean absolutely no insult to you. It will benefit everyone if we use the proper terminology throughout this and future discussions.

I will try to get back to do a better discussion on how/why we know that radiometric dating works. For now, I will leave you with an interesting Ar/Ar date of Vesuvius. Abstract (http://www.springerlink.com/content/r83124036272n13k/), different abstract (https://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/277/5330/1279).

[m_huber]

Oh, another thing that I may have missed, but is important to this discussion: do you believe that Noah's flood was worldwide, and do you feel that the story is important/ significant in the timeline of the earth?

[Hux]

There is no evidence of global flooding in recent or ancient times. Hell even Pangea had dry bits.

[AdinDraco]

Over on Skeptoid, he keep mentioning Walter Brown and a hydroplate theory....I don't know much about it as I found out about this time that Joe was a HIV denier and had to walk away for a while to cleanse myself of the stupid and a nip a potential SIWOTI syndrome in the bud.

[Hux]

The same pricks maintain the grand Canyon was carveed out within a few days of 'the flood'. That should tell you all you need to know.

[Magyar]

1. “Well, they don't (understand science), most of the time…”

Proof?

ERR How about THIS I’m a young earth creationist, in its most basic terms. 10,000 years or so. Yeah, about somewhere in that figure.

This is tantamount to claiming that if I drop a lead ball off a 3 story building it will float away and the ONLY claim of evidence you can have for this is your buy bull.
From Mathematics, geology, chemistry, archeology. Hell from simple counting of tree rings and snow layers in the arctic and antarctic we know your claim is batsh8 crazy.
Never mind the other dozen or more independent fields of science that come to the same conclusion.


Can you undisputedly prove that? YUP Just as soon as you can prove that you're not a child molesting alian from the planet moron. I AM WAITING

Seriously this demand for proof of a negative is simply more obvious evidence that you ARE totally ignorant of what science is and how it works!


I can show you the high probability of a God.
NO YOU CAN'T That's why there are over 30K different religions recognized today and every one of them fantacises about a different sky daddy. Your delusions may vary but it's jsut minor differences in symptoms of the same metal illness.



But first you have to understand the difference between the origins via an Intelligent Designer (a God) and the rest of the story… science still plays its part, but it cannot, ever, explain the Beginning.


My vocabulary fails, because idiotic to explain the above is simply innadaquate! NO ONE, NO WHERE, with the SOLE exception of creationist nutters EVER claimed that ToE or anything in biology could, does or will explain the origin of life! That is why scientists have a distinction between biology and abiogenisis. For you to make this post is not only yet another example of how little you know about science but given the fact that I specifically made a statemet to this in previous posts in this very thread - as well as others - also shows that you are not yet even capable of learning since you lack reading comprehension.


Moot, is it? Try these:
• In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creation, 1996.
• Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Duane T. Gish, Master Books, 1985.
• Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, Harper and Row, 1986.*
• What Is Creation Science?, Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, Master Books, 1982.
• The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution, William R. Fix, Macmillan Publishing Co., NY, 1984.*
*they are not creationists


CLUE - just because you put the word science into the title doesn't mean that it IS science. And EVEN if we grant you, in a village idiot sort of way - ala Gish for example -
that it is science it DOES NOT mean that it is GOOD science!

Reminds me of the joke - what do you call the guy who graduated last in his medical school. - answer Doctor. Doesn't mean I want THAT knucklehead cutting me open.

This is WHY there is a scientific PROCESS of peer review


As I pointed out (and you Evolutionists keep ignoring), the reason or basis for an Origin in no way invalidates the science for what we now have.
This is pattently FALSE and I can't be bothered to point you to the obvious


No Creationist (and especially me) ever said anything like this. You apparently don’t understand creationist claims (or my claims) enough to dispute them like thisl…


YES, YES YOU HAVE HERE IT IS
I’m a young earth creationist, in its most basic terms. 10,000 years or so. Yeah, about somewhere in that figure. AGAIN

6. “There is no "proof" in science … there is only evidences compatible with a theory (but always open to re-interpretation as more evidences come to light) or evidences disproving it…”

Changing, changing, ever changing: that’s evolutionary theory –


And the fact that you say this as a negative is why people with any common sense and a grip on reality think of creationists as a JOKE or a sign of mental illness ( my personal theory)

I had enough, yet another fail from creationist fundy.

But hey you're almost up to your 20 posts so you should be gone soon with your A.

[m_huber]

Oh! I just finished a semester long look at hydroplate theory. A local baptist group was having discussion group on it.

The basic idea, for the uninitiated, is that when the earth was made, it had three important layers: the "basalt" at the bottom, then a layer ~2-3 km thick of supercritical liquid water, then a layer of sealed granite. After a few thousand years, the granite layer broke and the water catastrophically escaped from its chamber, which then drenched the earth in water. At that time, the water broke out of the mid-atlantic ridge, which eroded back continental crust and then shoved continents to their present positions over the lubricated water layer. As ocean basins deepened, the water sunk into the basins and froze on the poles.

My favorite feature of this theory is its explanation for comets, meteors, and extraterrestrial water. It's too wonderful to paraphrase:
Asteroids are composed of rocks expelled from Earth. The size distribution of asteroids does show that at least part of a planet fragmented. Although an energy source is not available to explode and disperse an entire Earth-size planet, the eruption of so much supercritical water from the subterranean chambers could have launched one 2,300th of the Earth—the mass of all asteroids combined. Astronomers have tried to describe the exploded planet, not realizing they were standing on the remaining 99.95% of it—too close to see it.
As flood waters escaped from the subterranean chambers, pillars, forced to carry more and more of the weight of the overlying crust, were crushed. Also, the almost 10-mile-high walls of the rupture were unstable, because rock is not strong enough to support a cliff more than 5 miles high. As lower portions of the walls were crushed, large blocks were swept up and launched by the jetting fountains. Unsupported rock in the top 5 miles then fragmented. The smaller the rock, the faster it accelerated and the farther it went, just as a rapidly flowing stream carries smaller dirt particles faster and farther.
Water droplets in the fountains partially evaporated and quickly froze. Large rocks had large spheres of influence which grew as the rocks traveled away from Earth. Larger rocks became “seeds” around which other rocks and ice collected as spheres of influence expanded. Because of all the evaporated water vapor and the resulting aerobraking, even more mass concentrated around the “seeds.” Clumps of rocks became asteroids.
Source. (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html)

The way that I understand the theory, God set up the world to blow up after a few thousand years, which of course would be before the Garden of Eden was even made. So, in the theology of hydroplate theory, God not only knew ahead of time that man would sin, but knew that he would choose to destroy the world, so he made it into a time bomb. Of all of the creationist ideas, hydroplate is one of the most disturbing. Not only does it play fast and loose with physical evidence (as all creationists do), it also presents a theology where god is worse than vengeful, but deliberately destructive.

[hereisjoe]

Yes, I advocate a young earth creation. Reason: most of the geology I see shouts out a young age. It's a big puzzle why few people never take time enough to notice erosion rates around the world. Or to question the standard dating methods. There's a lot of error in them. But, oh no, you might lose that precious university position if you dare say otherwise, right? Peer pressure etc. How many old-earth evolutionists really comprehend how long a million years is? Or what can happen to things around you in that time..?

[hereisjoe]

When I say I am not arguing a young earh via God, I mean I am arguing a young earth via geology. That God would create the geology should not be a problem. Disproving an old age would sunstantiate a young age. Erosion simply does not support old-age earth geology. The inability to prove the set-point of radiometric dating systems proves they are unreliable. Can you prove, undeniably, for example, that the speed of light was always constant as we know it? Or that carbon-14 was constant in its decay?

[tsig]

Yes, I advocate a young earth creation. Reason: most of the geology I see shouts out a young age. It's a big puzzle why few people never take time enough to notice erosion rates around the world. Or to question the standard dating methods. There's a lot of error in them. But, oh no, you might lose that precious university position if you dare say otherwise, right? Peer pressure etc. How many old-earth evolutionists really comprehend how long a million years is? Or what can happen to things around you in that time..?

I doubt if I'll live long enough to see what happens around me in a million years.

[Wowbagger]

What's unfortunate is that the debates are always about the validity of the theory of evolution, which automatically put us on the defensive. What I would like to see is a debate in which the merits of creationism as scientific theory are debated. Let them defend their turf for a change.

That's been a tactic I have been developing. The most effective way, I have found, in turning the tables in such a way, is to talk about the practical aspects.

There is no such thing as "applied intelligent design" in biology. Talk about the applications of evolution, and suddenly, it is ID that is on the defensive.

[m_huber]

When I say I am not arguing a young earh via God, I mean I am arguing a young earth via geology. That God would create the geology should not be a problem. Disproving an old age would sunstantiate a young age. Erosion simply does not support old-age earth geology. The inability to prove the set-point of radiometric dating systems proves they are unreliable. Can you prove, undeniably, for example, that the speed of light was always constant as we know it? Or that carbon-14 was constant in its decay?

There are a number of ways that geologists have shown that the earth is older than 10,000 years.

One of them is through erosion rates. (http://books.google.com/books?id=VMR-e2cBCF4C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=hutton+hadrian's+wall&source=bl&ots=ruMeALg2aj&sig=9mnLvPKIbzJjAUbXhC53F5B8Hmk&hl=en&ei=06H6Sr7GGqSanAe3282mAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=hutton%20hadrian's%20wall&f=false)

One of them is through salinity of the oceans. (http://www.earth4567.com/talks/time/timeex1.pdf)

One of them is tree-ring dating. (http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html)

One of them is through ice-core dating. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm)

One of them is fission-track dating. (http://www.minpet.ugent.be/fission.htm)

One of them is quartz-luminescense dating. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B83WJ-4K606Y4-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1087999134&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=71149030205546e529dc897273925c48)

One of them is through Carbon-14, though this is not very reliable for what geologists are interested in.

Much better are long-period isotopes that have decay rates much longer than the very short 5730 years of C-14. U-Pb, U-Th, K-Ar, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating) and Sm-Nd. These are used differently for different materials. The important thing about them is that they fit the basic hypothesis.

When geologists look at a column of rock, we use several principles to determine what has happened to the rock. The principle of superposition states that in undisturbed rock, the oldest rock will be on bottom and the youngest on top. If this is true (and playing around with a sand box for a few minutes, it is hard to see how it is not true), then we would expect that accurate dates of each rock layer would show ages reflecting this relationship. That is exactly what we find. At the base of a column of rocks, radiometric dates are oldest. As we go up in the column, dates get younger.

Of course, it is quite easy to find a place where there are younger rocks beneath older rocks, but that is necessarily due to either a later intrusion coming in, in which case you must invoke the principle of cross-cutting relationships to see that the intrusion cuts across the younger beds, and is therefore younger through relative dating (which anticipates a younger age for the intrusion) or due to overturning of the beds, which is due to either faulting or folding of the beds, which is also something that can be seen in the field and makes a separate set of predictions about what the ages will do as you move through the geologic column.

The other big prediction of radioisotope dating is that it will result in a convergence of dates. This is exactly what is found. For instance, my field area is dated at 3278 +- 30 million years old by Sm-Nd dating. Recently, a paper was published with a U-Pd date, which has it dated at 3295 +- 8 MY, within the error of the Sm-Nd age. The two agree (on a very old age).

For a great example of multiple systems being used by one scientist and matching expectations, look at this abstract (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V90-4CRY72P-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1087945326&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=311e79bd0c421c5acb5a294f5c427a7f). The dates are not identical because they are measuring the cooling of a magma chamber, and the dates give precision to what is predicted for the mineral formation in a slowly cooling igneous intrusion.

So, this is how we know that radiometric decay is fairly constant. We have more than one way to date things, and all of the dates come up the same. Therefore, the rates of decay are constant and are accurately understood by scientists (along with the problems of invalid samples, etc.).

If there has been a change in the rate of decay, it must be such that the half-life for all minerals becomes radically shorter. For all of U to begin decaying at 10,000 years ago (a common YEC view of the age of the earth), then U-238 would be decaying 447,000 times faster than it is today in order for our measurements of the early solar system to be as far off as you are supposing. (Think about how much radiation would be released from the earth 10,000 years ago... The whole planet would be Trinoble...)

The assumption of modern science is that processes taking place today also happened in the past at the rates that they happen today UNLESS there is evidence to the contrary. The golden question, then, if you wish for the speed of light and the rate of decay of ALL isotopic systems to radically change in the last several thousand years (which is in the timespan of humans), is "What evidence do you have that it was different in the past?" If you want to deal with a young universe in scientific terms, that question absolutely must be answered. I have not seen a reasonable answer to that question, and I look forward to your response.

Also, I have not yet mentioned anything about formations where multiple coral reefs are found in the sequential limestone beds (coral reefs take hundreds to thousands of years to reach maturity, then even longer to be abandoned, lithified, buried, moved to central Texas, and then exposed at the surface again), different levels of stream paths, the presence of metamorphic rocks at the surface of the earth (how do you get a mineral that can only form in pressure/temperature conditions of 1000 bar/650ºC to be exposed at the surface in North Carolina without invoking long periods of time?), or anything to do with fossils, or even the general thickness of sedimentary sequences on earth compared to sedimentation rates for various sediments.

Pamela Gore has a nice overview (http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm)of our understanding of the age of the earth through time.

As a curious aside, how much faster do you think light was? If c was faster, wouldn't that mean that we would be receiving considerably higher radiation from our sun, which would have absolutely detrimental effects on all life? I'm not an expert in that direction, just thought I would throw it out there. :)

[Hux]

When I say I am not arguing a young earh via God, I mean I am arguing a young earth via geology. That God would create the geology should not be a problem. Disproving an old age would sunstantiate a young age. Erosion simply does not support old-age earth geology. The inability to prove the set-point of radiometric dating systems proves they are unreliable. Can you prove, undeniably, for example, that the speed of light was always constant as we know it? Or that carbon-14 was constant in its decay?

Should be a doddle for you. All you have to do is completely repudiate every single bit of evidence that is contrary to your ideas. Then you need to ignore the findings of multiple radiometric dating or at least explain why they give false results that fall within very close parameters. You might then conclude there is a Demon that is fooling the entire scientific community into thinking the earth just looks very old. You might try to explain how your Earth began right around the time the Sumarians were brewing beer. You might ponder that all the creation myths happen to fall broadly around the time of developed writing.

Then it is up to you to prove whether the speed of light has always been constant or not - and if so, what does it imply for your ideas? In what way does a rebuttal of any of the above, validate your creationist myth(no matter how much you frame it in geological enquiry)?

Do you think radio metric dating is recalibrated just to thwart you?

Do fossils lie in the same order that we expect just to spite you?

Why would anyone use erosion to date the Earth? We found out a while ago its too contingent - so why bring it up?

You need to wrestle with these factors that you just cant fix.

[pnerd]

Can you prove, undeniably, for example, that the speed of light was always constant as we know it?
.
Check these out:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE411_1.html


If you don't like the TalkOrigins page, you might like this:

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/speedlight.html#4hifsTn8ktMl