DCI Gene Hunt

Nope, they 'rotate' because of the collisions they went through in the early formation of our solar system.........

GaryCat

Book recommendation for athiests, agnostics or even religious types looks for an alternative point of view.. "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins ( Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Mick

iTrader: (1)

after reading that link - try this article...

Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins

by Paul Taylor, AiG–UK
November 27, 2006
Have you ever wondered why an atheist believes what he/she does? Richard Dawkins wants you to know why he is an atheist. Dawkins, the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, is arguably the world’s best-known atheist. He is not just any old atheist, however; he is atheism’s great televangelist.
This year, he has been on the road throughout the UK and the US, appearing on talk shows and news interviews. He had two hours of prime-time television on the UK’s Channel 4 network in January 2006. In these programs (entitled The Root of All Evil?), Dawkins sought to persuade his audience of the importance of his case—that not only should his audience not believe in God, but they should actively oppose any form of religion. (I reviewed these programs previously.) It was not only evangelical Christians who were critical of the programs. Writing in The Guardian, a left-leaning UK newspaper not noted for its support of creationists, Madeleine Bunting described the documentaries as “intellectually lazy polemic.”1
With the publication of his new book, The God Delusion, we now have an expanded version of his atheist manifesto. One would have hoped that he would have taken the opportunity to present a more intellectually rigorous case. Indeed, some may have been afraid of opening the book, in case the sheer weight of evidence might have destroyed their faith. For my part, I was looking forward to encountering an intellectual challenge—but sadly I was to be disappointed. The book suffers from the same intellectual laziness as the television programs.
Dawkins’ arguments, far from having intellectual clout, mostly fall back on, “The argument will be so familiar, I needn’t document it further.” Dawkins’ paucity of argument is best illustrated by his ignorance of Scripture and by his faulty logic.
Ignorance of Scripture

Although The God Delusion is ostensibly about all religions, in practice it is about Christianity—and evangelical Christianity in particular is the focus of Dawkins’ attacks. In his arguments against Christianity, he makes much use of Scripture. However, his use of Scripture is highly suspect. It appears that he has done very little research into the structure or history of the Bible. This is unsurprising, as almost every statement he makes on the Bible reveals that he has not approached it with an open mind.Statements like this are loaded with prejudice. He goes on to make several more specific accusations about the character of God. Most of his accusations are unsubstantiated. Some are due to Dawkins’ own presuppositions about what is right and wrong (for example, his accusation that God is “homophobic”), some are due to his failure to have read the history leading up to particular events, and some are just plain wrong. That an intelligent man like Dawkins was so skimpy on his biblical research is incredible. One is reminded of Paul’s quotation of the Psalms in 1 Corinthians 3:20: “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”
We need to study a few examples of this lack of research regarding Scripture.Some of the most striking evidence is not immediately obvious in English translation, but would have stood out like a sore thumb to contemporaries. One of the clearest of the many times Jesus claimed to be God is His use of the divine name, “I AM.”
This divine name was told to Moses, when he met with God (who appeared as a burning bush).The Hebrew word translated here as I AM is often transliterated into English as YHWH. The Name is usually translated as LORD, with four capital letters.
Jesus used the style “I am … ” very frequently, most notably in John 10.Apart from the fact that God is frequently referred to as the Shepherd, the people listening to Jesus would have been very familiar with the words of Psalm 23.Remembering that the word LORD is basically the same as I AM, the people listening to Jesus were in no doubt that He was claiming to be God. This is not a code, or an obscure point. Jesus knew that His words were reminiscent of Psalm 23 and so did the people. This is why in John 10:31, the people had picked up stones and were ready to stone Jesus, accusing Him of blasphemy. Jesus’ claim to be divine was obvious to them.
Notice Dawkins’ misunderstanding of the lineage of Jesus.Luke’s gospel has a genealogy in chapter 3, which most commentators agree is the descent of Jesus through Mary. Thus Jesus traces back an actual blood relationship, through Mary to David, via David’s son Nathan. Jesus also traces an adoptive relationship through his father Joseph, through the kings, to David, via David’s son Solomon (in Matthew 1). Thus both Joseph and Mary are descended from David, but Jesus’ bloodline is only through Mary—He truly is the “seed of the woman” prophesied in Genesis 3:15. However, Jesus could inherit from Joseph, even if He was not a blood descendent. Therefore, Joseph’s lineage is important, because, through Joseph, Jesus inherits the kingship. None of this is very difficult to research, and Dawkins should have done so.
Space does not permit further examination of his errors in handling Scripture, save to mention that the dreadful account of the horrific events of Judges 19 are not recorded to imply God’s approval, as Dawkins thinks. Rather, they show the depths to which God’s people are able to stoop when they reject Him. Given that history is usually written by the victors, it is noteworthy that the Bible contains unflattering accounts of the transgressions of His people. This is evidence in support of the truthfulness of Scripture.
Poor logic

It must also be said that Dawkins’ arguments show surprisingly poor logic. Examine this extraordinary sentence:Look first at the use of the word “probably” in “Although Jesus probably existed.” Why is Dawkins doubting this fact? There is no good reason to question that Jesus existed. It is illogical to add the word “probably.”
Look next at the use of the word “reputable.” What is a “reputable biblical scholar”? The test of reputation has been left undone by Dawkins, but presumably, a “reputable biblical scholar” is one who agrees with Dawkins’ attempts to rubbish the Bible. Logic would require defining this term. Such people can be found, though whether the adjective “reputable” is appropriate for such people is a matter of opinion. We define a “reputable biblical scholar” as one who at least approaches the Bible with respect, preferably believing it to be the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of God, from the very first verse.
Thirdly, why is it “obvious” that the Old Testament should not be regarded as reliable? He has clearly not read detailed apologetics of Scriptural inerrancy, such as that provided by Brian Edwards in his masterly book, Nothing But The Truth. That is again down to his presupposition—that evolution is true, therefore Genesis is wrong, therefore evolution is true. Merely making a statement, or using the word “obvious,” does not make a statement true! Just from these three points, we see that there is no logical reason given by Dawkins for rejecting the use of the Bible as evidence.
Articles on the use of logic are easy to find on the website. An important element in the use of logic is to recognise logical fallacies. Dawkins has committed several of these.
Circular reasoning

This fallacy occurs when your presupposition is actually what you wish to prove. Look at this example:The logical fallacy is breathtaking. Evolution is first assumed, in order to prove that evolution is true rather than intelligent design: “creative intelligences, being evolved … .” It is Dawkins’ presupposition that all creative intelligences have evolved. It is an idea not supported by, for example, information science.
Ad hominem

This sort of fallacy involves attacking the opponent instead of the argument. In the UK, this is referred to as “playing the man instead of the ball”—a soccer reference, implying that the tackler has deliberately aimed to kick his opponent, rather than attempting to kick the ball.
There are several examples of this, such as a particularly nasty attack on a schoolteacher, who happens to be a creationist. Notice, on page 95, how Dawkins describes certain American educational establishments:Why are the three institutions arranged hierarchically? What is the basis for Dawkins’ assessment of standards at each place? He doesn’t say, but we assume that it has to do with belief in the Bible. Why is it implied that, because they number Billy Graham among their alumni, this is a negative for Wheaton College? [Editor’s note: It is ironic that Dawkins would have a problem with Wheaton College, since it does not adhere to a plain interpretation of Genesis.]
Straw men

The well-known “straw man” logical fallacy occurs when the debater misrepresents (often by oversimplifying) his or her opponent’s position for them, then argues against this invented position, rather than against the actual arguments of the opponent. An example of this is seen in the mocking tone used as he attempts to dismiss arguments based on intelligent design.Although Dawkins uses this argument frequently, it is a complete misrepresentation of the intelligent design position. A biological mechanism is not labeled as irreducibly complex because it is complicated and the labeler cannot think how it could have evolved. It is so labeled because it can be shown that it is not possible for it to have evolved.
Inconsistency

It is noteworthy that Dawkins’ arguments are very inconsistent. For example, Dawkins frequently returns to a criticism of the so-called “God of the gaps” approach that uses the supernatural to explain what science cannot currently explain. Compare that attitude with his own, on page 132, where he comments on gaps in evolutionary knowledge:In Dawkins’ view, it is inappropriate for a scientist to appeal to the Creator to make a scientific explanation, even if that explanation is logically sound. On the other hand, Dawkins writes as though it is perfectly acceptable, when faced with dilemmas that evolution cannot explain, to suppose that an evolutionary scientist will have a naturalistic answer someday, even if the science is consistent with a biblical approach. Such double standards allow Dawkins to self-justify poor logic, while refusing to acknowledge the strength of those who oppose him.
Conclusion

Christians have nothing to fear from The God Delusion. Far from being a reasoned argument for atheism, it is a rant. It would be appropriate for Christians to be aware of the principal arguments of the book, and how they are countered. Maybe one day an atheistic book will emerge that has more intellectual rigour, but even an intellectually rigorous apology for atheism would not concern us for God is a God of wisdom and reason. Time and again we find that a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is not just a doctrinal statement, it is an intellectually satisfying position to take. But Dawkins’ new book is weak, even by atheist standards. We note that Dawkins is now planning to send atheist material to government schools in the UK. That might be a good opportunity for British school pupils to exercise their critical thinking!

from here... Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins

Mick

OllyK

Nope, it's more a case of having lost patience with self richeous, condesending people who follow like sheep rather than actually trying to think for themselves.

OllyK

I prefer him when he sticks to his field of expertise, Biology.

Leslie

Christmas is not a pagan festival Olly, not with a name like that. The one that preceded it was though.

Les

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I believe the world was created in seven days about six and a half thousand years ago too

Rannoch

OllyK

What I said was:

Geezer

That article is such a crock! Whether you like Dawkins or not, alot of the stuff he says is backed up by evidence. None of the stuff that author says it, he just tries to discredit Dawkins.

Geezer

Mick

iTrader: (1)

I aasume from the rolleyes smiley you are being 'ironic'

But... it has long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old.

The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

So you choose your faith - evolutionism, creationism or intelligtent design (or aliens from Mars if you're really desperate ) and intreprtet the facts within the framework - the bit's that 'don't fit' you say as Richard Dawkins doesMick

Mick

iTrader: (1)

Geezer you haven't done very much research yourself to make that comment have you?

If you are interested in the science there is loads of information available.
There's exciting new scientific evidence which supports the Biblical teaching of a young earth. Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project.
For over a hundred years, evolutionists have insisted that the earth is billions of years old, and have arrogantly dismissed any views contrary to this belief. However, a team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth.
This scientific research project is called RATE, which stands for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth.
Lots of links to work done is here... RATE - Institute for Creation Research

HTH

Mick

OllyK

That's a bit like saying god is real beacuse my preacher says so. They are not working from observation through hypothesis to theory, they are working from the answer that creationism is true and trying to work back, discarding anything that doesn't fit.

andythejock01wrx

So you don't accept the theory widely accepted by scientists that the Earth is 4,600,000,000 years old (ish !). Instead you refer to a figure of 250,000 years for the age of "all buried biota", so presumably in your mind the Earth has to be at least that age.

I've often heard the age the Earth can be calculating as being around 6000 years old using the genealogies contained in the Bible, namely the number of generations from Adam to Abraham and from Abraham to Jesus.

So, how old do you believe the Earth to be ?

GaryCat

I'm sure they have. After all the ICR are paying for their research. Same with the Templeton Foundation.

Tell me Mick, do you believe in Fairies, Russells Teapot or the Flying Spagetti Monster because the scientific proof behind those concepts is as solid as the proof you are quoting for God.

OllyK has it spot on. Creationists start with a conclusion (e.g. Bible, Koran) and then look for evidence to support it. Real scientists (i.e. not those paid by religious organisations) take the evidence and draw a conclusion from it.

Mick

iTrader: (1)

All this work is done from observation - if you bother to read what work has been done...

Evolutionists work from the premise that evolution is true... tell me I'm wrong

Mick

iTrader: (1)

I believe the earth to be about 6000 - 6500 years old. The figure of 250,000 years is an absolute maximum if you believe that carbon dating works at all!

How the carbon clock works

Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s. This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.
Other factors affecting carbon dating

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing, so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood. Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

Mick

Mick

iTrader: (1)

Evolutionists pay for work that tries to show evolution is true. Secularist journals will not publish work that appears to go against evolutionist views
I don't believe in Fairies, I have not heard of 'Russells Teapot' is this another theory of how the world and all it's incredible creation came into being??? or the 'Flying Spagetti Monster' - if you think there is as much proof for their existence as there is for the data that backs up the creation idea of how we arrived here, then lets see the information. In fact, if you have data that backs up evolution as a scientificly based idea of how the human race arrived here I would like to see that too

Evolutionists and some old-earth creationists frequently charge that scientists who believe in a young earth don’t have real degrees and don’t do real scientific research that can be published in peer-reviewed secular scientific journals. A recent conference once again has refuted that canard.
During June 15–17, 2005, New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, USA, was the host to the fourth Baraminology1 Study Group Conference called “A Grander View of Life.”2 About 40 people, mostly biologists, came to hear 17 interesting presentations from papers covering diverse topics (there was also a “poster session” one evening for four presentations).
Two papers dealt with the proper classification of whales (showing them to be very distinct from any other kind of creature), while another explained and illustrated the relationship between the Bible and scientific research. The latter paper included a fascinating discussion of a massive whale fossil graveyard in the deserts of Peru that gives clear evidence of catastrophic, rapid burial and fossilization, contrary to the evolutionary story that the 80-meter-thick formation containing the whales was formed slowly over the course of several millions of years. The biblical framework of the Christian paleontologists provided “the glasses to see” the evidence that the evolutionists were blind to because of their naturalistic worldview. The evidence shows that the whales and sediments were in fact deposited in weeks (or months at the most). Studies to date are insufficient to say for sure whether that deposition was during Noah’s Flood or due to a localized catastrophe in the post-Flood period.
Two Old Testament scholars presented papers. One gave strong evidence from a detailed statistical analysis of the verb forms used in Genesis 1 to show with 99.5% certainty that the chapter is historical narrative, not poetry, and therefore, although it is teaching theological truths, it is also a guide to understanding the scientific evidence related to the origin and history of the creation. The scholar also briefly discussed biblical evidence that man is distinct from other animals and that, unlike man and animals, plants are not living in the biblical sense.
The other OT scholar presented biblical evidence that God cares for the animals, and commands man (who is the image of God) also to care for the animals. He then argued that this fact (and what it reveals about the character of God) is inconsistent with the idea of millions of years. That is, the sedimentary rocks containing billions of fossilized animals that supposedly lived and died (even violently) long before man was created (and sinned) would not reflect a caring God, but a cruel, bumbling Creator. But we have no such inconsistency if we attribute those sediments and fossils to the Flood, which was an expression of the just wrath of God on a world corrupted by man’s wickedness.
One paper was a complicated discussion of how “systems theory” from the computer world could be used to help define design in living creatures. Other, more widely understandable, papers were on such topics as:

• diversification of plants by means of polyploidy (aberrant cell division that produces multiple sets of chromosomes in the cells)
• stress-directed adaptive mutations in bacteria
• the place of extinctions in the history of life
• an analysis of students’ classification of tetrapods (mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds) by only viewing photographs of the creatures
• possible post-Flood genetic changes in humans causing shorter lifespans (as reflected in the Genesis genealogies)
• classification of snakes
• classification of whales
• a molecular tool for investigating variation within and between the original created kinds
• protein interactions in yeast

A recent graduate of The Master’s College in California gave a fascinating paper summarizing the results of her and other students’ research (under the direction of her biology professor who was at the conference) on the earthworm immune system. They are wonderfully designed “critters.”
Another paper explained a radically different non-majors biology course to fulfill general education requirements. The course was organized according to the centralizing theme of God’s nature. Each topic in the course was introduced by connecting it to one of the Creator’s attributes. So, for example, the fact that God:

• is living introduced the study of the definition of life—and life’s beginning and end and the law of biogenesis.
• is spirit led into a discussion of the non-physical aspect of life, the failure of naturalism to explain life and the inference of the Unseen from the seen.
• desires to be known provides a basis for science’s proper theological foundations, philosophy of science and a certain knowledge of the Creator through the study of living things.

Also, His glory introduces the discussion of biological beauty, God’s omniscience led to the topics of design, complexity and integration of complexity in living creatures and God’s holiness was the backdrop for considering carnivory and biological imperfections.3
The professor said the response of the non-biology major students in the two years that he taught the course was very exciting. Unfortunately, the other biology professors at this Christian college didn’t like the course, preferring to stick with the “traditional structure” of a biology course for non-majors (which, he said, bores most students and teaches them little biology that really sticks with them in life).
The final paper was a very interesting analysis of eight groups of animals (e.g., finches, cormorants, lizards, penguins, turtles) and plants (sunflowers) on the Galapagos Islands, where Darwin made his famous studies in the 1830s. The author showed that Darwin had indeed found evidence of common descent (the creatures on the islands had descended from similar kinds on the mainland), but that Darwin was probably wrong about natural selection being the mechanism effecting this change in these cases (note that natural selection per se is not a problem to the creation model in any case—see Muddy Waters). The unique creatures on the Galapagos fit the creation model developed from the Bible far better than they fit the evolution (molecules to man) hypothesis.
It was encouraging to see the quality of research that these creation scientists were doing. Don’t believe the lie that creationists are not real scientists doing real scientific research.
Another attendee of the conference is a chemistry professor at a Christian college in Canada. He was taught theistic evolution when he attended a Christian college for his undergraduate degree. He has since abandoned that position in favor of the intelligent design view. I tried to discuss with him the problem of animal death before the Fall in the old-earth view, but he tried to evade the issue by saying he “was a chemist.” I said that this was not a matter of science but of the Word of God, and that for us as Christians it is critically important what we believe about death, because what the Bible says about death is foundational to the gospel. I also tried to gently impress upon him the fact that the order of creation events in Genesis 1 is very contradictory to the order of events in the evolutionary hypothesis (and the long-age creation view) about the history of the cosmos, earth and lifeforms.4
After the paper by the OT scholar showing that Genesis 1 is narrative, I engaged the chemistry professor again. He seemed relatively unmoved by the argument of the paper, relying instead on something one of his theistic evolutionist professors had taught years ago. So I backed off. It appeared that he was not really willing to submit to the authority of Scripture. It grieves me greatly when I see this willful ignoring of Scripture as a result of a “Christian education.”
We need more young scientists who can contribute to the development of the creationist scientific model as an alternative to the evolution/old-earth hypothesis. But first, parents need to expose their science-inclined children in their growing-up years to good creationist resources (both written and audio-visual) to ground them in the truth of Genesis and the real truths of God’s creation. By doing that, these young people probably won’t be led astray by the so-called “knowledge” that they will encounter at secular (and even many Christian) universities or colleges.

Something to think about

Mick

Trout

iTrader: (1)

You're wrong

See this bloke called Darwin came along. Before him no-one had a clue about evolution and he took observed data and created a hypothesis to test. This was called evolution.

He then make further observations and the hypothesis proved to be consistent and so became accepted thesis.

So when Darwin did his work he could not have worked from the premise that evolution was true as there was no premise to work from.


I am also confused by the creationists - my understanding is that they believe the Earth to be around 6,500 years old and yet here they are proving it is 40-250,000 years old. What are they actually claiming here?

The Earth is either Biblical age and so proves the Old Testament, or it is much older. Anything older than Biblical age proves a schism in the creationists theology.

By the way - if you are a creationist/fundamentalist I do hope you are following doctrine and not wearing mixed fibres as it is an abomination, Deuteronomy 22:11, Leviticus 19:19.

I like Leviticus 19:27 as well

Rannoch

JTaylor

Assuming you haven't keeled over from the utter tedium displayed in the first two paragraphs.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

This is joyful!

Proof of Creation

Rannoch

PS Staying in boring hotel!

JTaylor

(Just bored)

OllyK

An extract from one of the research papers:
Looks like starting from the position of god exists to me.

You're wrong, Darwin's original theory was developed as a result of observing the natural world.

OllyK

And another little pearl of wisdom that suggests these guys are not entering in to their research with an open mind:
My bold

andythejock01wrx

Please tell me you used "cut 'n' paste for all of this . I pity your wrists !

Anyway, so the Earth is 6500 years old. That being the case, did man live at the same time as the dinosaurs ? Presumably you will now say that they never existed and that there are no extinct species other the ones we have photographic records of ?

This is a far better thread than the "Ive got a Clio and donno how *** you lot fink Scoobs are fast cos I burned won off tonite on the dewel carage-way It was friggin wunderful I just felt so good " threads !



PS Haven't quite mastered 1) how to switch "Bold" on and off (LOL) and 2) how to quote from two quite separate posts !

GaryCat

All that you are proving is that creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowldge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, then it is assumed, by default, that God must fill it.

What worries theists is that as science advances, the gaps shrink and show that there never was the "hand of God" involved.

In all the bio-diversity of life on earth, the creationists (or Intelligent design supporters) have only found one feasable example of a 'gap' - a flagellar motor. (This is a very lazy God you worship Mick) and since biologists have so far been unable to come up with an immediate and comprehensive answer to every stage of the flagellar evolution, then you say "God must have done it... ID wins by default... there is no theory A yet, so theory B must be the truth"

What concerns me is that theists are happy to be ignorant and accept that ID is a God-granted get-out-of-jail-free card. "We can all stop scientific research because God did it all".

Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It's not - it's a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an 'I dunno' dressed up in spirituality and ritual. If someone credits something to God, generally what it means is that they haven't a clue, so they're attributing it to an unreachable, unknowable sky-fairy. Ask for an explanation of where that bloke came from, and odds are you'll get a vague, pseudo-philosophical reply about having always existed, or being outside nature. Which, of course, explains nothing.

OllyK

Actually that was covered in Dawkins "the root of all evil", they do have an explanation.

Geezer

Actually no, I haven't researched the age of the earth myself, but plenty of extrememly respected scientists have done that for me. I doubt whether you carried out the research you are quoting either, and I realise that puts us in a similar situation.

However, the research you are pointing is based upon proving something they assume to be true (i.e. trying to fit the evidence), as opposed to discovering the truth through observation, it's quite different.

You said that you believe that the Earth is 6-6.5k years old? Well, even with the radio carbon dating you pupport to be correct, we can still date stuff up to 62k yrs old, and there is definitely stuff older than 6.5k yrs using 'your' methods. Kinda contradictory eh?

Still, radio carbon dating is only really good for living things. Other methods are available for dating things, this is how we know the age of the earth. Fossils in the rocks cannot be used to determine their age because they will contain no carbon 14. However, due to the accuracy of other readioactive decay dating methods, and the knowledge of fossil formation, the age of those fossils, and thus the life forms that formed them, can be deduced.

So, we have evidence that life existed up to 3.8 billion years ago, and that humans, and human ancestors lived millions of years ago.

Still, you ignore all that evidence and keep counting up the lives of the prophets

Geezer

wez_sti

I'm sorry Mick, you seem like a fairly pleasant guy

BUT

If you truly believe all what you have said then i' afraid you are clearly a) Mad or b) Stupid

How you can believe a combination of writings from numerous people spread over 100's of years compiled thousands of years ago over findings and stone cold fact being written discovered today only mystifies non-believers further.

The trouble is whatever future scientist discover those who believe in God will dismiss these findings if they contradict their beliefs, if they back the slightest detail up, they take it as gospel.

Do you really think geological processes which formed the volcano's, Mt Everest happened only ~6500 years ago?

That Dinosaurs were around in the times of the Bible but they just forgot to mention them??

The church believed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, anyone who disputed this was killed! Then its PROVEN and the church quietly accepts this and then pretends they knew it all along.


Your beliefs are hundreds of years out of date, I could understand why people would believe in a God when Science was almost non-existent and things like the plague was tearing through Countries and people with mental illnesses were muttering all sorts. But not now we have an understanding of these things.

Wez

OllyK

I think that's a little harsh, he has blind faith maybe and it's very hard to move from a position that relies on belief without or indeed despite evidence to one that embrasses evidence.

Science is about explaning the world we observe, faith and religion is about fitting things in to what is observed and finding excuses for the things that don't.

andythejock01wrx

This is all a bit one sided, even if Mick is doing a sterling job !

Are there no other Christian type chappies out there, or does the Scoobynet Massive not consider such issues worthy of discussion ?