Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 179 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#15826 - 11/02/06 09:47 PM Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
From their Statement Of Faith:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

No idea or concept is off-limits to questioning in science. AiG puts a ridiculous amount of material off-limits to inquiry, especially given their so-called literal interpretation of scripture. They voluntarily exclude themselves from any discussion of scientific hypotheses and theories.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
.
#15827 - 11/02/06 10:28 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
They actually refer to their endeavor as a ministry!

But wait! It's not just a ministry! They have a Creation museum that does K-9 Training! How's that for focus!

There are, however, actual practicing scientists associated with it. Example John BaumGardner, who says: "I would say my primary goal in my scientific career is a defense of God's Word, plain and simple."

Well, that's interesting. Not defending the truth or discovering it, but defending God's Word - which MUST be The Truth.

Top
#15828 - 11/02/06 11:21 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
A scientist is one whose practice corresponds with the scientific method.

Thus John BaumGardner is not a scientist. He is a theist that earned a degree in science.

There is a difference and it is very significant.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#15829 - 11/02/06 11:56 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
He does actually practice science - at LANL - at least he has made a nontrivial contribution to it. He's an interesting character, because he's one of only a handful of scientists who are YECs and yet who are well-considered in the wider scientific community and has made a substantial contribution to scientific progress. He may not be a Nobel candidate, but he's no William Dembski.

Unfortunately, he's a believer. He makes no bones about it. He supposedly spends about 50% of his time at LANL working on creationist projects. Unfortunately, the guy's too honest for his own good.

He does tend to cite disproven junk, but some of the things he's looked into are:

1) the ark ... and determined that this "structure" on mt ararat was just a natural formation (at first he was really excited, but after visiting the site determined it wasn't the ark),

2) He's a member of some committee that's attempting to dismiss radioactive dating mechanism. After years of trying to refute them, he appears to have finally admitted that the data is overwhelming and the only basis for rejecting radio-dating is miracle.

Hahaha...i'm not sure that's exactly the way he would say it, but that's what I took away on browsing the net.

Now there is some talk about this model, Terrra, that he wrote supposedly proving flood geology. That was an older version of his program that hadn't been calibrated against other models. The newer version - the version in use was not modified by him.

He's made an actual and substantial contribution to the advancement of science. But so far as I can tell he hasn't contributed one iota of understanding to the subject of evolution - for or against.

Top
#15830 - 11/03/06 12:30 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Hey DA, looks like your "member rating" has gone up. Mine went down. Did you take one of my fabulous stars?
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#15831 - 11/03/06 12:32 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
soooooooooo, your telling me that you evos have no statement of faith that contradicts the religion of evolutionism?

Kinda like the kettle calling the pot black.

Top
#15832 - 11/03/06 01:21 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
I don't think there is any argument fundys cannot contribute to science. It's just that they're extremely unlikely to contribute to our understanding of geology or evolution.

I must admit, though, that my own understanding of evolution was improved years ago when I read a fundamentalist site about new species arising as a result of hybrids. I have come to the conclusion that this is a reasonably common occurrence. For example several types of bird were originally considered separate species but are now known to be a hybrid population.

Soilguy. I notice you're in good company with a three star rating.

Top
#15833 - 11/03/06 01:33 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Hiya trilobyte.
Long time, eh?
Well, technically you shouldn't be speaking of "the religion of evolutionism." That's not an accurate description of either religion or evo-ism. Though I guess if you define evo-ism as religion because you put -ism on the end, then....
Didn't someone else point this out last week.
I'm lucky now, my computer is working, but nobody has posted on my questions about "sources" and "anthros/naturas."
My main point was that I don't understand your question.
I don't get "statement of faith" I guess.
Do you mean other religion that contradicts evo. or basic principle of evo-theory (that contradicts the observations or predictions or derived arguments.
I better go while the gettin' is good.
Thanks for letting me talk a bit.
See ya,
~Samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15834 - 11/04/06 06:41 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Quote:
Originally posted by terrytnewzealand:
I don't think there is any argument fundys cannot contribute to science. It's just that they're extremely unlikely to contribute to our understanding of geology or evolution.
Terry,
Agreed. I have recently had my first birthday on this site (October 5th) and have spent the last year thinking about (amongst other things) the relationship and conflict between religion and science.

I would split Christians into two camps. Conservative Literalists and the rest of us.

Conservative Literalists are fundamentally opposed to science in two areas: Geology and Evolution. Their rejection of Evolution has become an article of faith and in many cases they see it as a defining factor in whether someone is a Christian or not.

The rest of us, Evangelicals and the like are not by definition opposed to science, but are more likely to see it as an extremely valuable tool that allows us to understand the world we live in, and improve the lot of humanity.

This is seen here in an extract from an article found on Evangelical Now, talking about why some Evangelicals believe in Evolution:

??it really is our Christian duty to encourage truthful reporting about God's creation. God has given us rational faculties, inquiring minds and abundant evidence. Stewardly earth-keeping (Genesis 2.15-20) surely includes the goal of understanding God's amazing creation using all the resources he has so abundantly given us.?

Science however, (and I am talking about the philosophical assumption that empirical investigation is the only path to reliable knowledge) is antithetical to Christianity and would deny any form of revelation, and relegates faith to a dangerous delusion. This is partly fuelled by the anti-science Christians.

The problem for the more reasonable Christian is this (from Evangelical Now):

?attacks on evolution help to keep alive the 'conflict thesis', the idea that science and faith are intrinsically incompatible, a Victorian idea which in many other respects has been laid to rest during the latter half of this century. The 'conflict thesis' is precisely what the likes of Richard Dawkins thrive on, so anti-evolutionary attacks unwittingly provide atheists with precisely the ammunition they need to keep their anti-Christian crusades going.?


So the Conservative Literalists do the damage and the rest of Christianity receives the backlash from the scientific community.

Blacknad.

Top
#15835 - 11/04/06 06:57 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
From Evangelical Now:

"There would be little point in believing a false theory! Occasionally, books are written claiming that the scientific world is 'in turmoil' about the evidence 'which now contradicts Darwinian theory', but such claims are incorrect. In fact, the theory gives coherence to an immense array of research fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, immunology and zoology, to name but a few. Of course, there are still debates about the exact processes and mechanisms involved, particularly in speciation, but evolution provides such a convincing link between so many biological disciplines, particularly the new genetics, that it has become a 'grand theory' within which all the biological sciences are carried out. Since Christians are concerned to tell the truth about God's creation as accurately as they can, they should be at the forefront of those working to make it an even better theory than it is already."

Blacknad.

Top
#15836 - 11/04/06 08:05 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
WOW
I'm just floored by this statement.
Thanks for the update blacknad.
I'll think aboutthis and comment later.hopejfuoly

~samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15837 - 11/04/06 09:03 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
I wonder how many fundamentalists would be equally floored by that statement! (>95%?)

Blacknad, can you cite a link for that?

It also poses the question 'what good is it?' by stating, "There would be little point in believing a false theory!"
...and that's the point I disagree with. A theory can still have utility, even if it MAY (or may not!) be wrong about some absolute "truth" that the theory is based upon. All theories, by definition are false; otherwise they'd just be a fact. Newtonian mechanics is false, Relativity is false; but as tools, they work so well (within context) that we use them and speak of them as if they illuminate some absolute truth. Maybe they do, but it'd be pretty hard to prove; because in the end, as RicS' former teacher mentioned, it's hard to prove that even anyone else thinks (or even exists?). Once you get to the point of agreeing on certain basic assumptions, you're always open to irrefutable critiques (regardless of how illogical the critiques may be).
A theory is false because it is only our current best attempt to get at the truth.

Thanks again,
~samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15838 - 11/04/06 09:23 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
blacknads posted the following:
Conservative Literalists are fundamentally opposed to science in two areas: Geology and Evolution. Their rejection of Evolution has become an article of faith and in many cases they see it as a defining factor in whether someone is a Christian or not.

I don't they are opposed to science...infact they enjoy science. The problem is that you have science wrong. I have posted several reasons as to why evolutionism doesn't work and so far my science has held its own on this board. So as you see, its not that we are opposed to science, we just see things differently...or should I say correctly.

Secondly, the rejection of evolutionism as an article of faith is an out right lie presented by you. Have you not read John 3:16?

Top
#15839 - 11/04/06 09:34 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
....Once again, lets see a model how mutations can add up over time.

Is there any evo takers?

Top
#15840 - 11/04/06 09:54 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
BTW, a few post up someone claimed that evolutionism isn't religion....read on.

EVOLUTION ISM
EvolutionISM is a religion....the preachers are guys such as Gould, Darwin...Bill Nye the Science guy, etc.

They fervently follows the beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of the above preachers.

Then there are little evongelist such as the false prophest who post on this forum....claiming EVOLUTIONISM IS TRUE....as they thump their text books...

The evo-scientist always looking for a hand out...offering, can you say grant?
Even your donations to the religion of EvolutionISM are often tax deductable.

Sure the preachers of evolutionISM may not have a stained glass windowed buildings...but they do have lecture halls where the deceived come to hear the latest.
The evos use these institutionalized system to ground themselves in such belief and worship of mans fallible science.
In these institutionalized system children are force fed this religion....shunned if they disagree.

The Christians uses the book of Genesis from the Word of God to help us understand our Godly origins while the disciples of evolutionISM try to force fit fossils fragments into some gapped filled so-called evolutionary linage.

Christianity says we need salvation...we are all sinners and need the blood of Jesus Christ to wash us white as snow...while the typical evolutionISM believer says there is no sin, no price to pay....no need for salvation. Their claim is man is the measure of all means.

Of course there are different denominations of evolutionISM, considering they all don't believe the same thing. Some are gradual, some are punctuated. Some claim birds are dinos while some preach, no way!. Some followers of organized religious denominational evolutionISM allow god as a creator.
Some of the different sects of evolutionISM have man continuing to evolve and achieving the Omega Point......tell me that's not religion.

Christianity has miracles, evolutionISM has the need for magical mutations.
The evos belief is in reverence for the power of natural selection and other powers regarded as a creation force that governs the universe.

EvolutionISM is truly an ISM theory. It has NEVER been witnesses, predicted or repeated in a lab. There are no examples of morphological mutations.

Most of the followers of evolutionism are fervent in their faith...the way the evos act here easily proves that point.
They follow their cause, their principle, and pursue their activities with zeal and conscientious devotion.

Top
#15841 - 11/04/06 09:55 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
The comment, r: "The problem is that you have science wrong." -trilobyte
shows me you are equating science and fact/truth.
Science is a process or tool, not something that can be a Truth.
~samwik?

P.S. I couldn't have said it better DA (below) though I tried over on God & Sci.
Thanks DA
~samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15842 - 11/04/06 09:59 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
samwik wrote:
" A theory can still have utility, even if it MAY (or may not!) be wrong about some absolute "truth" that the theory is based upon."

All real theories are written within limits. Some limits are understood and some are explicitly stated.

The limits for relativity, for example, are that we don't apply it to the quantum realm. The same goes for quantum mecanics or quantum chromodynamics. We don't try to apply them at the macroscopic level of galaxies.

Again you are correct. In order to communicate ... whether by spoken word or peer reviewed research ... everyone must be working from a common understanding and a common vocabulary.

The failure of many, for example fundamentalist Christians, to adhere to the accepted vocabulary is part of what marks them as either willfully ignorant or uneducated. It is not different than two people carrying on a conversation about a painting and one speaking in Farsi and the other in French. The amount of actual communication will be minimal.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#15843 - 11/05/06 12:52 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"The failure of many, for example fundamentalist Christians, to adhere to the accepted vocabulary is part of "

Excellent observation.

"what marks them as either willfully ignorant or uneducated."

That could be the explanation, that they are ignorant. Another explanation is that they are attempting to deceive. I'm not sure which is correct.

Example: Creationists use the term "polystrate fossil" to describe a single fossil that crosses several strata. The most common example of this, I think are trees. This can be very convincing "information" for those who are prone to agree with creationists to begin with. Even if they did look it up, they would not find it in the literature and it would appear that geologists are ignoring them. When this nonstandard terminology is coupled with exaggerated claims that such fossils are known to cross strata that are millions of years apart, it can seem like a pretty clear case. However, this is a VERY well-understood phenomenon and one that has been known about and explained among geologists for more than a 100 years. Check out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

It could be that they're just mistaken and it's EASY for me to believe that your garden variety creationist would just have no idea whatsoever about geology. Still, there are SOME creationists who have had at least a class or two in geology and you'd think those few would make some attempt to set their brethren on the path of righteousness.

Thanks for bringing that up. In many, MANY cases creationists assert that "Evolution can't POSSIBLY explain X" or "Y absolutely disproves evolution." In almost every case, it's clear that the claimant has actually tried to look for an explanation.

1) He doesn't even understand what's being talked about.

2) He has no concept of the context of the issue, to include the historical development of the idea.

Top
#15844 - 11/05/06 04:45 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
Polystrate fossils clearly show a rapid burial....as predicted by the creationist.

Top
#15845 - 11/05/06 08:14 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day Trilobyte,

Something we can agree on! Wow. Mutations don't seem to add up over time at all. In all the research mutations cause damage or take something away from the genetic structure. Mutations never seem to create anything and certainly not a new species. Even if by some miracle a mutation was additive and was a very good thing, what are the odds of the mutation being dominant or that two mating creatures with the mutation actually got together and mated?

There are other flaws in Darwinist evolution. How do you create an eye or an immune system from scratch? An immune system requires immense complexity and without any part of it, it fails. Looking at it at the microscopic level just doesn't work with Darwinian evolution. Same with the eye. If you haven't got an eye, how do you "evolve" one. The eye requires a cycle of activities at the molecular level that are truly breathtaking in their complexity just to determine light and dark at an instance in time.

And then there is the problem that the fossil records just do not seem to show changes from one species to another. They show variations within a species, especially when the species first comes into being but other than that the seem to not change much at all. They either continue on or go extinct. That would suggest a gradual change approach isn't all that reasonable, based on the evidence, and their is an enormous number of fossils available, even if they actually make up only a tiny fraction of what actually has lived on the earth.

But evolution, as a scientific theory, has one huge thing in its favour. It describes the world as it is and was very well. It doesn't answer all the questions. It doesn't explain the eye, yet. The traditionalist view of gradual change seems to become more entrenched in the face of such vocal opposition by creationists and that seems to be a shame. Maybe Lyell, with his catastroph theory of evolution was more accurate than everyone thought after Darwin came along.

So as theories go, it isn't a bad one. It isn't perfect. Actually if it was perfect, I'd really worry about science. It just hasn't advanced to the point yet where anyone can believe we know almost everything there is to know about the history of life on earth.

So just because there are matters of conjecture, doesn't make the theory of evolution a religion or a dogma. Creationism has a really big disadvantage from a science perspective. It does not fit the evidence well at all. Indeed, a great deal of the evidence must be explained away as a miracle for it to fit. Fossils have to be just placed there by God. Proof of plate techtonics has to be just another part of God's creation to be explained.

But to believe in Creationism you need to make some real jumps, not the least of which is that a part of the bible in the old testement is the literal word of God. Do you know how many different candidates for Genesis's position at the start of the Bible, there were in the third century AD? Do you even know how the Bible came to have the Book of Genesis inserted into it, in the form that it is? The history of Christianity from Jesus to Constantine is fascinating but the trouble is most Christians would consider much of the history blasphamy, presented based on the available facts.

Since you have such a belief in this part of the Bible as being the truth of creation, may I ask if you do know the history of this part of the Bible and how it came to be. And please do not say it was the word of God handed down. I mean in human terms, even from the view of biblical scholars rather than someone just interested in history.

Just a thought, since you seem to think evolution is a religion.

Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#15846 - 11/05/06 09:13 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
RicS quote:

"But evolution, as a scientific theory, has one huge thing in its favour. It describes the world as it is and was very well."

It even describes the evolution of Christianity. Even the most ardent creationist would have to admit that the concept of Intelligent Design evolved very recently, probably within the last ten or twenty years. Long before that time Christianity had speciated into Orthodox, Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness etc. Both Christianity and Islam evolved from forms of Judaism. I think it was DA Morgan who said on another site that there is nothing in the universe that does not evolve.

The post is called "Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion". Surely the above shows that Christianity's evolution could provide a valuable example in a scientific discussion.

Top
#15847 - 11/05/06 09:16 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
eternauta Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 10/23/06
Posts: 16
Loc: BC, Canada
Maybe this is something old, but I just found it and it made my weekend. Enjoy.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
_________________________
Pruebas de ADN Paternidad

Top
#15848 - 11/05/06 10:01 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Hiya ttnz,
just an fyi.
Recently, while working in library storage facility, I came across some turn of the century books on the subject of intelligent design. I was surprised that the term was not a recent "evolution," as you mention; but your point is still no less valid!
I think the historically common, turn-of-the-century, "re-awakenings" led to this back then.
smile
~samwik

** Yep. Thanks, re: link provided below
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15849 - 11/05/06 10:17 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Quote:
Originally posted by samwik:
I wonder how many fundamentalists would be equally floored by that statement!

Blacknad, can you cite a link for that?
Hiya Samwik,

SAGG doesn't allow you to post parenthesis in html tags so you will need to remove the speech marks and paste into your browser.

"http://www.e-n.org.uk/54-Why-some-evangelicals-believe-in-evolution-(Bulldog-for-October).htm"

Blacknad.

Top
#15850 - 11/05/06 01:32 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
Rics posted:
Fossils have to be just placed there by God.

Come on, get real. I haven't heard that concept since I was a kid.

SCIENCE shows that they were a product of a quick burial process. Many scientist suggest a flood.

Top
#15851 - 11/05/06 08:43 PM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Thanks Blacknad.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#15852 - 11/06/06 01:06 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
eternauta Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 10/23/06
Posts: 16
Loc: BC, Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
Rics posted:
Fossils have to be just placed there by God.

Come on, get real. I haven't heard that concept since I was a kid.

SCIENCE shows that they were a product of a quick burial process. Many scientist suggest a flood.
You are right, fossils being put by a god is a silly, childish thing that only kids could believe.

Now, the snoring old man who built a boat an saved a couple of each kind of organism from a world-wide, long-lasting rain is serious, grownup stuff that not everybody is intellectually prepared to assimilate.
_________________________
Pruebas de ADN Paternidad

Top
#15853 - 11/06/06 01:35 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Thanks eternauta. ROFLOL! Thanks.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#15854 - 11/06/06 02:39 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day,

"Fossils have to be just placed there by God" was not me stating what I consider a fact. I was saying that creationist theory needs to say this or something in a similar vein in order to work for creationists.

Actually trilobyte, quick burial process from a flood would seem to indicate that all these creatures were present on earth at the same time. I really don't get the distinction. In order for creationist theory of the earth to work you either have to have all the creatures for which there are fossil records there at the same time or there was a multitude of floods (and to fit Genesis, they would seem to all have to be pretty darn early in the story either in the first six days or they were all alive at once on earth and the flood Noah survived wiped them all out). The idea of flooding isn't all that far from the evidence. A great many fossils come about because of dry beds being flooded when there is an animal in them. And there has been some pretty big floods in the history of the earth, although as someone most interested in Climate, I still can't quite work out what flood fits the evidence available and would also cover all the earth. There just isn't enough water to do that. With the current ratio of continents to ocean (or anything like the ratios that have existed for around 250 million years) the variation of sea level is around 120 metres lower than today and about 20 metres higher. Twenty Metres higher does cover a lot of land. In the time of Noah, a great deal of civilisation would have lived in delta country because it is the best arable land and so even if all locked ice suddenly melted all at once (and there is no evidence for this at all) you still only bury land up to another 20 metres high. All other major floods are river systems that cannot absorb the amount of water falling along their system. The Mississipi is a good example. You get land sometimes for many kilometres away from the river inundated but it can only stay wet for as long as the water is still flowing down the river. In Australia, I've lived through floods that have stretched from hozizon to horizon and even driven through them (thing about really large area floods is the land cannot be anything but very close to flat otherwise the area of the flood is much more limited) and some have lasted for a couple of weeks in the one area and have taken several months to move down the river system completely. But this isn't anywhere near the same as flooding the whole of the land, not even a small fraction of it. So help me out here. How did this flooding actually work?

Good fossils do require quick burial in most cases. That can mean they died in mud, they were rapidly covered by silt, they sunk into tar, they were frozen and the ice was then very gradually replaced by something else that eventually was replaced by material that hardened into rock. The ways fossils can be made are quite large. The way bones can be lost without fossilization is much much larger, so rapid burial is at least a good starting point to making a fossil.

I still don't get the point about fossils being buried quickly rather than put there by God. If creationism says that Genesis is correct, then either the creatures were on the earth in a very short time frame and were turned into fossils or the fossils were created. There isn't a huge amount of difference between the two in that God has to be directly responsible. Or am I missing something about this part of Creationist doctrine? I cannot even comprehend an earth with the various fossilised remains of creatures all inhabiting it at the same time but I'm sure you have a better explanation.


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#15855 - 11/06/06 07:54 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
RicS. Some time ago several of us had a go at the flood problem in this Origins forum. The site was called "Gilgamesh ripped off Genesis" or something like that. Most of us agreed the Old Testament flood story grew from one flood or a series of floods on the Sumerian plain. By definition the plain would have developed as a floodplain. The Gilgamesh and Noah stories certainly have many similarities. You might like to go back and comment on that thread.

Top
#15856 - 11/06/06 11:27 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
Ah Terry,

That sort of sounds like, "Don't call us, we'll call you". This isn't the science forum. I would be interested in seeing just what the response was to my post, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. It is no fun everyone agreeing with the same point. This is a bit of an indulgence in looking at something that really isn't science but if I came in after everyone else has finished the discussion, that's fine.


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#15857 - 11/07/06 02:11 AM Re: Why AiG has no place in a scientific discussion
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
RicS. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I see your point but I'm sure those of us who contributed to the Gilgamesh site would be interested in anything you might add.

Anyway Trilobyte will thrash about, come up with a heap of evidence and then claim you can't prove anything from evidence.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.