大象传媒

Ms Ruane is being much too PC. Intelligent Design is just thinly-veiled creationism and neither constitute science. It really should be OK to say that science classes are for the teaching of science without having to do this much soft-pedalling.

"鈥etail the teaching materials that will be made available to teachers in Northern Ireland wishing to teach scientific theories of origins other than evolution."

The correct answer to this is that there are no accepted scientific theories competing with evolution. No need for teaching materials for non-existent theories. Every religion has its own creation story though, many of them very imaginative and well worth contrasting in RE lessons.

The science curriculum wording should be tightened to make it clear that, if it is to be mentioned at all, any reference to the euphemistic 鈥渙ther theories鈥� should be only in the historical context of what came before modern scientific understanding. Much like demonic possession has been superseded by the germ theory of disease 鈥� or will Mr Simpson be requesting equal time and teaching materials for this controversy also?

You had a programme a while back that included an extract from a GCSE science lesson at an independent Free Presbyterian school. Their version of a science education sounds like this:
Q. 鈥淭he sun's energy allows plants to live and to grow, but the sun is only a channel for light and life on earth. Now how do we know from reading our Bibles that the sun is only a channel?鈥�
A. 鈥淭he sun was created on the fourth day after there was light鈥�.

This is neither science nor education and it should not be legal to inflict this on children. Schools are not the place for ideological warfare.

Creationist American states such as Kentucky are developing anti-science reputations that have the potential to harm their kids鈥� chances of getting into prestigious universities and technology firms might think twice before setting up shop there. NI schools have a generally good reputation that could be at risk unless education ministers are willing to call a spade a spade.

In any case, ID is so last season. It is pretty much a busted flush in the States since that Supreme Court case declared it religious in nature.

The question that followed the one that William quoted is one that yielded a clearer answer from the minister:

"Mr David Simpson asked the Minister of Education, pursuant to her answer to AQW 928/07, what training will be given to teachers to help them to explore scientific explanations for the development of life on earth, other than evolution.

Ms Ruane: Teachers are currently involved in a phased programme of training to support the introduction of the revised curriculum. Any in-service training for teachers follows the requirements of the statutory curriculum and GCSE specifications which do not include any specific reference to alternative explanations of the origins of life. The Education and Library Boards have not received requests from any school or teacher for support on this issue."

A careful sigh of relief then probably. No references to 'alternative explanations' in statutory curriculum and GCSE specifications and no requests for support from schools to explore them. Pfheeeew.

Well, I suggest everyone write to Caitriona Ruane with a copy of the Kitzmiller judgement, and let her know that science education is about *science* education.

You can almost hear the boos and hisses ( from the liberal elite) for the pantomime villain Simpson as William writes that Simpson lists gospel singing as his interests.

www.theevangelists.blogspot.com

Peter, I'm not sure if the 'revised' version differs, but the GCSE science curriculum on the official CCEA website includes the line:

Recognise there are belief systems e.g. creationism to explain the development of life on earth. There should be an understanding why Darwin's theory of evolution has taken so long to be accepted by a few in the scientific community and why it may never be accepted by all

Seems to give more scope than I would like for the introduction of non-existent scientific dispute.

Simply saying "evolution is science and everything else isn't" is hardly good science. Evolution is a scientific theory, accepted by most people, which proposes a solution as to how life in its variety appeared and developed. But it's not a complete solution and its bad science to say that it is. It doesn't explain the quantum difference between man and apes and it doesn't explain how life began. Doing a bit of philosophy of science or even how science and religion influence society seems perfectly reasonable. Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people in the world believe in a creator God of some sort is hardly good science and teaching properly helps explore the differences in the way theologians and scientists deal with issues. Why are people so afraid of dealing with these things?

Padraig Coyle! I understand what you are saying however in relation to this debate, creationism and simply ISNT SCIENCE! Doing Philosophy of science and discussing how the two interact is completely different than what Simpson is suggesting! I am certainly not afraid of the issues you raise! They are fascinating, perhaps more so than the question of whether or not god even exists! However putting an essentially religious proposition on the science syllabus isnt going to help anything!
Why isnt it suffice to teach students that Evolution is not a complete theory and that there are aspects of the timing of events that are rigourously debated? While Evolution has not explained the origins of the universe (I think that what you meant by "How Life Began"?) neither has Intelligent Design, at least not by using Scientific method! The Intelligent Design theorist points out unexplined elements of Evolutionary Theory and then simply asserts that a designer must have done it (essentially it amounts to nothing more than what we have been saying above, that Evolution is an incomplete theory)! There is no Science backing up the hypothesis that a designer must have done it! That is why it should not be taught AS AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY in a SCIENCE class!!! Things like Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" argument should be explained in a science class, becuase they have been concieved via scientific theory and practice and have been thoroughly quashed via scientific method! That is Science at its best!
I also have another problem with what Simpson is proposing! While every pupil has a right to believe what they want (and I would never suggest otherwise), as Intelligent Design (and certainly not creationism) is not Scientific, comments about them in any Science exam should be disregarded!

IT SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE FOR A PUPIL TO WRITE CREATIONISTS THINK THIS BUT THERE IS ALSO EVOLUTION IN A SCIENCE EXAM! THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN CREATIONIST THEORY!

That type of answer is perfectly correct in a religion, Philosophy, Sociology class!

I think Padraig has provided the answer to the problem himself. He mentions "doing a bit of Philosophy of science"! That is exactly where the creation?evolution debate belongs! In a Philosophy class! Not in a class on Biology!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Padraig #6-

"Simply saying 'evolution is science and everything else isn't' is hardly good science."

Did I miss something? Where did someone say that?

"Evolution is .... not a complete solution..."

Again no-one claims it is.

"Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people in the world believe in a creator God of some sort is hardly good science...."

Well it's not science at all. Science does not deal with what the vast majority believe; science deals in (a) facts which have been discovered, and (b) peer-reviewed theories which scientists believe best explains the facts. What the vast majority believe is somewhat irrelevant in a science classroom.

"Why are people so afraid of dealing with these things?"

I don't think they are afraid of dealing with them. I think they properly wish to keep religion out of the science lab - that's all. I don't know anybody who doesn't see a place for ID/creationism in RE class.

Hello folks. I have read this type of debate on several occasions and have a few questions I would like some one to answer.
My understanding of evolution is from one cell organism to multi cell organisms say a horse. We can all see the difference; it would take more information to produce the horse than the one cell organism.
If all life began with the one cell where did all the information come from to produce the multi cell organisms? Do we observe this gain in information in living cells to day? Now these questions are fine but we need to have non living matter become living matter. Do we have any examples of this happening to day?
This question is also fine but we need matter. From what I have read the big bang produced Hydrogen and Helium. Where did all the elements come from? I feel that these are only a few questions that need to be answered before we get to the hair splitting of any evolutionary tree etc. And if these questions cannot be answered then are we looking at evolution as a faith With accepting evolution are we in danger of looking at an assumed answer and trying to work out the correct question?
I was at a civil engineering conference several months ago and one of the speakers made a statement 鈥淓ngineers and scientists use theories to push the boundaries of their respective fields. Theories are assumptions that are required to be tested by empirical evidence. Once a theory steps beyond the limits of the empirical evidence it is outside the bounds of reliability."

Presumably Mr Simpson would have no problem with Hindu creationist answers or indeed any fundamentalist follower of any of the world's creation myths writing that their creation myth is true!likewise with geo-centists and flat-earthers etc etc ad nauseum.

Further could pupils in Biology write that a stork brings children into the world and leaves them under a cabbage patch?

Just because all conclusions in science are provisional doesn鈥檛 mean that we can鈥檛 discriminate good science from bad. No one is saying that nothing but evolution could possibly be science, but it is hard to convey the height of the hurdle any competing hypothesis has to surmount to remain consistent with the mountain of evidence discovered so far. Evolutionary theories manage this, Creationism barely leaves the ground.

There鈥檚 nothing wrong with a bit of social context, but that is not the battle being fought here. All the energy behind the push for ID and Creationism is religious. Mr Simpson is not, I鈥檒l wager, equally insistent that pupils understand the deficiencies in the theory of gravity. The aim is not to improve the quality of science teaching, but to ensure that it can be made sufficiently fuzzy to leave room for their religious assertions.

A close study of reality has led science to the conclusion that the Earth is much older than the creationists like and that the complexity of life can have developed with less godly micro-management than they are comfortable with. If biology, geology, astronomy, etc. are all confirming ages in the millions and billions, just how much latitude must science give for the 6,000 year possibility? Does science teaching really have to hedge its bets at every mention of an old Earth just to keep the fundies happy? That鈥檚 what the Free Presbyterian school I mentioned above does and it is evidence of minds closed to inconvenient science, not ones keen to ensure all the evidence gets a fair hearing.

The impossibility of 100% certainty does not mean that anything goes. Teaching kids that they can select their science based on personal preference will not do them any favours.

Not all who believe Gen 1:1 also believe that the earth is 6000 years old . My own view , and I speak as a fundamentalist , is that the Bible gives no date for the creation of the universe beyond the phrase " In the beginning ... " .
Personally , I suspect that the universe is probably pretty old but I have no Biblical data to answer the question either way .

www.theevangelists.blogspot.com

Ian # 12- Are you willing to admit that much (or most) of human history is missing from the biblical record? If not, you can't account for millions of years and have a fatal flaw in your reasoning.

Yeti #9- There are many websites devoted to explaining the basics of evolution by natural selection which can answer your questions. See for a prominent example. You also need to distinguish between the theories of evolution and abiogenesis. With regard to life first arising, evolutionary theory does not propose to answer that question. The rest of evolution is very well understood, and your suggestion that we can't "get to the hair splitting" of the details of evolution without first dealing with where matter came from is erroneous. In fact most modern biology and geology makes sense only in the light of evolutionary theory. With regard to your quote: "Once a theory steps beyond the limits of the empirical evidence it is outside the bounds of reliability." I agree, largely. Evolutionary theory is the theory which best explains the facts as seen in geology and biology. There is no better theory. Creationism/ID certainly isn't a candidate, and so far no piece of evidence has proven evolutionary theory to be wrong: that's why scientists almost unanimously agree with it.

It is the utmost folly to suggest that ID is not Science and evolution is - both are theories! Only the flat-earthers would maintain such an obtuse stance.

A good example of a brilliant NASA scientist who belives the earth is 6,000 years old is Michael Tigges,a Senior Aerospace Engineer at NASA Johnson Space Center. He was the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal

Evolutionary Theory does not even answer the basic questions such as where did matter come from, what "force" guided the initial conditions, who designed the basic genetic code, what are the biochemical pathways that describe the process etc.

ID is a perfectly valid scientific mode of investigation as we use it in many disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics,criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering,crypto-analysis, random number generation, and even to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).

For those oppenents of ID - can you give me what evidence of ID would convince you that design existed? When you do that, then we can start to test the evidence.

Sam- pointing out a high ranking NASA scientist is evidence of precisely nothing! Once again you beg the question "WHO designed the basic genetic code"!!! WHO????? Why did anybody have to design it Sam???? You cant approach the question of where the Genetic code came from by asking "WHO" created it!! That is basic reasoning! Can things not simply have come to be???

You then completely pass the buck (typically) by asking what evidence I would need to be convinced that ID does exist in the Universe? Any evidence would be a start! Show me one piece of Scientific evidence that Intelligent Design does exist??? Is there anything???? Remember Sam.....saying that Evolution doesnt explain this and that is not Scientific evidence that Intelligent design can explain it!!! You clearly believe in Intelligent design. What REASON do you have for believing that it is true?????? What convinced you that it must be true?? When you present us with that information then perhaps we can begin to talk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For what can be known about God is plain, because God has shown it.The various works of creation; all which proclaim the being, unity, and perfections of God their Creator,
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. The very Heathens, who have only the light of nature, and are destitute of a revelation, have no colour or pretext for their idolatrous practices, and vicious lives; nor have they, nor will they have anything to object to God's righteous judgment against them, or why they should not be condemned.

Sam- Are you for real? I don't even know where to start with your comments. Let's take each of the main thrusts of what you said one at a time:

1) You suggest that evolution and ID are both theories. In actual fact ID (creationism) is not a scientific theory at all. Why is this the case? Because scientific theories start with established facts and then explain those facts in the most coherent way. ID starts primarily with religious doctrine ('God created the world') and then attempts to refute the science which refutes that claim - the opposite of a theory. Where it does start with science, ID is an exceptionally bad theory, since it doesn't even begin to address most of those facts (for example, evidence of a fusion in human chromosome #2, linking human beings to the great apes). I know you like to think they're two equally valid means of explaining origins - I used to think so myself - but this is entirely erroneous for the above reasons.

2) You cite a NASA engineer as an example of a scientist who believes in ID/creationism. What's incredible about this is that this is among the best you have to offer: a guy involved in aerospace engineering with no relation to biology or geology and, therefore, the only teaching he receives on the topic of origins is likely at his church on Sunday mornings! It's been said that 99.9 percent of scientists believe in evolution: this claim is substantiated by the fact that Answers in Genesis could only come up with 186 scientists who accept the biblical account of creation (only 70 of those work in fields related to biology) - an incredibly tiny, statistically insignificant fraction of scientists - and what's more, none of them have produced any peer-reviewed papers on the subject!

3) You say that evolution "...does not even answer the basic questions such as where did matter come from, what "force" guided the initial conditions, who designed the basic genetic code, what are the biochemical pathways that describe the process etc." Well I'm glad you think those questions are "basic". I refer you to my response to Yeti in #13, where I say that evolution is not a theory which even proposes to answer those questions, and the theory of evolution is not invalidated in the slightest by this fact. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis - they're two different things. For example, someone could hold that God created the universe by providing the conditions and the initial spark which caused life to begin to evolve. Is evolution invalidated by postulating the existence of God? How?

4) You claim that ID is used in all sorts of disciplines such as archaeology. This is among the more bizarre things I've heard. Pray tell; How? Where? By whom? Why?

5) Your last sentence is utterly wrongheaded: "...Can you give me what evidence of ID would convince you that design existed? When you do that, then we can start to test the evidence." A wealth of evidence (which is neutral) already exists. We have to deal with that already - this is further proof of my point (1) to you above - you're doing things the wrong way around. The evidence is best explained by evolution. If you'd like to show that it isn't, feel free, but you have your work cut out for you. You ask what evidence would convince me that the universe was designed. First, you'd need to get rid of the vast majority of evidence which strongly suggests evolution, and explain it better than evolution does. We can get into that if you like, but we already have over many hundreds of posts to this blog in the past (for example see a post called 'Belfast's Biblical Flood' a few months ago).

Anonymous- If you're content with that explanation then feel free to ignore the rest of us who appreciate the wonder of God's creation so much that we'd like to look at it more deeply and find out more about how it came to be exactly as it is.

Joe

Thank you for accepting the veracity of ID as you accept that a genetic code must have a designer and a creator and a law giver who give the natural law to direct it. Unless of course you are mad enough like Prof Dawkins to argue that it came from nothing!

I have proven that ID methodology is a valid scientific method in Forensics, SETI etc - however, you are the one arguing that it is invalid so I am challenging you to give us the evidential principles that you as a "scientific expert" would accept and then I will provide the evidence.

You will find all the Dawkins cult refuse to proivide the evidential framework as if they did they would immediately be confronted with the evidence.

It is a clever sleight of hand trick but not very honest!

Sam, we've had some pretty hopeless creationist folks on this blog, but you're outdoing most if not all of them.

Where did Joe say any of the things you attribute to him?

And where on the Flying Spaghetti Monsters green earth did you prove the use of ID in forensics etc?! I'm very curious about your published scientific literature on it.

Contrary to what you say evolutionary scientists love evidence. As you claim to have it, please produce it. Adhering to no more than the usual standards of science btw, no special hurdles that your proof would need to pass, just the usual drill.

John Wright says "science deals with facts that have been discovered" and then dismisses the fact, and it is a fact, that the vast majority of people believe the universe was created by God. It is a clear fact. One can then ask why that is so and there are a number of reasons - one is something along the lines of intelligent design, another is revelation.

The reason I suggest there is no harm looking at these things in a science class is because that is the way modern subjects are generally taught - subjects don't stand in splendid isolation, they interact, geography with history with economics. Some scientists hope that by keeping their subject "pure" and "isolated" they can simply ignore the fact of belief and in doing so destroy it. But really, what is the point in having two teachers, two subjects, one saying God created the universe and his highest creation after angels was man, the other teacher saying life developed simply and purely by natural selection and there is no evidence of intelligent design. Broaden your horizon and your science will be far better.

There are an awful lot of Irish Presbyterian ministers, mostly the ecumenical brigade, who openly admit that they are evolutionists. I believe last years moderator was one.

# 16
more florid language which says absolutely nothing.
You may as well of just said "The Bible is true because the bible says it is".
An "epistemological black hole" is what I believe Sam Harris called it.
anyway, i'd better keep it short - i've got some idolatrous practices to be getting on with.

To Sam- peter Klaver couldnt have said it better!

1)I never once (in anything I have written) agreed that the genetic code must have a designer!!!!!!!!!!!
2) I am fascinated by your consistent use of "who"! Who is this who? Why does there have to be a "who" anywhere in this problem! YOU ARE BEGGING THE QUESTION, ONE OF THE BASIC ERRORS IN LOGIC!

3)you have not once "demonstrated" that ID methodology is valid science in relation to forensics! You have told me that it is! COULD YOU NOW PLEASE PROVIDE ONE EXAMPLE TO SHOW HOW ID METHODOLOGY IS VALID SCIENCE IN THE FIELD OF FORENSICS?

4)You then (rather typically) pass the buck AGAIN, based on the fact that I am disputing the validity of ID, by asking me what evidence I would need to be convinced!

-firstly, the reason I dispute it is because none of you people have ever provided any evidence. WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE FOR BELIEVING IT TO BE TRUE! WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS CONVINCED YOU????
-it is fairly basic logic that saying "EVOLUTION CANT EXPLAIN THIS" does not provide evidence that Intelligent design can!!!!!Where is the evidence that Intelligent Design can explain what Evolution supposedly cant??????????

MY ANSWER IS THE SAME AS IT WAS BEFORE! WHAT EVIDENCE DO I NEED??

-ANY WOULD BE A GOOD START! JUST ONE SINGLE PIECE WHICH YOU STILL HAVE NOT EVEN ATTEMPTED TO PROVIDE!

Anonymous #21- Interesting that you believe the reason most people believe the universe was created is due to revelation, when presumably you don't believe that Islamic doctrine (which is also prevalent) or Hindu beliefs (also) or Buddhist (very widely held) are the result of revelation. Why is it that the widely held belief that you happen to agree with is the result of revelation but the myriad of other widely held beliefs that you disagree with are not?

Sam #19- I eagerly await your response to what I said to you in #17. And, as others have asked, where have you proven the validity of ID science in forensics etc.? As far as I can see you've proven precisely nothing.

Anyone for another game of creationist bingo?

I's full house with Sam Hanna!

Goodness what more banal, breath-taking examples of wilfull ignorance can the creationist crowd come up with!

To Jonathan Trimble M 22

I am not surprised that a Presbyterian Moderator did not have any problem with evolution/science. As we know, intelligent Christians/theists have no problem with this issue. So basically what I am saying to you is...don't worry about it.

Regards

DD

If I answer an RE exam question from a His Noodly Appendages perspective, will I recieve equal marks to one of the parrots spouting Christian propoganda?

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY - LET THE CHILDREN DECIDE.... The Flying Spaghetti monster merits RE Classroom time.

WISE UP!!!

RAmen to your post Gee Dubyah. Pastafarianism, the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, has solid scientific evidence to support it. It far more deserves a place in science class rooms than Christian creationism.

UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN...most advocates of intelligent design have their roots in fundementalist Christianity and believe that the god of the bible created the earth. Can someone please tell me what is intelligent about a being who creates a planet and a short time later destroys it all again in a flood, killing every living thing, including innocent children, apart from Noah and his family. The intelligent designer also had the opportunity to destroy 'original sin,'by drowning Noah and his family, thus starting creation afresh but failed to do so. What is intelligent about such an intelligent designer??

UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN...most advocates of intelligent design have their roots in fundementalist Christianity and believe that the god of the bible created the earth. Can someone please tell me what is intelligent about a being who creates a planet and a short time later destroys it all again in a flood, killing every living thing, including innocent children, apart from Noah and his family. The intelligent designer also had the opportunity to destroy 'original sin,'by drowning Noah and his family, thus starting creation afresh but failed to do so. What is intelligent about such an intelligent designer??

People who argue from apparent "design" in nature to the existence of a Spirit Designer do not seem to study nature very much. If they did, they might find that any evidence for Him/Her/It points to a ruthless, merciless, sadistic Spirit Designer.

Consider the predators: tigers, hawks, sharks, wolves, spiders, etc. They sport a ferocious array of weapons for biting, tearing and rendering their victims. The Designer who invented them had a truly sadistic imagination.

The parasites are even worse: worms, viruses, leeches, fleas, vampire bats, etc. The Designer behind that lot was a Hammer Horror addict. The Ichneumon fly, for example, lays its eggs inside caterpillars so that when they hatch, they eat the caterpillar from the inside. What kind of a sadist dreamt that one up!!

This is the problem that Blake wrestled with when he wrote "Tyger, Tyger, burning bright". What kind of a god or goddess would invent such cruel horrors?

Fortunately we now have the answer to that riddle. There is no god or goddess, sadistic or otherwise. Organisms have evolved to survive and have acquired feeding habits according to their environment. We should marvel at the amazing variety of life forms and avoid inventing Spirit Designers when there is no need.

John #13
Thank you for your reply. I have looked at the site mentioned, which I will refer to from time to time. I trust you will accept my reasons for retaining a healthy scepticism
1) I do not have the facilities to either prove or disprove the information provided.
2) I have heard several recent debates / interviews with leading evolutionary exponents. None of them provided any examples of information being added to cells, let alone explain where information comes from.
3) Looking back through history you can see examples of science that were once considered to be facts now disregarded.
4) Over the years I have gained enough experience to realise that not everything I have read and heard is true.
5) There are various views within the evolutionary ranks.

I accept your point that I was loose in my wording and quite possibly have to distinguish between the spontaneous origination of living matter from non living matter and evolution. While the theory of evolution may not purpose how life started matter, information and life have to come from somewhere and that still needs to be answered. Without information, matter and life there would be no evolution, so I do not regard my suggestion of 鈥渉air splitting鈥� as erroneous.
To say that something is well understood does not mean that it is right.
Maybe you would be willing to point to a few examples within biology and geology that you believe are supportive of the evolutionary theory.
You believe that there is no better theory; I believe that children and students should be taught the truth showing the short falls and all.
In many respects evolutionary science is being used as a mechanism for man to hide his lack of knowledge of where we come from or possibly his unwillingness to acknowledge where we come from.
Thank you for your time and patience in this matter.

Can we please lose this nonsense about "where does the information come from"? It comes from *selection* - that is the process that adds information to a genepool. Mutation is random - selection is not. This goes right back to the "methinks it is like a weasel" situation that Dawkins covered in "The Selfish Gene".

Yeti- You appear to be of the variety of person to believe there is some anti-religious conspiracy in the educational system; something that would make scientists lie to kids in classrooms. This is not the case. When you suggest that kids should be taught the shortcomings of evolutionary theory too, I think you're right, and I don't believe there's a scientist or a high school science teacher I've ever met who would disagree. There are things evolution simply doesn't explain, and doesn't propose to. But that does not justify your anti-evolution stance. Let me show you what I mean.

You say: "Looking back through history you can see examples of science that were once considered to be facts now disregarded."

Yes, that's science. But I don't see you doubting the theories of gravity, relativity, quantum physics. Scientists understand better than anyone that theories are tentative. And just as quantum theory has proposed better explanations of gravity than Newton did, modern explanations of evolution are better understood than Darwin's. None of this, though, even comes close to casting any doubt whatsoever on the truth of evolution. It's just not even on the cards at this point. We know evolution happened; it is the details that are tentative.

"Maybe you would be willing to point to a few examples within biology and geology that you believe are supportive of the evolutionary theory."

I would, but you've already prejudged any information I could provide you by saying that you don't believe much of what scientists say. If we return to talkorigins.org for a second, there is a section detailing to get you started. I'll certainly be willing (as a nonscientist) to talk about what I understand in layman's terms, if it helps. Maybe you wish to bookmark this page and we can take our time going through it?

In any case, thanks for your response. If I may allow myself to be blunt, I detect that I'm talking to an intelligent guy whose faith means a lot to him and who doesn't wish to devalue his God in any way. That's to be appreciated, and I share that sense. But what I've had to do is to resist equating manmade theology and interpretation of God from God: a tradition which reads Genesis literally is not the only available interpretation, and I believe God can be credited even more by understanding the wonder of the natural world as it exists, including the process of evolution which we're finding out God implemented to get us where we are. If anything, I have a higher regard for God after understanding our origins in science than I did by simply reading "Let there be light."

YETI Post 32.

"Over the years I have gained enough experience to realise that not everything I have read and heard is true".

Well said Sir.

Now please tell me, does this rule of yours not apply on Sundays?

I know it will come as a surprise to some, but the fact is that the Creation (ie Bible, Traditional Christian) model of origins is consistent with the scientific evidence.

Some of us believe that young people should have the opportunity to make up their own minds about it.

Hello Philip Campbell,

"I know it will come as a surprise to some, but the fact is that the Creation (ie Bible, Traditional Christian) model of origins is consistent with the scientific evidence."

Creationism comes in different flavours, young/old earth, geocentrist, design inferrence, ect. Could you specify in some more detail what you refer to when you say 'Traditional Christian' please?

greets,
Peter

Will (and others)

You might be interested in this update to my earlier post on

Will (and others)

You might be interested in this update to my earlier post on

Pete
loved the post from 'wild turkey'

quote
Challenge - Say 鈥楲isburn Council is an example of intelligent design鈥� three times without cracking up with laughter.
end

I could frivolously suggest it would be a good idea to have evolution on the RE syllabus but it would be much better to restrict the RE syllabus to comparative religion - and not try to teach faith, which is the danger with the present RE syllabus -and some teachers.
Religious education should really be left to Sunday - or whatever other day you want to call 'holy'
In fact, religion and education, like creationism and evolutionary science - just do not go together.

Amenhotep #33
I do not wish to sound disrespectful to you or Professor Dawkins but is he always right? For quite a number of years we have been told that information was added via mutations. Now we are told it is through selection. Excuse my impertinence but how long will it be before selection is disregarded?
There are many well qualified and educated people who would dispute this concept proposed in 鈥淭he Selfish Gene鈥�. I have been told Mr Dawkins is having a discussion with one on Wednesday evening in Alabama, a Mr David Lennox, also of Oxford University.

Gee Dubyah #35
It applies 24/7.

John #34

I believe I owe you the courtesy of replying to your message in a reasonable time

Unfortunately at this time I have been unable to take a look at the page you have recommended. Sorry about this I will try to correct this over the next four or five days. Thank you for your kind offer of help I can only guarantee you exasperation if we go down this road. This is a vast subject so we may need to make each other aware of our respective meanings for some of the terms.

You will have to forgive my inability to express in the written word exactly how I feel. I believe that education is a marvellous opportunity for people of all ages and abilities More importantly the ability to think should also be nurtured in people of all ages and abilities. In the words of Bruce Springsteen on his version of WAR 鈥渂lind faith in your leaders or anything will get you killed鈥�.

To try and give you an idea of where I am coming from here are a few examples of support for evolution that have been or are still being used that are based upon misconceptions :- Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Piltdown Man, observations surrounding the Peppered Moth. Also take a look at the history surrounding Ernst Haeckel鈥檚 work on embryos. This was discredited in 1868 but is still being used and quoted in textbooks. Does the geological column shown in the text books actually exist in reality anywhere other than in the text books?

Quite recently was there not a Korean scientist who unfortunately fell from prominence after his published research was proven to be fraudulent? Over the years there have been scientists and doctors on both sides of the smoking debate.

Scientists are human beings; they are open to the same type of temptations, preconceived ideas, social conditioning, parental conditioning, educational conditioning as the rest of us. They have bills to pay.

John, if evolution is true why is there a collective body of scientists continually opposing it? Not all of them believe in a god, not all of them believe in the same god. This is something that Mr Simpson would need to be careful about as pointed out in an earlier post.

I cannot see that evolution is a fact. I would feel hard done by if I were convicted and sentenced for a crime when the prosecutor could only provide tentative details connecting me to the crime. How about you? All the sides in the discussion of Origins are looking at the same facts. Facts are interpreted depending on your world view.

I do not reckon your comments to be blunt. Thank you for your kind words. I would not associate myself in the same line as intelligent.

Moses, the author of Genesis, did not know that the the Earth is round. He believed that the Earth was flat. The many references to the "firmament" in Genesis reveal his flat-Earth assumptions.

Will the Minister for Education insist that schools now teach Flat Earth theory on a par with Round Earth theory?

And then perhaps we can get on to teaching demonic possession as an alternative "explanation" for Foot and Mouth disease?

Life under the Taliban!!!

Moses, the author of Genesis, did not know that the the Earth is round. He believed that the Earth was flat. The many references to the "firmament" in Genesis reveal his flat-Earth assumptions.

Will the Minister for Education insist that schools now teach Flat Earth theory on a par with Round Earth theory?

And then perhaps we can get on to teaching demonic possession as an alternative "explanation" for Foot and Mouth disease?

Life under the Taliban!!!

Les, Moses was not the author of Genesis (assuming he existed). Genesis was cobbled together from several sources in 7th century CE at the earliest, and contains numerous retro-dated mistakes that place it very very firmly at the time of Egypt's 26th Dynasty. (See Donald Redford's excellent book "Egypt, Canaan & Israel in Ancient Times [Princeton] for a good explanation.)

So, it's really a very recent concoction, from the same rough era as the rest of the pentateuch. david and Solomon, for example, did *not* have the Torah.

Yeti: mutations provide variety in the genomes of individuals that provides the (essentially random) raw material for selection to work upon. Selection is what turns this "noise" into the "information content" that we see in genomes (otherwise it would just be a random genetic walk). So you can see that both are essentially correct, but you don't really get information added without both being in place.

But one thing is very clear - creationists are DEAD WRONG when they say that the information in genomes already exists, and natural selection just acts upon that - new variation is popping up all the time, and selection is what converts that variation into what we see as a complex informatics structure. Dawkins dealt with this in TSG over 30 years ago. The "information question" has been answered.

-A

A #44 - I did not realise from your previous post #33 that you meant that both mutations and selection worked together. I do not have Professor Dawkins book The Selfish Gene so please be patient as I try to come to terms with what you mean.

By mutation I assume that you mean a beneficial mutation and by selection you mean the process by which the beneficial mutation becomes the dominant form.

It is fine putting theories down on paper but what is the practicality of this happening.

Assuming that Professor Dawkins is right and those scientists who do not agree with his synopsis are wrong.

Apparently the chance of a beneficial mutation occurring is 1 in 600. With the right selective value its chances of surviving is 1 in 500. Therefore its chances of appearing, surviving and taking over a population would be 1 in 300,000.

It is estimated by some evolutionists that it would take 500 such steps to 鈥渃reate鈥� a new species. With this in mind and accepting that this chain of events has no errors then the probability of this happening is apparently 2.7/102739. Apparently this is 1/300,000 multiplied by itself 500 times. This is to produce only one change in the alleged evolutionary ladder. This would have to occur billions of times to get to where we are today.

We also have to bear in mind that from Professor Dawkins perspective we have to go through the whole process of Cosmic Evolution, Planetary Evolution, Chemical Evolution, to get to the extremely complex scenario of life emanating from non living matter, then to Macroevolution (different species).

I believe its about time we taught people the truth about evolutionary science warts and all. It is far from being fact.

Yeti, no - I do not mean "beneficial mutation". Mutations are only "beneficial" in hindsight, after selection has gone to work. *All* of us contain mutations that were not present in our parents - some of these have no effect, some have a very small phenotypic effect somewhere or other, and others may have quite a large effect (in which case they are actually quite likely to be harmful to our reproductive success). DNA mutates every time it replicates - not a lot - less than 1 in a million, but that's more than enough.

This happens all the time, so the degree of variation present in the genePOOL would increase and increase, if it were not for selection. Selection winnows that down, and adds information to the genePOOL in the process (by which I mean real mathematical information - not just extra DNA nucleotides).

Your probability calculations seem to be based on one specific individual undergoing one specific change - that is not how evolution works. Any mutation can happen at any point - in fact, we know that humans typically vary at at least 1/1000 of our DNA "letters" (basepairs), but recent work has shown this to be an underestimate of the true level of variation. That's over 3 million such variations in our population. Furthermore, the *types* of variation seen *within* our population are of exactly the same character as those seen *between* (say) humans and chimps. We are running the same genetic software, with just a few changes.

There really is no shortage of material for selection to work on. The first part of your last paragraph I totally agree with. The second part is just nonsense. Given the biology that we have, evolution is simply *inevitable*.

Some people (particularly in the DUP it would seem) have a problem with this. That does not change the fact that evolution has occurred, is occurring, and, while life like ours is on this planet, will continue to occur.

I note that some biologists are suggesting teaching about creationism in their science lectures as an example of the crappest way you can possibly do science. Like teaching about a flat earth in geography, or about astrology in astronomy courses.

Creationist fraudsters often try to confuse people with terminology: I just found out the other day that people *still* confuse the term "Intelligent Design" (which is basically creationism re-badged) with "Theistic evolution", which is a completely different scenario, and is a philosophical position that god(s) used evolution as part of the overall creative process. This is at least consistent with the evidence, although I would argue that it is unnecessary, and therefore falls foul of Occam's razor. But at least it is consistent with theology and science. Literal creationism runs into problems as soon as it hits Genesis 2, FFS.

A #46 Thank you again for your reply. You put forward a powerful argument as undoubtedly Professor Dawkins does in the Selfish Gene, if the reviews are anything to go by. I will endeavour to get myself a copy and have a read.

At the time of its writing, the book was reviewed as a theory and while today many people accept what it says, it apparently has yet to be backed up by hard evidence. Recent comments have said that Professor Dawkins in the Selfish Gene has over simplified the complexity of genes. If Professor Dawkins has proof for this theory why does he not use it in debates? Is there any hard evidence? Can Professor Dawkins point to a particular gene and conclusively say that is the Self Gene?

I fully understand that engineers and scientists theorise to push the boundaries of their respective fields but again come to the point 鈥淥nce a theory steps beyond the limits of the empirical evidence it is outside the bounds of reliability.鈥�

With all the advances being made today in the fields of science the Selfish Gene may be proven or it may fall. My concern is that the power of argument may actually undermine the truth.

Hi Yeti,
Will's blog seems to shred my comments, and it looks like this happens to other folks too. [Will - please get your 大象传媒 IT boffins to sort it! ;-)]

You seem to misunderstand what the "Selfish Gene" concept is about, and much of the criticism is likewise misdirected - best read the book. However, it's important to recognise that Dawkins is using the word "gene" in a slightly idiosyncratic sense, meaning a "piece of information", rather than what we would normally recognise as a gene (say, encoding a protein). It's basically any piece of genetic material that can be differentially replicated into the next generation. The premise - that genes that do this well prosper at the expense of those that do it less well - is a bit of a "well, duh!" concept. It has been proven many times, and indeed forms the basis of genetic algorithm computing.

TSG showed how genes that act in such a "selfish" way can actually give rise to altruistic behaviour, since co-operation is often better for survival. It is, in this day and age, nothing short of *astonishing* that so many people who feel empowered to criticise Dawkins over this do not grasp this simple point. The only conclusion that I can draw is that they have not read the book, or that they are too stupid to understand it.

On the Dawkins-Gould scale, I would be more towards the Dawkins end, but not completely. But then I suspect that Dawkins had a sneaking admiration for Gould, even when he was wrong on some aspects.

Read the book. You'll like it. It's good.

Amen

forgive me for breaking in here, but as we have been discussing on your own blog, nobody actually has any observational evidence for a mutation EVER taking a lifeform out of normal natual variation range of any species.

The suggestion that the population of any species has ever varied so much that it became another species has never been observed or proven.

It is but one interpretation of the evidence available and is a model based on preferred assumptions (materialist naturalism beliefs), while ruling out other possible assumptions for non-scientific reasons.

I have noted in recent weeks that, as per the Dover trial, current scientific thought cannot actually disprove creationism.

All it can do is say that evolution is the best (only) scientific theory which gives any sort of explanation.

That is not the same thing as saying it is the most logical explanation.

The judge at Dover said that because creationism has a proposed supernatural cause, current science cannot test/prove/disprove it.

He was also very careful to state his view that creationism MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE and encouraged creationists to continue their research.

It does seem a common sense conclusion; all science can do is say that the case for creationism is not proven within current scientific boundaries.

ie, science cannot generally work with supernatural occurances, but neither can it deny that they happen.

It is just that the case cannot be proven by contemporary scientific standards.

But those standards do "EVOLVE" over centuries, dont they Amen?

Anyway, my conclusion is that contemporary science can no more say that creationism is not valid than it can define why a painting or symphony are world class pieces of art.

Scientists cannot reproduce original art masters, new-species-evolution or creationism.

Neither can creationists.

Everyone needs to be a little more honest about the limits of their intellectual authority.

That includes Dawkins.

Once he steps outside the boundaries of anything proven by empirical evidence he is giving his personal opinions on religion.

No problem with that, lets just not delude ourselves that these are scientifically proven.

PB

PS Was reading Arthur C Clarke's 3 laws recently. Thought they are quite an interesting comment on the ever changing worldview of science;-

Clarke's three laws:

1) "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

2) "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

3) "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Clarke might add Law Number 4: Any post by PB is indistinguishable from horseshit.

PB, you're so hopelessly adrift here, you make Lisburn Council look like a beacon of reason. You also are *again* completely misrepresenting Judge Jones, but you've been hauled up on this before, and you evidently think that you can just restate nonsense over and over again, and it suddenly becomes true. You can't disprove Last Tuesdayism either, but that is not relevant to science.

As for mutations and species, perhaps it's time you did a little work here. Can you point to the genetic differences between species? What *at a genetic level* separates (say) humans from chimpanzees, and can you show that those differences do not occur *within* both populations? (I have news for you - they *do*). The difference between species is simply that there are so many of these differences that cross-breeding cannot biologically occur.

PB, seriously, you cannot put forward your ridiculous notions of what *you* think evolution entails, and expect us to defend them, when the actuality of evolution is rather different. Do your homework, lazy! :-)

Amenhotep

PB is infamous on these threads for repeating stuff that has been shown to be clap-trap(and patiently shown to him to be so) and in PB's own little universe by repeating it somehow makes it true! Myself and others have been over Dover with PB many, many times and still PB can still not grasp the basics.

I am surpised that you have shown so much patience Amen! everyone else got P'offed off with him long ago!

PB (bless him) does not actually realise what a massive size 12, steel toe capped boot in the clinkers Dover was to ID/creationism! from the Bible -believers on the school board lying under oath to Behe's stunningly inept performance.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

(does seem to be a feature of "Bible-Believers" to be dishonest)

Judge Jones

That and his "breathtaking inanity" quote sum's up Dover and PB.

Incidentally Arthur C. Clarke also said...

"I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in
the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent."

Which PB (since he likes A.C. Clarke so much)will heartedly agree with comment!

DD, yes - I thought there was something about 10 commandments, and in addition to number 4, creationists seem to think that number 9 isn't worth keeping either.

In fact, in general, creationists don't seem to be very "Christian" in the euphemistic meaning of the term. Whitewashed sepulchres, perhaps. Hypocrites. Trying too hard - like Ted Haggard, Kent Hovind, or that chap in the 2 wetsuits. If they're seen as uncompromising in their "defence" of Genesis, perhaps no-one will look at their overall life or "witness". Just like the Taliban, in fact.

Incidentally, on the Genesis score, people often claim that it is "allegory" in apologetic circles (this is intelligent Christians who realise that literal interpretation is impossible). I would suggest that enlightened Christians drop the "allegory" and substitute the word "context", because much of the history in the Bible is just *wrong* - if it is instead regarded as *context*, we can understand it a lot better, and we don't have to watch this ridiculous spectacle of grown men and women professing that our planet is only 6000 years old.

It's time Christians reclaimed some intellectual credibility, and cut these fools loose.

Welcome back peabrain,

"The suggestion that the population of any species has ever varied so much that it became another species has never been observed or proven."

This was dealt with in posts 35 and 36 of the thread

/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_god_debate_at_the_festival_1.html

In short: you're demanding a ridiculous burden of proof by requiring that millions of years required for evolution somehow be squeezed into real-time observable processes. Ridiculous.

"The suggestion that the population of any species has ever varied so much that it became another species has never been observed or proven."

Sure it can, and it has done so time and time again. Just read up on dating methods peabrain. Found out how many labs do radiological dating yet?

And as DD and Amenhotep already said, your misrepresentation of judge Jones is past the limit of silly. He said the creationists were highly dishonest, noting some had committed outright perjury.

And you mention scientific proof again. How's your reading going pb? As over the last 10 months, we're all still waiting for your explanations of intermediate life forms, both currently living and fossilised ones.

Peter

Want an intermediate species?

Got a mirror?

Peter!

Never mind fossils and how many labs do radiometric dating etc. I am *still* waiting on PB(or indeed any other creationist)to back up what they are saying with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable-you really would think that it would be simple!(but obviously not simple enough).

Amen

Who is the guy in the 2 wetsuits?

Thought this was interesting...

;-)

Amenhotep, Peter Klaver, Dylan Dog, Gee Dubyah, and others: I applaud your efforts to deal with the ignorant claims of Yeti, PB, and others who - perhaps through simple lack of research - are convinced that creationism is somehow a valid explanation of origins. With most of these people it is difficult to know even where to start, since in most cases there is little to no real understanding of even the basic scientific method, let alone evolution itself which, despite the insistence of creationists, IS a fact, and a theory too.

I suggest that each creationist here go to and read the answers to their top 5 arguments against evolution, and then come back here to discuss it. This crap has been dealt with so often it has become tiresome to repeat it. There'll be a much better discussion after some research has been conducted.

For all the evolutionists out there convinced about the evidence for evoltuion, I reprint here the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Phylogeny.

My emphasis added highlights the uncertain foundations of the whole unsteady edifice.

enjoy

PB

////////////////////////////
Enc Brit article;-

(My emphasis added)

Phylogeny
the history of the evolution of a species or group, especially in reference to lines of descent and relationships among broad groups of organisms.

Fundamental to phylogeny is the >>>proposition>>is nearly always incomplete, for the vast majority of species that have ever lived have become extinct, and relatively few of their remains have been preserved>>speculation>>at least in principle>>propositions

Biologists who >>>postulate

The earliest organisms were >>>probably>>random>>supposed>>not certain

Cyanobacteria (sometimes called the blue-green algae) are >>>thought

After the cyanobacteria there appeared an extensive array of algae, molds, protozoans, plants, and animals. Three groups of algae can be dismissed with passing mention, as they arose from >>>uncertain>>suggest>>unknown

Land plants contain two major groups, bryophytes and tracheophytes, which differ in many ways but which share distinctive characteristics for adaptation to dry land. These include the housing of the plant embryo in maternal tissue.

Bryophytes are descended from green algae and include mosses, liverworts, and hornworts. Only small quantities of water are needed for their reproduction, so that the sperm may travel to the eggs. The fertilized egg matures within the maternal tissue. The plant is protected from dessication by a waxy cuticle. Bryophytes have >>>apparently>>seem

All the dominant plants on Earth are included in the tracheophytes. The tracheophytes' development of large plant bodies has been made possible by having vascular parts that carry water and food inside these plants, and by a dominant sporophyte stage with a microscopic-sized gametophyte. Tracheophytes' tissues have differentiated into leaves, stems, and roots, and in the highest plants seeds and flowers are featured.

In explaining the evolution of tracheophytes, it has been >>>suggested

>>>The problem of the origin of multicellular animals>>theory>>presumed>>theory hypothesizes>>No decisive information, however, yet exists to sustain either contention

Two current >>>theories postulate>>suggests>>theory

Humans are included in the chordates. Three basic structures are shared by all chordates: a dorsal nerve tube (brain and spinal cord in vertebrates); a notochord (supporting rod under the nerve tube); and a pharynx perforated bygill slits, at least during the embryonic stage.

The history of evolution is full of examples of primitive groups giving rise to more advanced groups, but it should be noted that it is the more primitive and less specialized members of a group鈥攏ot the advanced members鈥攖hat produce new groups. For example, birds and mammals arose not from advanced reptiles but from primitive, unspecialized reptiles.

The data and conclusions of phylogeny show clearly that the world of life is the product of a historical process of evolution and that degrees of resemblance within and between groups correspond to degrees of relationship by descent from common ancestors.

ENDS

Here is an extract from the Dover trial official finding.

The judge makes it crystal clear that the court could take no position on whether ID was true or not.

"4. Whether ID is Science
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science."

His conclusion was merely that as ID proposes a supernatural cause it cannot be taught in science class.

PB

PB

I do realise that you are a Biblical creationist but do try and think!

The article actually shows how the scientific method at work and by printing with the words highlighted shows how wilfully pig ignorant you were of the basics of science. You did post this before, it was dealt with and then you come back with the same old ignorant clap-trap-it is actually oddly fascinating.

As for Dover...we were over this before(yawn), it was not in the Judge's remit to say whether ID was "true" simple really but as ever with you not simple enough!

Judge Jones did note how dishonest the Bible-believers are(seems to be a common trait)also for that matter extremely intellectually challenged. Jones also noted that it was a lie that evolution and religion were incompatible.

Intelligent Christians have no problem with science...don't worry about it PB!

Still waiting for the positive evidence that would back up your position...strange that nothing is ever forthcoming...

Also you do know that ID as proposed by Micheal Behe is mutually incompatible with Biblical creationism? this was pointed out before but...as ever wilfully ignored and then you just keep on blundering on! remarkable!

DD

Hello A
Thank you for the pointers when reading the book and also the pointer towards genetic algorithm. They appear to need a creator.
There are many people better qualified than I who are still of the opinion that Professor Dawkins has not even come close to answering the evolution/information question with The Selfish Gene. The book has even got a certain amount of praise in some quarters where I would not have expected. Without hard evidence that real genes act in the way he has described it is still a concept. Thirty one years after its publication we are still trying to come to terms with understanding the complexity of genes and DNA.
If Professor Dawkins concept is a scientific fact we should be able to point to who established it, under what conditions it was established, when and where it was established, it should be repeatable and who validated it.
So for all intents and purposes I cannot accept your statement that Professor Dawkins has the information aspect covered with the Selfish Gene. This will not stop me reading it at some stage in the not to distant future.
Was it the late S. J. Gould who said that for every 'fact' of evolution he could devise an experiment to refute it?
I take this opportunity to thank yourself and John for your comments over the past few weeks. I believe it has been helpful for me to look closer at some of the issues raised and try to put what I think into words to help clarify things in my own mind.
Out of interest A did you ever discuss your thoughts on Genesis with someone who has an intimate understanding of Hebrew?

[FFS, I'm trying this for the *third* time, and having to re-write the entire post! Will - can you get the software boffins to fix whatever is snarling up your blog?]

Hi Yeti,
OK, I think you are trying to engage positively here, which is welcome. It indicates that you genuinely want to understand these things.

TSG is actually pretty much pure logic - genes *have* to work in that manner. In some ways it's a bit of a "well, duh" observation. It's not the full story, since neutral drift, founder effects and hitch-hiker selection also play a large role in sketching an organism's genetic background, and it's also a bit lite on the *developmental* aspects of biology (which is where Gould has taken him to task - often unfairly, I feel). However, these are all recognised things, and pose no problem to the underlying principles, which are sound.

*Adaptation* is only explicable by non-random selection acting on random variation. That's the complex stuff that the ID brigade like to pretend is "design" (by which they seem to mean "design-in-advance").

As for selection in operation, the examples are legion - sickle cell anaemia is a perfect example of a "selfish gene" in the Dawkinsian sense. Or peppered moths, or haemochromatosis. SCA is a great example because it shows that the effect does not "care" for the organism or even the population - it propagates because it reproduces better.

In many ways, evolution itself (at the grandest level) is similar - it cannot *not* happen, and is going on all around us (the prime examples being in agricultural selective breeding). Genomes are rather plastic, and there is no "information problem".

As for Hebrew, actually I do have a smattering of Semitic languages and a basic knowledge of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Yes, if you read Genesis literally, you end up with a completely absurd story about the world only being a few millennia old. It is not history, nor is it allegory. It is a creation myth (or, more correctly, a group of creation myths and fireside stories) that provides the context of understanding that the ancient Hebrews had around 600BCE. Indeed, Genesis 1 & 2 are contradictory, suggesting that the compiler of Genesis wasn't too fussed, and certainly wasn't under the impression that this was historical fact.

Most Christians only read their bibles very superficially, perhaps with "Study Guides" or Matthew Henry's ridiculous "commentary" to guide them. And then they only read it a chapter at a time, which provides enough material for a wee nightly Quiet Time. By the next night they've forgotten most of the detail of the previous night.

Instead, they should get a *good* concordance, follow up the cross-references, read around the issue, read the Assyrian, Egyptian, Hittite texts, etc.

They would then realise that a slavish and naive literal adherence to one specific interpretation of the Genesis narrative (even before we get *near* the science) is completely ludicrous, and that Ken Ham, Duane Gish, Andy McIntosh et al are not "great men of faith sticking up for the Lord", but rather sad poseurs and fraudsters, who (largely successfully) bet on their target audience being too blinded by their religious preconceptions to look behind their duff arguments.

I think that should make them heretics, but hey that's just me.

ATB, & have a gold star for progress :-)
-A

Amen

I have been having the same problem with posts and I sympathise with your frustration.

In the end I have made sure and save each post elsehwere in case I have to repost it.

ref sickle cell anaemia etc, none of these mutations represent an increased sophistation in DNA.

all such mutations are either partial deletions/corruptions or rearrangement of existing code, but I have yet to hear of one that would be a deinfinte step towards a new species, or sophistication in design.

The moths example actually proves no change in DNA, just that darker moths did better at least for a while.

One source I read suggested the balance was later reversed when the industrial smoke ended; no mutation, no evolution.

Similarly but more signifcantly, how did life really begin?

You are correct to say many Christians do not study closely the bible for themselves and that a literal reading of genesis gives you creationism.

Where you may be misleading readers is by giving the impression that there is no scholarly body today or precedent for such readings.

The opposite is true.

IVP, whose work is endorsed by John Stott, JI Packer and FF Brcue, describes genesis as "proto history" and sqaurely rejects its description as any type of false myth.

It also wholly affirms Adam and Eve as literal people.

IVP is a major unbrella under which many many UK scholars publish.

A study guide I have which is endorsed by Billy Graham takes the same stance, so it is clear that while few theologians want to go head to head on science, the view that genesis is literally true is common, current and mainstream.

This is also the position of a study bible I have which was compiled in part by Christianity Today!!!

This stance is also the traditional view of judiasm.

In fact, the reader may be surprised if they carry out an excercise to see what percertage of mainstream bible study aids affirm Adam and Eve as literal people. It rather seems to be the norm.

Throughout the history of the church there have been various types of interpreation but the *primarily* literal approach has always been the backbone.

The primacy of allegorical interpretation fell out of favour because it was so arbitrary as to be virtually meaningless.

The modern existential approach which some posters here favour seems to spring from a well of a handful of German thinkers who have been clearly identified as having definite inputs which little to do with the bible (old fashioned gnosticism I recall?). I have yet to hear of any church which grows on their teachings!

It would appear the people who proclaim most loudly on this blog that conservative scholarship has got it wrong are those who are most allgeric to any active involvement in a church.

IN other words, the church is founded and rooted in the risen Christ and a belief in his inpired word.

A church without such a root soon withers and disappears, even though clositered and questionable scholars write on, their writings bear no fruit in any church.

The conclusion, while many people baulk at the idea of believing the bible, it is and always was the true sustanance of the church in its broadest sense.

I have yet to see a crediblke argument for treating the first book of the bible any different from the others in this regard.

Saying all that, like Yeti, posters here do challenge you to think (without mercy!).

In conclusion I think David Pawson writes well in noting that neither science nor theology is standing still and he reserves judgement on his final conclusion on Genesis pn this basis.

PB

PS DD, read the judge's comment again.

The point is that after a searching examination of all the evidence he still entertains the possibility that ID may be true.

This was my main point, as many here seem to believe the term science is synonomous with truth and therefore because ID cannot come under the banner of science, it cannot be true.

Again, the judge said, ID may or may not be true; let us not think he concluded ID was definitely not true.

The Enc Brit article makes it expressly clear how much suppostion and guesswork evolution rests on. That much is certainly clear.

I would not defend lying by any person of faith on none, just like yourself no doubt.

However having not read the complete Dover trial I cannot comment on it directly.

I have no probs with theistic evolutionists/ism though I dont think it all adds up to be honest.

PB

Goodness! you must have a sadistic streak!

A few questions...

Could you please post evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable that would back up your position?

I really would love to see the evidence but none is never forthcoming!why is that?

Just one would do to start and since Biblical creationists claim their "evidence" is based on empirical evidence this should not be a problem.

If Adam and Eve from the creation myths are real people back it up with evidence(that is of course objective, credible and verifiable)should be simple!

Kem Ham claims that dinosaurs and humans cohabited (just like the Flinstones-which is cutting edge natural history programming to creationists!) then their will be a wealth of evidence to back this up!

Why is that no-one ever comes to Biblical creationism by independent means? why must you be a religious fundamentalist nutter?

What has (cough) "scientific" creationism done as a *movement*-I can think of 1000's of achievements of science but none of creationism-why is that?

As I said I would love to see the evidence that would back up your position, especially so since your fellow travellers want to teach this garbage as "science".

It's funny that Hindu fundamentalists also believe that their myths are true !but they cannot produce evidence to back up their position.

Also Intelligent Christians have no problem with viewing Genesis as allegory(as i said don't worry about it).

As for Dover(and this was gone over with you many, many, many times). It was not in the Judges remit to say if ID was "true"-it's that simple!

As you said you have not read the whole trial-why not give it a go? you can start with the verdict on the Bible-believers on the Dover school board who lied under oath and showed themselves to be wilfully ignorant(does seem to be central tenets of Christian fundamentalism)to Barbara Forrests testimony on the evolution of creationism into ID to Micheal Behe's stunningly inept performane!

You really do not get it how much a massive kick in the clinkers Dover was to ID(bless you PB!)

"The Enc Brit article makes it expressly clear how much suppostion and guesswork evolution rests on. That much is certainly clear."

No it shows how stunningly wilfully pig ignoarant you are! that you cannot grasp the very basics of the scientific method!

"I would not defend lying by any person of faith on none, just like yourself no doubt."

Though you do defend AIG!

Btw could you name the document that the rest of the world's scientific community have to sign that they MUST agree with someone's opinion before they can publish? you know like that document in AIG in which contributors HAVE to agree with Ken Ham?

Nothing I ask is difficult!

"I have no probs with theistic evolutionists/ism though I dont think it all adds up to be honest."

As I have said to you on many occasions intelligent Christians have no problem with science-so don't worry about it!you must admit that your position is only held by those on the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism(wonder why that is?)

Strange that you should mention "honest" a feature that seemingly beyond Biblical creationists

Yeti, please ignore PB. All his points have been adequately dealt with before, although I'm inclined to re-address this one, which shows that he has not been (and is probably incapable of) listening to anyone, least of all me - and I have sufficient vanity to think that I at least deserve a minor hearing ;-)

DNA is *not* sophisticated, and your DNA is not any more sophisticated (or evolved) than that of a chimpanzee. At one level, it is just A, C, G & T repeated in different combinations. That DNA causes different phenotypes depending on the sequence, and the "best" sequences persist because they survive. That is it in a nutshell, and there is no "quantum leap" between species. If you look at the DNA of a tiger and a slug, it's all doing much the same sort of thing. The DNA sequences of a tiger and a lion are very similar; lion & pussy cat a bit less similar; lion & dog a bit less similar again; lion and us a bit less similar. But still very very similar indeed. The notion of a separation of species into different "kinds" is a myth, because at the genetic level, all the differences we see *between* species are qualitatively the same as those that we see *within* species.

So forget PB's nonsense - he does not understand, and it would be a real shame if all Christians were as dense, or elevated such density to a virtue or indicator of theological "soundness".

As for Genesis, creationists and ID-iots have a problem: It Is Not True. The Universe is categorically not 6000 years old, and you know this, as does anyone with an ounce of wit (this does not necessarily include Billy Graham). So we can positively exclude the possibility of Genesis being "true" in any literal sense, and that being the case, if you still want to be a Christian (which I did for a while), you need to find another way of dealing with it.

Telling lies and spouting vitriolic fraudulent bile like Kent Hovind or Ken Ham is not an option - it is not very Jesus-like, and there's even a commandment against it. So lies and fraud should not be an option for Christians ("ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" - would that that were true).

You are left with the option that a/ the comiplers of Genesis knew all along that it was untrue, and it's meant as an allegory (I find this a bit daft), or b/ it is a collection of cultural myths that provide a context for what came later, and what the writers actually believed is of little consequence.

I don't really mind what people think, but they do at least deserve to be made aware of the fact that creationism/ID is nothing but a pack of lies.

It's not that difficult. If there is a god, boy is he going to hate Ken Ham!

Keep reading. Not Billy Graham.

;-)

-A

Amen, John and ompany, have you checked out the debate between Dawkins and Lennox? Alister McGrath, while I think he is too much of a gentleman to debate someone like Hitchens, is also worth reading on the topic of origins. Denis Alexander and Francis Collins are also worth a mention. The point of this name-dropping is that believing that God created the universe is not incompatible with a robust scientific mind and even a robust acceptance of evolution. Some people on this thread seem to think that denial of a naturalistic paradigm is tantamount to red-neck obscurantist fundamentalism. The view that matter and energy are all there are and all there ever have been is, it would seem, actually pretty obscurantist in the light of contemporary cosmological theory, and indeed according to contemporary molecular biology.

"Alister McGrath, while I think he is too much of a gentleman to debate someone like Hitchens"

Hitchens has all the best lines!

"Some people on this thread seem to think that denial of a naturalistic paradigm is tantamount to red-neck obscurantist fundamentalism."

Don't think this true, Amen has talked about theistic evolution in the recent past as counter to the mumbo-jumbo of ID/creationism. I have stated many times that intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution(have even mentioned some of the names you brought up).

What we are having a go at is dishonest, knuckle dragger's of the ID/creationism movement.

I have just read the full content of this blog and would make a couple of observations.
The number of contributors who persistently direct personal abuse at fellow contributors says more about themselves than those they intend to insult. I have always thought that those who resort to insult betray a mind which is closed to any point of view that differs from their own.
The bottom line from a science stand point - you can't prove creation and you can't prove evolution.

Layman,

You could not be more wrong! a certain poster on this blog repeats garbage, it is pointed out to him to be garbage and they keep repeating it!I used to be 'polite' with this poster but like many others got P'offed-hang around for awhile and you will see what I mean!

Personally I am open-minded but no not so open that my brain falls out!All I simply ask is for creationists to provide evidence to back up their claims and none is ever forthcoming-it's as simple as that!

"The bottom line from a science stand point - you can't prove creation and you can't prove evolution."

Actually the bottom line from a science standpoint(and talking about the theory of evolution rather than the fact) is that you cannot 'prove' it(absolute proof is a mathematical concept) however you can disprove a theory and so far nothing has come along to disprove evolution by natural selection. What science can do is point to the millions of pieces of evidence that point to evolution.

You cannot 'prove' creationism(whether it be Ken Ham's version, Hindu creationism etc etc)likewise I cannot prove(nor can you disprove) that there is an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage. However on terms of evidence, creationism is non-starter as there is *no* evidence!

Regards

DD

DD
If someone repeats garbage I suggest you ignore them. That aside and as someone who visited this site for the first time last night I must say I found this debate intriguing.
As you will guess from my post I am no scientist and I must agree with you -the real question is what does the evidence point to.

With this in mind I trust the regulars will allow me to ask a simple question,

-What is the best piece of evidence that points to an old earth?

For the creationists
-What is the best evidence that points to a young earth?

Having read all the posts above I was coming to the conclusion that I would need to be a genius to get to the bottom of this but on reflection the above question appears to me as the one question that makes all the other issues secondary. Trust I'm not being excessively simple here. If I am, give me a fools pardon and ignore my post.

(sorry if this shows up multiple times, posting problems)

Hello layman,

'The best' evidence for an old earth may depend on a persons personal opinion, but various dating methods sure give a very strong clue that the ~6000 years account is off by many orders of magnitude. Roger Wiens (a devout Christian scientist) wrote a good summary of radiological dating methods, as well as some other methods:

kind regards,
Peter

Hi layman,

I get your point about 'ignoring garbage' however in this case we are talking about info which has been repeatedly shown to be garbage and is repeated...I don't like to see that and I think of people like you(a new poster)might that think a certain poster held valid points.

"-What is the best piece of evidence that points to an old earth?"

Well I could say that is the unbroken chain of evidences that come from varying fields and all point to an old earth. For a single piece of evidence I would say the distance of the stars from each other and the speed of light.

Hi layman,

I get your point about 'ignoring garbage' however in this case we are talking about info which has been repeatedly shown to be garbage and is repeated...I don't like to see that and I think of people like you(a new poster)might that think a certain poster held valid points.

"-What is the best piece of evidence that points to an old earth?"

Well I could say that is the unbroken chain of evidences that come from varying fields and all point to an old earth. For a single piece of evidence I would say the distance of the stars from each other and the speed of light.

Small nag DD, the light from distant starts shows an old universe, not necessarily an old earth. I know this is silly to even bring up, but creationist clubs like AiG will happily state that the universe is very old but that the earth was popped into the middle of it only recently. You have to cover yourself well against such lunatics.

PK and DD

Thank you for your speedy responses.

I have had a quick scan of the site recommended by Peter -appears comprehensive. Since I am short of time tonight I will come back to this later this week.

DD -Stars and speed of light are a bit over my head thus I plan to concentrate on the dating methods suggested by PK, but thank you again for your time.

Layman

Hi Peter,

I see what you mean! For a single piece of evidence I would say the various dating methods. However I would say that the best evidence is the many links in the chain that all point to an old earth which have been collected through various disciplines eg., physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, palaeontology etc

Hi Layman,

I am not a scientist myself and am a layman myself! I would recommend Bill Bryson's 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' for a good overview which is witty and good to read. Also Paul Davies 'The Fifth Miracle'(which is from a theist perspective) in which he talks about the age of the earth.

Hi Peter,

I see what you mean! For a single piece of evidence I would say the various dating methods. However I would say that the best evidence is the many links in the chain that all point to an old earth which have been collected through various disciplines eg., physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, palaeontology etc

Hi Layman,

I am not a scientist and am a layman like yourself! I would recommend Bill Bryson's 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' for a good overview which is witty and good to read. Also Paul Davies 'The Fifth Miracle'(which is from a theist perspective) in which he talks about the age of the earth.

Hope this helps a bit.

test

I like the direction this has taken.

DD - a logical mind would imagine the "best piece of evidence for a young/old earth" question could actually get us somewhere.

I'm for starlight personally. Radiometric if the folks insist on a old universe/young earth split.

Now, has any creationist offered any evidence for a young earth?

come on let's move the debate along a bit.

Layman

You are correct - you cannot "prove" evolution or creationism. As they happened in the past it is all model building; neither can be observed or replicated!

You also raise a valid point about all the personal insults here. They are usually directed by people who will not entertain the possibility that any part of their opinions may be wrong; and deny anyone the opportunity to debate them in a civil and cordial manner. They repeat their points as much as me, but only I am forbidden from doing repeating mine for the benefit of new readers like you.

Please note that creationism is inherently supernatural and therefore cannot be tested by current science; that is not the same thing as saying it is scientifically untrue - just unproven! Science cannot arbitrate on music or art, so why should it do so on the spiritual? Scientists who do so are stepping outside their field of authority and although they wont admit it, they are simply offering personal opinions. Well have you ever seen a peer reviewed science paper on anything supernatural?

Ref the best evidence for a young earth...you must be aware that creationism does not require a belief in a young earth; this is missing the point altogether, that creationism is a feasible theory of origins against evolution - regardless of timescale.

I am not a scientist but have read a lot of the debate in recent months.

I am not convinced what the age of the earth is but what does seem fairly clear (at least to me at this time) is that if you read the genealogy from Adam to Abraham there is not much of a gap from creation to Abraham. IN other words Abraham existed near the beginning of creation and is an established historial figure in his own era.

Christ also said the marriage of Adam and Eve was at the beginning of creation; the 10 Commandments were given with the introduction that the earth was created in six days. Linguistically and in literature terms, there is no justification for taking the creation days as anything but literal.

All this means the plain reading of the bible would appear to support a young earth theory; I havent heard anyone offer a credible *biblical* argument to the contrary.

In terms of radiometric testing (evidence for old earth), its validity stands or falls on the assumption that the decay of radioactive materials over the past few decades has always been identical to the rate it happened throughout millions of previous years. In other words, we have examined radioactive decay for a 40-50 years and we presume no other factors over the alleged millions of years could have interfered with this process, or the concentration of the by-products of this process which are what we test for (daughter elements).

In fact we do know that extreme heat and leaching from water can influence the process (I am not saying this refutes the modern consensus, just that it does have an impact). The dating process is also very, very selective about the minute grains of rock it tests, so there may be questions about how selective it is in the data it selects and also in the rate of wrong test results which are discarded because they do not match expected dates.

It is also worth noting that there are very very few people qualified to carry out this process around the world, so most people commenting on it are doing so second hand - like me!

As for the speed of light problem for young earthers, I dont believe anyone has come up with a solid response to this as yet. However, old earthers have the very same problem with their own model, so if this objection refutes one theory it must refute both!


As I understand it, there are already accepted scientific explanations for why light may not always travel at constant speed (eg black holes), so in princpal this issue does not seem impossible to resolve for anyone who wishes to argue for a young earth.

sincerely

PB

PS Layman, here are some AIG arguments for a young earth

PPS, Amen according, according to a narrow definition of ID it would seem perfectly feasible for theistic evolution to come under this umbrella; ID is most certainly deliberately conceived to be a much broader umbrella than biblical young earth creationism.

also.... ref radiometric dating

I see a major defence of this technique is that the decay rates of different elements all tend to closely agree that we have an "old" earth.

However, this seems to miss the point that any factors which could theoretically influence the breakdown rate and the resulting concentration of daughter elements of one element could logically have a similar impact on all such elements.

Interesting point that Peter Klavr raises, about an old universe with a young earth. On the face of it the seven day creation would not allow for this, but interested in other views to the contrary.

PB

Will Crawley recently raised some very pertinent questions about this debate, which he mentioned on this blog.

1) What is the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural"?

2) Can "metaphysical naturalism" be sustained in a quantum-mechanical world?

I dont think we ever saw the text of his related talk, but I imagine the fact that Will is asking the questions means he thinks;-

1) The distinction between natural and supernatural may not be what is often thought.

2) Metaphysical naturalism is increaingly open to question in a quantum mechanical world (broadly speaking, a continuing process of "evolution" which is inherent in the development of science from the very beginning).

In other words, evolutionists on this blog often seem to believe science is now what it has always been and will be what it has always been. wrong.

If Will does not think some variation of this it is difficult to imagine why he was challenging the norm at all.

In plains terms these points suggest he thinks;-

1) Science cant easily dismiss the supernatural out of hand

2) Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science.

Neither proposition is exclusive to Will of course and are part of the current zeitgeist.

But both could take creationism closer to mainstream science.

PB

Oh dear PB!

Science and common sense dismiss the "supernatural".

I think that you should define what you mean by "supernatural". I suspect that you mean what Ken Ham means by the term eg., only confirming his interpretation of ancient Hebrew myths.

If you want to include the "supernatural" into science you will of course have to include every "supernatural" claim as they can't be tested. So that includes every creation myth, Hindu, Buddist, Satanic-supernaturalism. New age, astrology etc etc ad nauseum.

I think universities if they were controlled by people like you would turn into some even wackier version of Hogwarts!

"In other words, evolutionists on this blog often seem to believe science is now what it has always been and will be what it has always been. wrong."

Quite PB!(and this is from the guy who thinks AIG is "scientific")

Indeed PB I really don't know why you should have to reduce yourself to the special pleading of resorting to the "supernatural" since of course the main plank of "scientific" Biblical creationism is that the empirical evidence points towards Ken Ham's interpretation of Hebrew myth-curious!

"Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

A statement which you will be able to back up of course with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable.

"But both could take creationism closer to mainstream science."

Yes...but which form of "creationism"? would that be the...god of the gaps creationism, old earth creationism, young earth creationism,(and all the other forms of Judeo-Christian creationism)or Islamic creationism, or Hindu, New age Raelian, Australian aboriginal, native American etc etc

Btw you have left some questions unanswered...leaving aside mine I think you should have a go at answering the points raised by Peter Klaver.

"Interesting point that Peter Klavr raises, about an old universe with a young earth. On the face of it the seven day creation would not allow for this, but interested in other views to the contrary."

PB, Peter raised the point to illustrate the "lunatics" of YEC and how they can twist information-glad to see that you as always prove the point!

Regards

DD

DD

I think you have totally missed the point.

I fully accept that you cant force creationism into the boundaries of current science or the current science classroom.

All I am saying is that this in no way asserts that the supernatural is not real; science cant begin to grapple with this any more than it can grapple with what makes good music or art.

I repeat it again; scientists who go any further than saying the supernatural is unproven by current scientific standards are stepping outside their authority and giving personal opinions.

Example that is objective, verifiable, credible???

My sister's brain tumour disappeared after prayer. Her consultant said:" Miracles do happen".

Why did this happen?

If you want to see the evidence I could arrange to let you see her medical reports and scans.

Conclusion: Science cannot draw a firm conclusion on these type of incidents and it is just not logical to issue a sweeping "They dont happen" when my sister is healthy and back to work in the face of amazed doctors.

Her consultant even brought her into a lecture for other doctors as a "mystery case".

You cant teach miracles or creationism in science class or research papers on them but science CANNOT say they dont happen; just that science cannot account for them. Anything more than this is merely the opinion of individual scientists and not a scientific finding.

Regarding the other creation narratives from other cultures these are not a hindrance to the biblical account but rather a support.

As I have previously demonstrated on this blog, the key elements in the genesis account are also contained in the dominant origin accounts from cultures all over the globe.

The question remains, why should this be so?

Enc Britannica:

"...the existence of a belief in a supreme being among primitive鈥︹�as been proven and attested to over and over again by investigators of numerous cultures. This belief has been found among the cultures of Africa, the Ainu of the northern Japanese islands, Amerindians, south central Australians, the Fuegians of South America, and in almost all parts of the globe.


"The existence of a belief in a supreme being among primitive cultures鈥︹�as been proven and attested to over and over again by investigators of numerous cultures.

"This belief has been found among the cultures of Africa, the Ainu of the northern Japanese islands, Amerindians, south central Australians, the Fuegians of South America, and in almost all parts of the globe.

"Though the precise nature and characteristics of the supreme creator deity may differ from culture to culture, a specific and pervasive structure of this type of deity can be discerned. The following characteristics tend to be common:

"(1) he is all wise and all powerful. The world comes into being because of his wisdom, and he is able to actualize the world because of his power.

"(2) The deity exists alone prior to the creation of the world. There is no being or thing prior to his existence. No explanation can therefore be given of his existence, before which one confronts the ultimate mystery.

"(3) The mode of creation is conscious, deliberate, and orderly. This again is an aspect of the creator's wisdom and power. The creation comes about because the deity seems to have a definite plan in mind and does not create on a trial-and-error basis. In Genesis, for example, particular parts of the world are created seriatim; in an Egyptian myth, Kheper, the creator deity, says, 鈥淚 planned in my heart,鈥� and in a Maori myth the creator deity proceeds from inactivity to increasing stages of activity.

"(4) The creation of the world is simultaneously an expression of the freedom and purpose of the deity. His mode of creation defines the pattern and purpose of all aspects of the creation, though the deity is not bound by his creation. His relationship to the created order after the creation is again an aspect of his freedom.

"(5) In several creation myths of this type, the creator deity removes himself from the world after it has been created. After the creation the deity goes away and only appears again when a catastrophe threatens the created order.

"(6) The supreme creator deity is often a sky god, and the deity in this form is an instance of the religious valuation of the symbolism of the sky.

"In creation myths of the above type, the creation itself or the intent of the creator deity is to create a perfect world, paradise. Before the end of the creative act or sometime soon after the end of creation, the created order or the intent of the creator deity is thwarted by some fault of one of the creatures. There is thus a rupture in the creation myth. In some myths this rupture is the cause of the departure of the deity from creation."

I recall DD that you were previously at a loss to explain why written pictorial characters in the Chinese language clearly show the pictures of the garden of eden story and Noah's flood.

Sneering at this fact is not a refutation or explanation of it.


BTW, Your mantra objective, credible and verifiable does not apply to evolution;

eg the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is wholly subjective and more logical with another interpretation. It is the faith assumptions one makes before one comes to the evidence that makes the difference.

PB

You said...

"creationism is a feasible theory of origins against evolution"

What exactly is the "theory"? could you show me how it is falsifiable?

Since you admit that Biblical creationism is not scientific and has no evidence to support it(which is curious since you provided a link to AIG which cited "scientific" evidence!?). Then could you please inform David Simpson of the DUP(what this thread is about) to stop his campaign to bring creationism into the science classrooms?(there is a link at the top helpfully provided).

Could you also ask your creationist buddies to stop their various campaigns as well?

Many thanks

DD

DD

You are insisting that reality only exists within the parameters of what you can prove scientifically.

What happened my sister's tumour? Any thoughts?

All the evidence you cite for evolution is also evidence for creationism.

Evidence is data which is interpretated and it is the unquestioned and unscientific assumptions you use for interpretation that are key.

ie God and the supernatural most certainly do not exist and therefore cannot and will not be entertained as possible causes for the creation of life. period.

PB

DD

I think you need to come back to post 82.

You are asking how scientific is creationism but an equally valid question is how reliable is your interpretation of science (metaphysical natrualism) in interpreting reality?

are your assumptions about the supernatural valid?

how did you arrive at them?

what objective, credible and verifiable basis did you make these assumptions on?

can you link us to the peer reviewed papers on them?

This is what William Crawley was driving at in the talk he gave.

If you have been born in another culture today you could well be asking;

"Where is the spiritual evidence to prove your scientific assertions about the supernatural?"

PB

PB

You have missed the point as usual!

I think you should look at what the very basics of science are as it really would help to move this debate along.

I am delighted for your sister, though you have raised this point before and it was answered as I remember Amen gave a comprehensive answer. People are cured quite often when they have been given no chance-this has occurred with tumour/cancer victims-sometimes current medical understanding does not have the answers but that does not mean that they will not get an answer. People of all faiths and those of none have had 'miraculous' cures but is doesn't actually prove anything. In any case the word 'miracle' is used willy-nilly-just look at sports reporting!In any case PB, why are amputee victims never cured? surely this would be more simple than 'curing' a tumour/cancer?

I am curious why you say you cannot teach creationism in the classroom when the whole point of this thread is about one of your fellow-travellers who wants to teach creationism in science!? It is also curious that you have changed tactics eg., you used to be full of "scientific" evidence for creationism but now you are hiding under "supernaturalism"? It does appear to have finally got through to you that your position(like Hindu, Muslim etc creationists and New age merchants etc) is a faith position that is no way based on evidence. This is rather strange when you still cite AIG as a source which claims "scientific" evidences which you provided in your helpful link! Since they are scientific then they can be tested! Indeed this has been pointed out to you on many occasions!

As for the special pleading on the creation myths...I did provide several answers on the flood thread! There is actually nothing wrong with the Enc Brit article(and I did check to see if you misrepresented it in any way-as you do have previous on this!)all it is saying is that some creation myths share some very broad features-so what! Some of these creation myths actually pre-date the two creation myths of Genesis like the Babylonian creation myth which bears remarkable similarities to Genesis. As I said this sort of special pleading leaves me cold and in any case it is all immaterial since there should be abundant evidence to back up Ken Ham(and indeed his website says so)evidence which should not have to rely on special pleading nor argument from authority indeed evidence which is emiprical(and so say AIG!) so please back up what you are saying with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable-I will be nice and only ask for one, we can build on that and move on!

As for the Chinese letters, well that was dealt with...https://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/chinese_characters.html

I don't actually remember "sneering" at this PB!(though it does seem to be the usual Bible-believing nonsense!). You say this is a 'fact', you do know PB that a definition of fact is 'a piece of information presented as having objective reality' so could please present the evidence to back up this "fact" which of course is objective, credible and verifiable? I will not hold my breath on this as going by previous statements by you concerning "facts" and when asked to produce the evidence to back them up-you run away!

"Your mantra objective, credible and verifiable does not apply to evolution;"

Afraid it does PB! back to the drawing board!

"the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is wholly subjective and more logical with another interpretation. It is the faith assumptions one makes before one comes to the evidence that makes the difference."

Oh and what is the other "interpretation"?! The evidence for evolution(indeed for science in general) does not rest on faith as such rather on the scientific method eg.,(1) form a hypothesis (2) form testable predictions based on that hypothesis (3) devise an experiment to test your prediction (4) modify your hypothesis until predictions and experimental results match. This makes no special pleading on the part of "faith" and it is immaterial to the faith of the person looking at the evidence-it is an example of deductive rather than subjective reasoning. Whereas your position is Ken Ham says it, I believe it, that settles it! also your position is *only* held by those on the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism-curious!? Do you think it could be the same reason why Hindu creationism is only held by those on the looney tune extremes of Hindu fundamentalism? and so forth and so forth...

Now PB you have made some definite statements like...

"Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Could you please back this bold statement up?(since you cite quantum mechanics and this is scientific) please back it up with-guess what?-evidence that is objective etc shouldn't be a problem!

Also...re: radiometric dating you said "It is also worth noting that there are very very few people qualified to carry out this process around the world" you also said previously that "few" labs do this-when Peter Klaver asked you to back this up you ran away! so please back it up!

"All the evidence you cite for evolution is also evidence for creationism."

Golly!

"Evidence is data which is interpretated and it is the unquestioned and unscientific assumptions you use for interpretation that are key."

Dead wrong! science is questioned all the time-that's how we have progression!

"God and the supernatural most certainly do not exist and therefore cannot and will not be entertained as possible causes for the creation of life. period."

I and others have provided you with long lists of theists who have no problem with evolution/science indeed many of them are top scientists! As I said to you before PB intelligent Christians do not have a problem with it!-don't worry about it!

I believe the scientific method is best way of evaluating evidence-if you know of a better way then please do tell!

As for the supernatural, there is no objective, credible and verifiable evidence to back up the claims as they all boil down to special pleading eg., your interpretation of the supernatural only boils down to what Ken Ham says is permitted-would you also entertain Hindu supernaturalism and put it on the same level as your own(sorry Ken Ham's)interpretation?

To get back on track and I know you would love to change the subject! AIG and other creationists groups claim that their findings are "scientific"-your helpful link to AIG showed this! so if indeed they are "scientific" eg., fit the scientific model and are based on empirical evidence then show me the objective evidence that would back up their claims! bloody simple!

DD, I think we can let layman judge from the previous dozen posts or so. I doubt if any others are following this thread still. And the picture to layman would presumably be clear enough. He asked for evidence in both directions, both sides have presented something for their case.

Layman, what do you think sofar?

DD

I have nowhere made a distinction between supernaturalism from different faith perspectives as I am solely dealing with your objection to supernaturalism in its broadest sense.

Biblical theology can be used to distinguish between supernaturalisms, but that is a long way down the road from where you are at.

The reason I have gone into some detail on evolution is because I was asked to provide such information by a new poster, above.

Your four steps for scientific theory simply cannot explain the order and origins of the universe;

Where did matter come from? how did elements come into being?

nor can they demonstrate that frogs ever turned into princes (species to species evolution) for which your four steps are completely useless.

I was looking at an evolutionary chart of life in the Times Atlas of the World recently and it shows all the developing life forms and there is absolutely no continuity of development among them in form and design; in reality there huge gaps among all the life forms.

When did plants ever change into animals, for exmaple? any evidence for this?

You have actually brushed off the points I raised about the common ground between creation stories and also the origins of chinese characters. You have not tried to address them.

I have a Chinese friend who is in no doubt about this.

I dont have time to post stuff on all this, anyone who is interested can do their own google.

But most noticeable of all, you seem incapable of even acknowledging the faith assumptions you make which underpin your entire worldview.

How does one become converted to the faith of metaphysical naturalism?

What makes you certain your faith is correct and better than all other faiths which do believe in God, souls and spirits?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that your assumptions are correct? Please can you provide a step by step explanation?

Even theistic evolutionists believe in the supernatural direction of evolution and in a supernatural being (God) so appealing to their beliefs does not defend metaphysical naturalism.

sincerely

PB

Peter,

I think you are right-though I would actually like PB to back up his "facts" though this has proved as difficult as nailing jellyfish to a wall. Does seem a shame that everyone else has seemingly left the debate as it is good to get other viewpoints and I am only a layman myself. Incidentally in one respect I would like to thank PB as paradoxically he has increased my knowledge.

If you are about Layman what is your view?

One thing that I would like you to consider is that the evidence for evolution or it would be more correct to say science in general is...the evidence is freely, easily and publically available, it does not rely on special pleading nor argument from authority nor on sectarian bias. It does not force people to come to definite conclusions before examining the evidence.

PB

It is of course important to distinguish what you mean by "supernatural"-it is Ken Ham's version isn't it?

The four steps of the scientific method can be used to evaluate the evidence.

The middle part of your post is simply a rehash of creationist canards and straw man arguments that have been answered many, many times before and you asking them (again) just reveals your wilful ignorance.

See...

I also posted many links to sites in which you can ask working scientists questions but as ever it was ignored.

PB you are an unfortunate atypical example of Biblical creationist! no evidence that I present is ever going to change you! because that's what Ken Ham says!

I did address the points you raised re: the supposed similarities in creation myths and the Chinese letters-I apologise if you could not understand them. You did say it was a "fact" about the Chinese letters-I am still waiting for the objective evidence which would back up this "fact".

My worldview has little to do with "faith" rather evidence.

"How does one become converted to the faith of metaphysical naturalism?"

Well it's not a faith but I would say to become "converted" to it would be to use your brain.

How do you know your faith is correct and all the other gods/faiths are wrong?

No I was not defending the beliefs of theistic evolutionists rather I was countering the falsehood that science automatically leads to atheism.

Now PB I do know that you are trying to move this discussion off track but you have left some questions unanswered.

eg.,

"Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Could you please back this bold statement up?(since you cite quantum mechanics and this is scientific) please back it up with-guess what?-evidence that is objective etc shouldn't be a problem!

Also...re: radiometric dating you said "It is also worth noting that there are very very few people qualified to carry out this process around the world" you also said previously that "few" labs do this-when Peter Klaver asked you to back this up you ran away! so please back it up!

and...

AIG and other creationists groups claim that their findings are "scientific"-your helpful link to AIG showed this! so if indeed they are "scientific" eg., fit the scientific model and are based on empirical evidence then show me the objective evidence that would back up their claims! bloody simple!

Pee...or get off the pot!

Sincerely

DD

DD

Just for the record, I agree with you inasmuch as I cant see how anyone can force creationism into a science class, as it is inhernetly supernatural (that is not the same as saying it is untrue though).

If anyone thinks this is hard to swallow they ought to read the evolutionary alternative as to how life created itself on earth from nothing and with no outside help;-

Personally I think it is laughable, but that is just an opinion.

A more sensible approach (regarding education ref Simpson) would be to invite scientists from both sides to debate in an RE class and take questions from pupils - just like a Sunday Sequence!

Dont hold your breath for me to campaign against creationists though, your complexion could go a tad navy.

;-)

PB

ending for today DD

ref quantum mechanics, I dont have time do all the digging for you.

What do YOU think Will meant in post 82? google a little...

And as for who is on the fringe, as I said above, just try and find a bible commentary or study bible which does NOT treat Adam and Eve as literally the first two people. I have found it impossible.

I have cited above how IVP, Christianity Today, John Stott, FF Bruce, JI Packer and Billy Graham all support this position on Adam and Eve.

Few of them want to get dragged down into the minutiae of the debate in this manner, but hey, they are still holding to a literal Adam and Eve.

That is hardly theistic evolution.

BTW, thanks for compliment, you too have helped me increase my understanding on these matters.

PB

ok DD - the impact of quantum mechanics on modern science;-

I posted the enc brit extract before here, just ctrl-F kepler and you will find it;-

/blogs/ni/2007/06/belfasts_biblical_flood_1.html

You will also notice that in the same extract Einstein's work was undergirded by positive assumptions about the role of God in the universe.

Now how did such an accomplished scientist let his thinking be guided by a belief in the supernatural?

Perhaps this was what Will was driving at in post 82 when he was challenging our perceptions of the supernatural???

TTFN

PB

OK DD

Here is your homework done for you ref quantum mechanics.

The point is that science is not standing still and nobody knows what new revolution is just around the corner and what will be "normal" science 100 years from now.

Enc Brit History of Science;-

"By the end of the 19th century, the dream of the mastery of nature for the benefit of mankind, first expressed in all its richness by Sir Francis Bacon, seemed on the verge of realization. Science was moving ahead on all fronts, reducing ignorance and producing new tools for the amelioration of the human condition. A comprehensible, rational view of the world was gradually emerging from laboratories and universities. One savant went so far as to express pity for those who would follow him and his colleagues, for they, he thought, would have nothing more to do than to measure things to the next decimal place.

"But this sunny confidence did not last long. One annoying problem was that the radiation emitted by atoms proved increasingly difficult to reduce to known mechanical principles. More importantly, physics found itself relying more and more upon the hypothetical properties of a substance, the ether, that stubbornly eluded detection. Within a span of 10 short years, roughly 1895鈥�1905, these and related problems came to a head and wrecked the mechanistic system the 19th century had so laboriously built. The discovery of X rays and radioactivity revealed an unexpected new complexity in the structure of atoms. Max Planck's solution to the problem of thermal radiation introduced a discontinuity into the concept of energy that was inexplicable in terms of classical thermodynamics. Most disturbing of all, the enunciation of the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905 not only destroyed the ether and all the physics that depended on it but also redefined physics as the study of relations between observers and events, rather than of the events themselves. What was observed, and therefore what happened, was now said to be a function of the observer's location and motion relative to other events. Absolute space was a fiction. The very foundations of physics threatened to crumble.

"This modern revolution in physics has not yet been fully assimilated by historians of science. Suffice it to say that scientists managed to come to terms with all of the upsetting results of early 20th-century physics but in ways that made the new physics utterly different from the old. Mechanical models were no longer acceptable, because there were processes (like light) for which no consistent model could be constructed. No longer could physicists speak with confidence of physical reality, but only of the probability of making certain measurements.

"All this being said, there is still no doubt that science in the 20th century has worked wonders. The new physics鈥攔elativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics鈥攎ay outrage common sense, but it enables physicists to probe to the very limits of physical reality. Their instruments and mathematics permit modern scientists to manipulate subatomic particles with relative ease, to reconstruct the first moment of creation, and to glimpse dimly the grand structure and ultimate fate of the universe.

"The revolution in physics has spilled over into chemistry and biology and led to hitherto undreamed-of capabilities for the manipulation of atoms and molecules and of cells and their genetic structures. Chemists perform molecular tailoring today as a matter of course, cutting and shaping molecules at will. Genetic engineering makes possible active human intervention in the evolutionary process and holds out the possibility of tailoring living organisms, including the human organism, to specific tasks. This second scientific revolution may prove to be, for good or ill, the most important event in the history of mankind."

An example of changing theories moving towards creationist thought could be neo catastrophism as opposed to tradition uniformatism;-

Enc Brit on catastrophism;-

"doctrine that explains the differences in fossil forms encountered in successive stratigraphic levels as being the product of repeated cataclysmic occurrences and repeated new creations. This doctrine generally is associated with the great French naturalist Baron Georges Cuvier (1769鈥�1832). One 20th-century expansion on Cuvier's views, in effect, a neocatastrophic school, attempts to explain geologic history as a sequence of rhythms or pulsations of mountain building, transgression and regression of the seas, and evolution and extinction of living organisms."

Hello peabrain,

"Just for the record, I agree with you inasmuch as I cant see how anyone can force creationism into a science class, as it is inhernetly supernatural"

DD was correct then in pointing out how ludicrous all your previous attempts have been to try to give creationism a scientific basis!

And you're still the same untruthfull man you've always been, aren't you pb? Holding up Einstein again in support of your wacky god ideas.
Just for laymans benefit: Einstein once spoke metaphorically about the ordering in the universe, and how science can capture that ordering. Initially Einstein wasn't fond at all of quatum mechaniscs, a model based on probability densities. He expressed it up as 'God does not play dice'. He lateron clearly stated that he does not believe at all in the sort of personal god pbrain believes in, that his 'God' stood for equations rather than some supernatural deity. This has been pointed out to peabrain, but like typical dishonest creationists, he likes to ignore anyhting that shows him wrong, or even twist it to such a degree to support his own position by it.

Sigh.

Errrr PB

"Now how did such an accomplished scientist let his thinking be guided by a belief in the supernatural?"

Peter Klaver dealt exclusively with this, I am surprised that you would want to go back to something which was shown to be false!-curious!

Now you said..."Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Please note you said "current" so please back up your definite statement with evidence-you cite science so I am expecting a deluge of Biblical proportions of peer-reviewed papers to back this up.

Still waiting for the evidence on your claims on labs/scientists doing radiometric dating?

X

DD

You're spot on again DD, the link peabrain tries to make between quantum theory and evolution is one of his worst ones yet (and that says something). The length scales in quantum theory and evolution are so far apart that it makes as much sense as measuring the distance between the earth and the sun with a 10 inch ruler.

Peabrain, I'm calling you out on this one. Please provide one (just one) scientific article that explains aspects of evolution from quantum mechanical considerations.

PB

"quantum mechanics, I dont have time do all the digging for you."

Well PB you really should as *you* were the one who made a very definite claim-if you can't back it up then it's a false statement. Do you expect me to do the background work on all the definitive statements made by you! goodness you do love the shifting of proof fallacy don't you!

I have given you my opinions and I am waiting for yours on the definition of supernatural-in that you admit that it can't be tested so how do you evaluate claims of the supernatural? At the moment do you accept every supernatural claim?

PB I have told you before I am not interested in special pleading or argument from authority. 1000's of Muslim scholars can attest that when Muhammed died he went up to heaven of beautiful white stallion-that this was a literal historical fact. Hindu scholars can say that the god Ram and his army of magic monkeys built a land bridge(see 大象传媒 link I provided above) and Buddhist scholars argue that the Buddha was born of a virgin and so on and so on...ad nauseum

It doesn't of course make any of the claims true and you never see much crossover of opinion eg., Hindu scholars backing up Muslim supernaturalism and vice-versa.

Evidence should be standalone and should not have to rely on special pleading and argument from authority. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and special pleading.

In any case the sources that you cite are immaterial because if Adam and Eve were the first people and they came into existence 6000 odd years ago then there would be evidence to back this up-as argued by "scientific" Biblical creationism-sadly as you know and admit there is no scientific evidence to back this up. It's a an allegorical myth PB.

PB

It is of course important to distinguish what you mean by "supernatural"-it is Ken Ham's version isn't it?

The four steps of the scientific method can be used to evaluate the evidence.

The middle part of your post is simply a rehash of creationist canards and straw man arguments that have been answered many, many times before and you asking them (again) just reveals your wilful ignorance.

See...

I also posted many links to sites in which you can ask working scientists questions but as ever it was ignored.

PB you are an unfortunate atypical example of Biblical creationist! no evidence that I present is ever going to change you! because that's what Ken Ham says!

I did address the points you raised re: the supposed similarities in creation myths and the Chinese letters-I apologise if you could not understand them. You did say it was a "fact" about the Chinese letters-I am still waiting for the objective evidence which would back up this "fact".

My worldview has little to do with "faith" rather evidence.

"How does one become converted to the faith of metaphysical naturalism?"

Well it's not a faith but I would say to become "converted" to it would be to use your brain.

How do you know your faith is correct and all the other gods/faiths are wrong?

My views on naturalism has nothing to do with theistic evolution-that is more a question for you.

Now PB I do know that you are trying to move this discussion off track but you have left some questions unanswered.

eg.,

"Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Could you please back this bold statement up?(since you cite quantum mechanics and this is scientific) please back it up with-guess what?-evidence that is objective etc shouldn't be a problem!

Also...re: radiometric dating you said "It is also worth noting that there are very very few people qualified to carry out this process around the world" you also said previously that "few" labs do this-when Peter Klaver asked you to back this up you ran away! so please back it up!

and...

AIG and other creationists groups claim that their findings are "scientific"-your helpful link to AIG showed this! so if indeed they are "scientific" eg., fit the scientific model and are based on empirical evidence then show me the objective evidence that would back up their claims! simple!

C'mon PB Pee...or get off the pot!

Sincerely

DD

(this is getting a bit confusing as posts are appearing out of sync-anyway to answer PB's latest...)
M98
"Here is your homework done for you ref quantum mechanics."

It was not *my* homework-it was *your* homework! You made the claim so back it up, I am *not* doing your dirty work for you!

I have read through the article in detail but I fail to see how it shows that "Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." Perhaps, since you say "current" you could actually provide a current paper which would back up your claims.

As for the neo catastrophism(which was dealt with in the Biblical flood thread but as ever ignored). How in the name of Sam Hill does that article show a changing thought towards creationism!?!? Neo catastrophism actually says something very different than what you think it says(likewise with what you think quantum mechanics says, and what science says, what Dover meant for the ID movement etc). Could you please cite the evidence that would back up your claim that this is moving towards "creationist thought"? Since you are citing science then you will of course be able to back your answer up with loads of evidence? But I thought that your ideas were supernatural and could not be backed up by science!?then you cite "scientific" evidence on AIG!? very confusing PB!

Anyway have another go at backing up your claims and have a go at your claims about radio-metric dating.

Regards

DD

DD

If you think your metaphysical naturalism has nothing to do with your evolutionary viewpoint you are mistaken.

One dismisses the existence of God and the other provieds an intellectual framework that allows athiests to rationalise the origins of life without God.

The former is absolutely reliant on the latter and cannot begin to exist without it; evolution is the key foundation for MN.

You dont at all begin to deal with the limitations of your four scientific methods steps in proving evolution.

I can also bluster and quote endless hyperlinks and link you to creationist experts but that is not the point of this blog - it is you vs me and in debate.

I repeat, your xyz scientific steps do not and cannot prove evolution to be true, it is a model only;- You cant replicate or observe frogs turning into princes!

Uniformtatism used to state that the earth's layers and the fossils therein were created over millions of years or slow deposits.

Catastophism - now a mainstream viewpoint - states they were actually created in a series of catastophies of flooding.

How did so many scientists get it so wrong for so long? That is a paradigm shift in thinking which moves clearly closer to a creationist viewpoint.

My point is not that this endorses creationism but that major changes can and do happen in science and you cant presume further changes will not make creationism look more plausible to mainstream opinion.

Quantum mechanics his little respect for existing scientific laws and it also is increasingly uninterested in causation of scientific events.

If supernatural causation ceases to be a problem then ID could move into mainstream science, in theory.

Ref supernaturalism, I am clearly not arguing for science to accept all supernaturalism as real, which I think you well understand.

All I am saying is that it is the limitation of science that it cannot at present operate in the field of supernaturalism.

I fully understand and respect that, but science still cannot say the supernatural does not exist - that is simply your personal MN opinion.

Your problem here is that you will only submit the supernatural issue to analysis under metaphysical naturalist terms, but that is not the only way of looking at the issue.

To understand a theology of the supernatural from a biblical perspective, for example, would require a measure of respect and understanding of same which you dont seem too interested in.

PB

DD

I must say it seems a bit extreme to suggest I am giving you false information, ref quantum mechanics, simply because you are not up to speed on it.

Much more mannerly to ask me for some references so you can read up a bit.

This is obviously common knowledge.

Enc Brit says;-
"Some insist that genuine understanding demands explanations of the causes of the laws, but it is in the realm of causation that there is the greatest disagreement. Modern quantum mechanics, for example, has given up the quest for causation and today rests only on mathematical description."

That would sort of make the Lemon test in the Dover trial rather redundant, wouldnt it?

What is your answer to Will Crawley's question in post 82

-How can your metaphysical naturalistic faith be sustained in a quantum mechanical world?

PB

Pb

You really haven't got a clue, it is actually depressing reading your posts.

Intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution/science-don't worry about it!

The scientific method is the best way in which to evaluate evidence-can you name a better way?

It would be a tremendous help if you could understand the extreme basics of the scientific method and come back. However many on these boards have strived and failed-you are still the wilfully ignorant, obtuse person as when you came here-sigh...

Your frogs into princes remark shows this-evolution says no such thing, indeed if such a thing were to happen then it would actually cast doubt on evolution!

"creationist experts"!? all of whom happen to belong to the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism.

"Catastophism - now a mainstream viewpoint - states they were actually created in a series of catastophies of flooding."

Please back that up that it is a mainstream opinion-and if you mean the mythical floods of Genesis again please back it up with evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable- now this should be easy as a world-wide flood 4000 odd years that wiped out everyone but 8 people should leave billions of tonnes of evidence and can be tested in many ways. Further if you do not trust science could you please provide the list of oil/mineral/natural resource companies who use creationism/floodism in their sourcing-again this should be easy!

"How did so many scientists get it so wrong for so long? That is a paradigm shift in thinking which moves clearly closer to a creationist viewpoint."

Of course there are changes in science-that is how progress happens-compare this to "scientific" creationism! and please back this statement up with...well you know!

Creationism is utter claptrap PB, please try to deal with it! Is it "science" or is it not? you keep flip-flopping between the two opinions.

I have asked you to provide evidence for it but none is ever forthcoming-why is that? If it is "science" why do you keep emphasising the narrow sectarian dogma of Biblical creationism?

PB when you are sick and go to the Dr do you ask "is this medicine brought about by materialistic naturalism?" and if so do you reject it? eg., The flu vaccine was brought about through evolutionary biology(indeed it is a syringe full of evolutionary materialistic naturalism)I do hope you don't use it or are you merely another hypocrite who criticises evolution without understanding it, all the while taking evolution-inspired medication to cure your materialistic illnesses. And name one medical breakthrough in the last 50 years which came about as a result of active research inspired by a creation science framework?or indeed a scientific breakthrough?

In terms of mental illness do you accept the materialistic naturalist view or supernaturalism? eg.,demon possession?

I am glad that you brought up Quantam mechanics again as I am *still* waiting for evidence to back up your statement "Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." If you cannot provide evidence to back it up then the kindest thing that I can say is that you made an untrue statement. I am also waiting on your evidence on your claims about radiometric dating....I am surprised you have the gall to bring this up since Peter exposed you(your incompetence in trying to link the Enc Brit article to your claims *again* was truly astounding!)

As for supernaturalism I would say that many claims *can* be tested using the scientific method-very easily in fact. However to take your view that the supernatural cannot be tested because it can't be replicated and tested then if that is the case then *all* supernatural claims are equally valid as...they can't be tested! I would actually be so bold to say we would probably agree in judging most of what is termed to be supernatural as bunk. What you term as correct supernaturalism is what Ken Ham says it is!

"To understand a theology of the supernatural from a biblical perspective, for example, would require a measure of respect and understanding of same which you dont seem too interested in."

You hypocrite! you have not shown the slightest bit of interest in learning about the basics of science! as I have said people have tried and failed you are just an atypical fundamentalist- a waste of time and effort on these blogs-remove that moat PB before you go casting stones at others!

PB

Small point...
"it is you vs me and in debate."

It is open to anyone who wishes to join in(and anyone who wishes to do so is very welcome!).

As for...

"Uniformtatism used to state that the earth's layers and the fossils therein were created over millions of years or slow deposits."
"Catastophism - now a mainstream viewpoint - states they were actually created in a series of catastophies of flooding."

Had a look at this and usual you get it wrong. Modern science is actually a combination of the both eg., Actualism (modern uniformitarianism) states that the geologic record is the product of both slow, gradual processes (such as glacial erosion) and natural catastrophes (such as volcanic eruptions and landslides). Indeed what can be viewed as modern "catastrophism" was because of the research by Luis Alvarez proposed that an asteroid impact was responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago and J. Harlan Bretz. These in *no* way give credence to creationism.

"How did so many scientists get it so wrong for so long? That is a paradigm shift in thinking which moves clearly closer to a creationist viewpoint."

The scientists did not get it "wrong"-new information came to light. They examined it using the scientific method. So this "shift" in no way whatsoever shows a move towards creationism!

If you think I am wrong please show the scientific evidence to the contrary.

And for this "debate" to move on, you have some bold claims, myself and Peter have emphasised them and called you out on them. Please back them up or...admit you were wrong.

Regards

DD

Hi PB,

It is not extreme at all to say that you are feeding me false information regarding and I am not "suggesting" it-I am stating it.

"Much more mannerly to ask me for some references so you can read up a bit."

Errr PB, that what I have been trying to do over the past 5 posts or so...

Had a look at the Enc Brit article and still failing to see how this backs up"Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Now PB could you provide *current* references eg., a peer-reviewed paper that would back up your comment? or as Peter put it..."Please provide one (just one) scientific article that explains aspects of evolution from quantum mechanical considerations." C'mon PB please help me "get up to speed"!

As usual re: Dover, you get it so wrong!

Bit more distortion there PB! Will did not actually categorise metaphysical naturalism as a "faith", he in fact said no such thing! and of course it can be sustained-it has been so successful after all!

So back up that claim and the rest-you know...get me up to speed!

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. If Dr Denis Alexander or Dr John Polkinghorne(for example) were contributing to this blog they would be speaking forcefully and convincingly in favour of theistic evolution, and forcefully and compellingly against atheistic materialism. If Michael Behe were addressing you gus who are so vehemently opposed to ID, he'd be able to make a pretty good case for it (not necessarily a right one of course!), which you would probably be hard pressed to gainsay. You may of course be top-notch scientists, in which case you'd be able to give him a run for his money. The bottom line is that science, though it may never find uneqivocal "divine footprints in the sand" has not for that reason made belief in God obsolete. THe reason being being that God's reason for existing, if he is self-sufficient (which he must be) is not to provide an explanation for natural phenomena. As a Christian I believe it is true that "the heavens declare the glory of God", and I rejoice in the signals of transcendence that I see all around me. Others don't find these supposed "signals" to be anything of the kind. That's true of course, and I don't find their evidence that nature is entirely devoid of such significance any more compelling than they find mine that it is. Who's right? I believe we'll find out one day. In the meantime we will continue to exercise our respective "faith".

Hello A
I have deliberately stayed away to do a bit of 鈥渞esearch鈥�, for want of a better word. Computer problems and this sites inability to deal properly with the posts.
Professor Dawkins apparently has said that the Selfish Gene, (is it the Replicator?) is not DNA maybe RNA. This gives the impression that he does not know what it is.
There would appear to be major operational problems that would need to be over come if it were RNA, one being it cannot self replicate. While I am only too well aware of my own limitations on these subjects it would appear, that for the last 30-40 years, this concept has been highly theoretical. I know that you have furnished me with examples that you believe help to prove your point. The examples you have given have DNA; Professor Dawkins Replicator does not and they are yet to be accepted as hard evidence for Professor Dawkins concept of information gain. This leaves me with a lot more questions than answers.
Are you aware if Professor Dawkins or indeed if anyone else has tried to move this forward on a practical basis? Basically has anyone tried to prove the concept through experiments?
I understand that you have bought into this fully and to you the information problem has been sorted, but for me it is still very much out there.
This would also seem to be the case for the French zoologist Grasse who denied that mutations and selection can create new complex organs. It would appear that he assigned to DNA duplication errors (I read this to mean mutations) the role of mere fluctuations.
I found it absolutely amazing to find out that our DNA is a 3 out of 4, error correcting, self replicating code consisting of over 3 billion elements defining the manufacture and arrangement of hundreds of thousands of devices; a single device consisting of unique assemblies selected from over 200 proteins, each protein containing 3000 atoms in 3 dimensional configurations, all defined from an alphabet of only 20 amino acids.
A simple cell has a central memory bank, assembly plants and processing units, repackaging and shipping centres, robot machines (protein molecules: hundreds of thousands of specific types) elaborate communication systems, quality control and repair mechanisms. This all sounds complicated to me.
Do you know if the 鈥淲easel algorithm鈥� takes into account any of the above or does it need to? Also does it take into account that amino acids are left and right handed? Is there anything else that would need to be programmed in that would have an effect on the result?
I have the book ordered and still intend to give it a go but I suspect that I will still be of the opinion that the information problem is still to be sorted.
A provoking thought; if Professor Dawkins is wrong on the gain of information, as many would appear to believe, does this leave most if not all the discussions on this thread obsolete? Again more questions than answers
I have appreciated the input over the past few weeks and have spent considerably more time on this than I and my wife would have expected. As I have said previously it has helped me look at a particular subject that I would probably not have investigated.

Hi DD

You dont appear to understand the points I am making.

Your comments about catastrophism in no way undermine my point;-

Science used to insist catastophism was incorrect but has come back to see the validity in it.

I made it clear above this is not an endorsement of creationism but it shows science can move dramatically towards it.

Quantum mechanics;-

Read post 82 and post 106 and try and answer Will Crawley's question in post 82.

Just try and answer the question Will is raising, if you dont trust or respect me then at least try to understand the context of Will's question, why he is asking it and what your response is;-

Q. Can metaphysical naturalism be sustained in a quantum mechanical world?

As I have put this question of Will's to you numerous times in recent posts and I am beginning to wonder if the question scares you so much that you are resorting to attacking me in increasingingly shrill tones to disguise something.

I cant think of any other reason for your behaviour DD.

Let also be clear that you cannot equate metaphysical naturalism to science and imply that a challenge to one is automatically a challenge to the other.

Many many scientists the world over who are not even creationists still believe in God, spirits and souls.

This includes all theistic evolutionists.

This means all such scientists in practise are diametrically opposed to metaphysical naturalism while still being "ordinary" professional scientists who may not give the time of day to a creationist thought.

So dont imply that by enquiring about the path by which your reached the religious assumptions of your metaphyscial naturalistic faith I am showing contempt for the benefits of regular science.

It wont wash.

I also reckon that you are right that a serious amount of "supernaturalism" is probably bunkum.

I know we are both laymen but tell me a buit more about how you think science can test the supernatural.

I can understand in principal how this could work but how could anyone ever present a peer reviewed paper if they found a supernatural cause?

Can any scientists out there help on this one?

cheers

PB

Yeti/Amen ( and DD & Pete K! )

REF DNA AND ORIGINS OF INFORMATION

On this Blog creationist Prof Andy McIntosh threw down a gauntlet that I dont think anyone ever dared touch, despite the fact there were mountains of abuse heaped on him.

Here is his challange;-

"The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines. This was the point at issue in the programme of Dec 10th. Intelligence is needed.

"And this thesis is falsifiable. If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified. No one has ever achieved this.

"I suggest that all the listeners read again if they have not done already, the excellent book by Wilder Smith called 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution'. It is available on Amazon."

/blogs/ni/2006/12/andy_mcintosh_replies.html

Why has nobody ever tried to falsify his claims?

PB

PB

Catrastophism as you defined it in no way whatsoever endorses whatsoever your version of creationism. There was violent change in uni formalism. What you posted was an atypical piece of distortion.

Q. Can metaphysical naturalism be sustained in a quantum mechanical world?

Yes!of course it can and it patently is!

I am not trying to disguise anything PB! I am simply asking for to produce the evidence that would back up your bold claim "Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." You cannot even name one(not even one!) paper to back up this claim as...none exist instead it is more of the same old distortion.

I posted your claim on one of the usenet groups that I linked to you before(you know those groups in which you can ask working scientists questions but was as ever ignored) and got this response...

"What he is thinking is hard to discern, but pre-quantum physics was
deterministic (in the sense that if we know the initial state with
arbitrary precision we can predict future states) but not universally
predictable (because we can never know the initial state exactly).

In quantum physics we may lose (some of) that determinism (I subscribe
to the pragmatic interpretation of QM - shut up and calculate - but what
exactly measurement means in QM is a difficult question). This may be
what he's getting at, but how he relates this to an undermining of
science, including evolution, escapes me, especially as it's usually
their perceived randomness of evolution that horrifies creationists.

Anyway, it's not accurate to say baldly that modern quantum mechanics
has "given up the quest for causation" - causality isn't as strong in
QM, but it hasn't vanished in a puff of smoke either. For example, the
timing and channel of an unstable atom may be only statistically
predictable, but the fact that it will decay does have a cause. QM does
not mean that anything goes.

What he is probably referring to here is Bell's Theorem and it's
implications

which means that your have to give up either locality or complete
predictability (unless you adopt a "no collapse" interpretation of QM).

By the time you've got to evolution it hardly matters whether the
stochastic elements of the theory originate in quantum randomness, or
from incomplete knowledge of the system."

From what I can tell your argument seems like a variation on the standard "Science cannot
explain X therefore science is false". What specific scientific assumptions which
underpin evolution are being undermined by quantum mechanics.

Indeed given the randomness of QM a more apt question would be how his deterministic theism can be sustained in a
quantum mechanical world?

QM does far more to refute biblical thinking than to refute
'classical' science.

The problem is that by conflating naturalism and methodological naturalism, the impression is given, that the scientific method contradicts religious beliefs. However, science is clear about its limitations and thus cannot address issues of religious faith.Confusing the scientific method with philosophical naturalism has been exploited by many creationists in their fervour to reject science.

There is no such things as "naturalistic faith".
Science operates on the principle of naturalism.

We accept the findings of science for the purely pragmatic reason that
science produces results. This includes quantum mechanics, by the way.
If science did not produce results, we would abandon it as a tool of
enquiry.

As science continues to produce results, why should we abandon it,
especially as the demand is that we abandon it in favour of a failed
paradigm?

Could you define what 'regular' science is? as opposed to...

You can't have it both ways PB, on one hand rejecting science then reaping the benefits of naturalism.

Science can test many claims like the claim that the world is 6000 years old, there was a worldwide flood 4000 odd years ago that killed everyone but 8 people, that Ram and his army of magic monkeys built a land bridge in India etc etc. All of them have failed miserably

In response I would point you to this piece...https://www.talkreason.org/articles/unfair.cfm

DD

You have completely misunderstood me and apparently misquoted me to usenet.

I have nowhere suggested catastophism or QM has vindicated creationism.

NOWHERE.

The whole point of my discussion is to highlight the changing assumptions of science over time and how this could move closer to creationism and the challenge it poses to MN.

Even wikipedia says that unformatism to catastophism was a paradigm shift.

While uniformatism was the only show in town I understand even the current understanding of catastophism was considered untenable.

This is most certainly and without any shadow of a doubt a move in the direction of creationism, but it is not a vindication of it and I never suggested it was.

////////

There is a clear difference between metaphyscial naturalism and naturalism.

Have you any understanding of what metaphysical means and how that relates to the science you think you believe?

The former I have challenged, the latter I have not.

Try answering Will's question again accurately and in your own thoughts?

You appear to be stating that I have said that catastophism and QM refute modern science and have settled the question of whether creationism is true or not.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Hogwash.

Read back over my posts and read what I have acutally said and not what you think I said.

I said that catastrophism is a paradigm shift, which it most certainly it, which moves mainstream opinion closer to creationist thought.

I said no more or less and that which I have said is most certainly true.

Regarding QM, Enc Brit says that it outrages common sense and that it is no longer concerned with causation.

I do not pretend that this is anything approaching a vindication of creationism, my point was primarily that this is - as Will points out - a challenge to Metaphysical Naturalism (not plain naturalism please note - please learn the difference!).

MN most certainly has got religious assumptions which are not scientifically arrived at ie God does not exist.

I then raised the question as to what impact QM could have if causation is no longer an issue for science - it could indirectly open the door to ID as a viable theory as it was the causation that kept it out of the classroom, ref Dover.

Your usenet posters are also confused when they state that it is my opinion that QM has "given up the quest for causation".

This is what the author of the history of science article on Enc Brit online has written.

I hazard a guess this author has more standing than the usenet author you are quoting or else your contact may have written for Enc Brit instead.

Nonetheless, as I am certainly a layman it is interesting to read what they say and I will certainly have another look at it.

The question remains, can METAPHYSICAL naturalism survive in a QM world.

You might suggest you understand the question by answering with more than a six word answer.

Your poster who suggests that I am rejecting science is also barking.

Either you have mispresented me to him or he is reading into this discussion some past discussion he had with someone else.

read again post 112

YOU CANNOT EQUATE METAPHYSICAL NATURALISM WITH SCIENCE.

I am NOT talking about plain naturalism here, please note.

My challenge is to metaphysical naturalism not [or methodological] naturalism/science.

How will a biblical faith survive in a QM world? the same way it always did - with the bible.

A QM world does not imply a change in the world but a change in perception of it (in this case) towards metaphysical naturalists!

The point is that metaphysical naturalists use science beyond its true remit to proclaim their faith that there is no God.

post 98 Enc Brit says that QM and associated science outrages "common sense" which is one of your favourite mantras.

This in theory poses a challenge to your foundation (Meta' nat' and "common sense") but biblical faith in Christ remains solid and constant in comparison.

You have misunderstood so much DD, but I am genuinely certain I will learn something from you on this when you catch up.

PB

Layman
Sorry for not replying sooner. Welcome to the forum. Due to time pressures I have been unable to read the posts so please forgive me if I hit on something that has been covered. There would appear to be many methods to 鈥渃alculate鈥� the age of the earth.
Here are a few which would indicate a young earth or at least younger earth: Supernova events, Human population or lack of it, Human remains or lack of them, Helium in the atmosphere, Decay of long age comets, Growth of active coral reefs, Retrograde orbit of the moon, Diminishing diameter of the sun, Twist of spiral galaxies.
I am aware that at least reasonably recently several groups were looking at the diminishing speed of light and some were looking at the possibility of this event still occurring in the present. What effects this might have on astrophysics et al is anyones guess.
Current favorites in the long age鈥檚 scenario have difficulty in dealing with catastrophic events.
Mount St Helens would be one small example of a catastrophic event. In a matter of hours canyons and rock layers were formed which for all accounts and purposes would have taken many tens of thousand of years to form.
November 1963 the Island of Surtsey appeared practically overnight. S Thoranrinsson investigated the island several months after it formed and said it was beyond belief how mature the island was.
This year New Scientist carried an article on a Drumlin 10mts high and 100mts long being formed in a matter of years. This event is usually reckoned to take several hundreds or thousand of years.
These events show that things are not always what they seem.
It would appear that there are many ways to measure the age of the earth. Undoubtedly they all have their supporters and detractors. Unless there is an out break of honesty, 鈥渁n awful thing to happen any man鈥� I once heard said, the discussion will continue.
As for the fossil record I was always under the impression that Professor Gould and a colleague proposed punctuated equilibrium to get around the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, if not in the whole evolutionary tale, at least in the human phase.

Hi Yeti,

I think everything in that last post has been very adequately dealt with elsewhere, but as a couple of examples, the Mt St Helens strata are categorically different from sedimentary strata, and anyone with a microscope can tell you so. The creationists have been *lying*.
Supernova data do not support a young earth - quite the reverse - they show the universe unequivocally to be billions of years old.
The slowing of the speed of light so beloved of creationists was the work of an Australian Barry Setterfield, who faked and massaged much of his data. This has now even been recognised by prominent creationists, and his work disowned.
Human population size and sparseness of fossil remains is not a problem for evolution.
And so on and so forth.

The problem with all the examples you mention is that the supposed conclusions that we are to draw from the creationist framing of these arguments largely tackle a complete "straw man" version of evolution. The creationists are bearing false witness, pure & simple. They may think that they are doing the right thing, but lying for Jesus is still lying.

As for the Selfish Gene business, you've become a bit muddled (no shame in that - it happens the best of us). The identity of the original replicator is an open question (I favour RNA - it *can* be made to replicate, honest!). However, this is NOT the same as "Selfish Gene theory". The "selfish gene" in the current biological context is DNA, specifically DNA sequence that is better than its competitors in getting into the next generation.

The crazy thing is that this virtually *assures* complexity, since it is easier to keep a machine running and add on some other bit, than take a running car, whack a bit off, and expect it to still run. Evolution creates the illusion of design - that's the whole point. Complexity is not a counter-argument, as it is what is *expected* by evolution.

The "information question" is not at all the problem you seem to think it is. Duplications happen all the time, allowing divergence of function. New bits of sequence get inserted into genes all the time. Yes, this is random, but what adds the *information* is iterative selection. Part of the information in the selective environment, as well as part of the information representing the iteration number (i.e. the number of generations) gets passed to the genepool, and thus writes itself into the very genetic code itself.

This is how it works, and frankly the fact that there are some creationists who cannot grasp the concept neither surprises nor worries me.

I suggest you bin your Ham, Gish & Morris, and read something more wholesome.

ATB,

-A

PB

You are confused and contradict yourself in the first few lines. You say that "I have nowhere suggested catastophism or QM has vindicated creationism." yet have mentioned on several occasions that these these positions "This is most certainly and without any shadow of a doubt a move in the direction of creationism,"-what!?!? PB let us be crystal clear these positions are in no way(not in the slightest, not a nano-metre, zilch, nada-you get the picture?) *NOT* a move in the direction of Biblical creationism, nor Hindu, nor Shinto etc. This is indeed more distortion on your part. I have tried to explain in simple terms what catastrophism means in modern terms(and as Peter Klaver pointed out in the 'Biblical flood' thread)the evidence that you are citing in favour of a move to creationism is in fact evidence to the contrary!-truly remarkable!
//////
"You appear to be stating that I have said that catastophism and QM refute modern science and have settled the question of whether creationism is true or not."

Well PB that does appear to be the case!

PB all I added to the usenet group was your claim that QM is challenging evolution(more on that later) and your "quote" from the Enc Brit. So the poster was challenging the part about "causation".

"Your poster who suggests that I am rejecting science is also barking."

Err PB you actually do! Over these posts and others you have rejected evolution, paleontology, physics, biology etc etc IOW you have rejected science!

"The question remains, can METAPHYSICAL naturalism survive in a QM world."

PB I really do not know how many times you want me to repeat myself...metaphysical naturalism can and does survive in a QM world!? The idea that the tooth fairy, Zeus, Amon-Ra, YHWH, Pachamacha, Thor do not exist in no way is "challenged" by QM.

It has taken me a awhile to get what you are at...then it clicked you have linked in your own weird little way (eg., 2 + 2 = 105677 !?!?) that evolution equals metaphysical naturalism eg., hard atheism)complete and utter poppycock and a favourite creationist canard(what I mean by that is garbage). This all boils down to your false statement "Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

I am calling you out on this PB, I am asking for the 6th time(if Peter K doesn't mind me including him 7 times in total) for you to to back this erroneous statement up(I *know* that when QM came out that it "caused outrage" however that is *not* saying what you say it did!?). Again(sigh) I ask for you to back that statement up with evidence. If your statement was true then you would of course be able to back it up with 100's, 1000's of peer-reviewed papers-all I ask is one! I am saying that you have distorted info and made a false statement.

PB QM is more of a blow to Biblical creationism/literalism than what is termed 'classical' science. Your posts re: the Bible say...nothing.

Get back to me when you find that paper...

Regards

DD

Yeti / Amen

Amen - just for Yeti's benefit I am going to remind you that a world authority on genetics from QUB is a creationist and in fact gave the thought for the day today on Radio Ulster, Prof Norman Nevin.

/blogs/ni/2007/01/norman_nevin_defends_truth_in_1.html

As you graciously conceded before Amen, despite being a world authority on the subject and very much your senior in the field, he has never once published a paper which endorses evolution.

Amazing?

PB

DD

I have come to the conclusion that you have a genuine problem understanding subtlties of this debate.

It IS possible to discuss changes in science without claiming that they vindicate your position.

Can you please explain how a move away from the pure belief that the earth's layers were created very slowly over millions of years towards a view which accepts many layers have been created in catastophies is NOT a move in the direction of creationist theory (I am not saying it is a vindication of creationism)?

It could be helpful to the discussion if we both read up on the definition of metaphysics so that we are not confusing science/naturalism with metaphyscial naturalism.

I see them as quite seperate.

The enc brit articles above quoted on QM state that it outraged common sense and has abandonded the quest for causation and is spilling into biology and chemistry. post 98 and 106.

You will please note that the question about QM in post 82 was not contrived by me but by a Dr of philsophy, Mr W Crawley.

ergo, this is not a creationist conspiracy.

Of course I am a layman, and am happy to be corrected on my understanding of QM, which is limited.

To this end, by all means bring in quotes from scientists you have tracked down on usent, it is interesting and adds to the breadth of the debate, but I dont have the time to do it.

I think my understanding of Crawley and ENC Brit on QM leads me to believe it has made and been granted a certain type of special pleading within the scientific world that allows it to ourage common sense and also abandon the question for causation, according to Enc Brit.

I suppose this can beg the question as to why no other scientists, eg ID, could deem causation irrelevant and outrage common sense with theistic determinism.

Now that QM has set the precedent, why can ID not use the same arguments to get into the science class?

Please note, I am NOT suggesting this should happen or even that it could, I am just asking why QM should be allowed the privilege of taking this position and ID cannot?

The point being, that at Dove ID was excluded from the science classroom because it claimed spiritual causation.

If causation can be left out of the picture, as QM does, then why shouldnt ID be allowed to?

PB

PS If you have time, I would be grateful if you tell me if this is correct;-

1) You do not believe that any creationist can sincerely believe their own opinions.

2) You do not believe that there is the slightest possibility that God exists.

It appears to me that these two assumtpions colour everything we discuss, but I will be pleased to be corrected.

Amen
here is a recent profile on the work of creationist Prof Norm Nevin.

I remember previously asking you how a genetist can come to be respected worldwide for his expertise...

...and yet still not believe or endorse evolution.

I think my conclusion was that he probably finds it totally irrelevant and useless in his research and work in genetics.

Perhaps you would remind yeti of your opinion?

I know it is an argument from authority, but as you seem to major on arguing ad hominem at the moment, shall we call it quits?

;-)

PB

PB, Norman Nevin has never published a paper endorsing creationism either. And in fact, given his high profile in administration and advisory bodies, one would wonder why that is not the case. Perhaps he is just paying lip service to it for the benefit of people like you?

Find me a peer-reviewed paper.

-A

PB

"I have come to the conclusion that you have a genuine problem understanding subtlties of this debate."

That's a bit rich coming from you PB!

PB please try and understand that geology in *NO* way, shape or form indicates your(nor any form of)creationism in any way whatsoever.

I have tried and seemingly failed to inform you of the position and still you keep on!(as ever is the case) Again modern geology is a mix of uni formalism and catrastrophism. There were long periods of calm punctuated by violent change. In *no* way does geology say that it was solely catrastrophism. Indeed the research into these violent changes actually is a further death knell to creationism. This was pointed out to you before and you are that inept you repeat it-quite astounding!Biblical creationism is bunk.

I am aware of the differences in metaphysics etc., it is you who is struggling with definitions. This whole thing is about you eqauting evolution by natural selection with mataphysical naturalism-it's naturalistic-it is *not* faith/religion etc.

QM did indeed outrage opinion for that matter so did Darwin and forced science to change-by your criteria you should accept this?

QM may be spilling into other areas but not in the way that you think! From what I have read QM has not ceased causation.

Now PB(again and for the 8th time) please back up this statement ""Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

I would say that 1000's of papers have been published on QM, I am not asking for 1000's, not 100, not 10, just one paper which would back up your claim. I am calling you out on this one PB to back this up. I believe that this is some clap-trap that you have picked up on some creationist website. I am saying that QM says no such thing. For this debate to move on you really should back this up or else you have made a false statement and distorted info(which you have been pulled about before). Put up or shut up.

1)I am sure that creationist sincerely believe their own opinions but that does not make them correct.

2)I do not believe that Zeus, Amon-Ra, Allah, Ganesh, YHWH exist in that sense I am an atheist. I am philosophically agnostic in the sense of Russell's teapot.

Amenhotep

"The creationists have been *lying*."

I couldn't agree more, indeed it never ceases to am amaze me- the distortion, deception, dishonesty from those who say that they are defending the Bible. Yet so easily break basic Bible laws.

"but lying for Jesus is still lying."

Indeed!

DD

I never claimed consensus had rejected uniformatism, just that consensus it had accepted catastophism as a viable theory.

A mixture of uniformatism and catastrophism is much closer to creationism that uniformatism only; but does not vindicate creationism, and I never said it did.

Do I equate evolution with metahysical naturalism? No.

In my understanding the consensus is that naturalism supports evolution but can offer no view on God.

In contrast metaphysical naturalism uses naturalism to support evolution but goes one step further than the evidence justifies (into metaphysical philosophy/faith) and states that God does not exist.

But a scientist cannot use science to say that God does not exist. It is impossible.

Show me a peer reviewed paper if I am wrong.

This philsophical/faith opinion (athiesm) means that metaphysical naturalists like yourself have ruled out any possibility that God could cause creationism before they ever consider the evidence.

That is deliberately prejudicing your own analysis on religious grounds before you look at the evidence.

My quote;-
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

In post 98 enc brit says QM is spilling into chemistry and biology.

The reason I said this, and Will Crawley or any of your scientist friends are welcome to contribute here, points back to Will's question.

Read post 120 again about special pleading.

Why should a strand of physics which is spilling into biology and chemistry be allowed to progress when it has "abandoned the question for causation" to quote enc brit?

Why should physics/biology and chemistry be allowed to special plead on causation when ID can't?

When I say the assumptions are being undermined, I should have said the MN philsophical assumptions that are held by some scientists.

Are you equating metaphysical naturalism with naturalism? Do you see them as the same thing?

If so this might explain why you don't see the point of the question Will is asking.

To me the causation issue in the Dover trial is the key point in his question, but it would be interesting to hear Will comment.

You have not attempted an answer to Will's question that demonstrates you understand the issues and it would appear you have dismissed trying to understand the relevance of the authorities for different worldviews I discussed with you in point 115.

The point Will is raising here is philosophical, please note.

PB

PS If you believe creationists sincerely believe their opinions even though they are wrong then you can accept they need not be deliberately lying every time they move their lips. This being the case, is it possible to be civil to them?

For example, can you actually demonstrate any lie I have ever told?

///////////////////
Amen

So a world authority on genetics who publicly identifies himself as a creationist has never published a paper either supporting evolution or creationism.

How curious! By turns, why and how could that be possible???

Perhaps the reason could be in the politics of the world of science, as described by the former editor of the New Scientist (dont think he is a creationist!)

Of course, only Nevin knows himself.

BTW, he could probably sue your behind off for defaming his character in such a manner.

Perhaps you ought to tread carefully!

Given that his professional life has never endorsed evolution I dont think you have any grounds for calling him a hypocrite.

;-)

DD

clarification;-

My quote;-

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

By this I meant that the assumption that causation is an inherent part of science is being undermined (in principal) with each step QM takes further into physics, chemistry and biology.

I am basing this on the statements from Enc Brit which state baldly that QM physics has abandonded the quest for causation while progressing on into biology and chemistry.

This would appear to be special pleading, which it would appear has been arbitrarily granted to QM while denied to ID, at least at Dover!

In my understanding, this is the philsophical question Will Crawley is asking;-

Can Metaphysical Naturalism survive in a QM world, ie where QM (which has no interest in causation) marches on into other fields of science.

Because, if science generally abdandons the quest for causation there will be little grounds to reject ID.

I would interested to hear you refute Will's question as a viable one DD, but please note this is philsophy of science and not science.

PB

PB

"A mixture of uniformatism and catastrophism is much closer to creationism that uniformatism only"

No it doesn't and it's a complete distortion of the evidence, I am afraid that you are talking out of your Kent Hovind.

Naturalism has no opinion on god/s, the supernatural, I did cover this.

Atheism is not a faith-I see no evidence for god/s and certainly no evidence for your form of creationism-it's garbage(sorry bit it's as simple as that).

"That is deliberately prejudicing your own analysis on religious grounds before you look at the evidence."

That's exactly what Biblical creationists do!(maybe you are learning)

OK your "quote"...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

"In post 98 enc brit says QM is spilling into chemistry and biology." but nowhere does it say "undermine"-because it doesn't! Now PB as I said I am calling you out on this!(for the 10th time) please produce 1(just 1) peer-reviewed paper(1000's have been published). The reason that you cannot find it is...that it doesn't exist! You made a false statement-you asked for an eg of lie, well thats it.

However according my expert re:causation(and if you were genuinely interested you would actually go and ask working scientists)"it's not accurate to say baldly that modern quantum mechanics
has "given up the quest for causation" - causality isn't as strong in
QM, but it hasn't vanished in a puff of smoke either. For example, the
timing and channel of an unstable atom may be only statistically
predictable, but the fact that it will decay does have a cause. QM does
not mean that anything goes. "

Quantum mechanics/physics is a notoriously difficult subject, even people studying it for years admit they do not get their heads around it-so lets not kid ourselves that we are in any way experts.

PB I have answered the question! In no way do I see how quantum mechanics undermines my belief that Zeus etc do not exist!

And try and remember that ID is claptrap.

Let me clarify what I mean about creationists being sincere-I am sure they are, however when they do tell lies(which they invariably do) and then they repeat those lies then it does become very difficult to be civil. Distortion and perversion of evidence is the only thing they have since...they have no evidence to back up their own position hence the need for mis-quotes,lies, the fallacies etc. Creation "science" is a fallacy, it has done nothing and is a position only held by those on the looney tune extremes of Protestant fundamentalism.

"For example, can you actually demonstrate any lie I have ever told?"

Goodness, well there are so many! but I will go with the most recent...

""Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science.""

1. The Enc Brit article says no such thing.

2. If this statement were true then you would be able to point me to 1000's of peer-reviewed papers-you can't because...(to repeat myself) quantum mechanics says no such thing.

ps. if you want this debate to go any further you really should produce the evidence to back up this very bold statement(not what you *think* Enc Brit says-remember you have a long record of misrepresenting this book-remember the Jesus article? you left out the 1st paragraph of a 3 paragraph article and stated that Enc Brit said something it didn't actually say?) or else I really can't be bothered to waste my time with you.

DD

You were asking for a paper on this subject.

I have only had a glance at this one but from the intro and conclusion it is by a professional physicist who submitted it to a named science journal.

It appears to argue that almost every attempt to explain QM has discarded causation, in contrast to all other fields of science.

The conclusion appears to describe QM as having arbitrary qualities which are an "embarrassment" in science.

To resolve this he argues that metaphysical causation should be attributed to QM ie that QM requires a definite causation.

So the question remains, why should QM be considered legitimate science when it discards causation? isnt this special pleading and an arbitrary granting of that pleading?

This is not arguing that QM supports creationism (it doesnt) or that the randomness of QM means that no science is trustworthy (which would be nonsense).

These are some of the laughable responses your advisors suggested you use against me.

It is simply asking by what process a division of science can be accepted as legitimate and yet not require causation?

Assumed divine causation was the reason the ID'ers lost the Dover trial, but the ID'ers argued that the source of the causation was irrelevant.

I am asking where is the consistency in mainstream science in how it deals with QM and ID in relation to causation?

I believe this is also the question Will Crawley is asking.

PB

//////////////////

Incidentally, I notice that when you went to talkoigins to summon up responses to my questions, you said you did not understand what I was talking about.

Then you said you recognised my points as "fallacies" answers to my questions.

How open minded is it to decided you have rejected my logic before you have understood it?

Further, as talkorigins bills itself as specifically rebutting ID and creationism...

... you are hardly going to independent scientists for objective answers.

Is this behaviour "objective credible and verifiable"????

DD

You accuse me of lying in that statement but that implies I set out to deceive as my intention.

That is completely untrue.

If my statement is wrongly conceived then you should demonstrate that.

Your "expert" is offering an opinion but who knows how qualified he is?

I have offered a clarification of what I was driving at in this statement in post 125.

To be sure, my understanding of the matter is limited and my expression also is limited.

It is certainly my *argument* that QM is undermining other fields of science by progressing into them while as Enc Brit puts it "abandoning the quest for causation".

All other fields of science require explained causation.

Perhaps a better way to express it would be that QM is part of the next stage of revolution in science, ie a revolution rather than undermining?

But to simply call me a liar when you have not actually engaged with the argument or demonstrated an effort to grasp it is disappointing.

You have demonstrated no understanding of the context or significance of the question Will is asking.

It is an easy way out to call me a liar instead of stretching your mind to grapple with the point Will is raising.

PB

PB, really now. If you think that Norman could/should sue me, perhaps you could refresh me on precisely what I have said *ever* about him that could construe grounds for that. Maybe you're just waffling again.

The vast majority of Norman Nevin's publications are not even basic science - they are case reports or policy papers (you should look them up). He most emphatically is NOT regarded as an expert on the science of genetics, although I would tell you that he is an excellent teacher, and he knows the basics of genetics.

In *none* of his peer-reviewed publications does he refer to creationism, and in fact, some of those reports use evolutionary biology as the basis for some of their conclusions (e.g. Journal of Investigative Dermatology (1997) 109, 815鈥�816. He's merely a co-author on this paper, and probably didn't have much to do with it, but he's still putting his name to a paper that uses the findings of evolutionary science).

So, if anything, and if you're right about his endorsement of creationism (and he's NEVER published anything about this, remember? Prove me wrong), it sits very oddly with an acknowledgement of evolutionary conservation of genetic sequences.

I suggest you post some hard evidence that Norman believes in young Earth creationism, and then we might be able to continue. Otherwise, I'm afraid I have to conclude that Norman's "creationist-friendly" antics (such as the endorsement of the "Truth in Science"[sic] shower) are based on him not appreciating the difference between "Intelligent Design" (i.e. Creationism re-branded) and "Theistic Evolution" (i.e. the standard scientific mainstream opinion with god directing the show).

And for the nth time, AUTHORITY is IRRELEVANT. If he (or anyone else) has the data, let's be having it.

-A

Hello all,

I've had little time lately. Boy oh boy, what a load of errors (most of them willful of course, making them more distortions than errors) pb can produce over a small number of days. Just to highlight a few:

post 105, peabrain wrote
"I repeat, your xyz scientific steps do not and cannot prove evolution to be true, it is a model only;"

Peabrain has such a lack of basic understanding of science that he doesn't even know that few if any theories are really proven 100% sure. Gravity is real to anyone but PROOF (as in mathematical certainty) that it will be here tomorrow? Nope. Which then leads to the standard anti-science bashing of 'only a theory'. Not anything convincing as usual, pbrain.

"Catastophism - now a mainstream viewpoint - states they were actually created in a series of catastophies of flooding."

Pbrain, when you started bring up neo-catastrophism I read the wiki page you had linked to and found out that the info in there directly contradicts many of your claims. It is stated there that apart from the extinction of the dinosaurs, catastrophism has lost almost all credibility since the 18th century. So as DD and I put to you before, please provide something to support the claim that catastrophism is now a mainstream view (outside the hallways of the Discovery Institute that is).

"Quantum mechanics his little respect for existing scientific laws"

This shows peabrains ignorance of science clearer than anything else. Peabrain, quantum mechanics IS the laws of science at their most fundamental, giving an amazingly good description of everything we see around us, as log as it doesn't cover very great length scales (like gravity shaping galaxies). You saying that qm has little respect for the laws of science is such a humongous blunder to make!! You have no idea how ridiculously impossible what you say actually is.

And in post 112 peabrain wrote
"I know we are both laymen but tell me a buit more about how you think science can test the supernatural.
I can understand in principal how this could work but how could anyone ever present a peer reviewed paper if they found a supernatural cause?"

Pbrain, if anyone ever demonstrated a clear violation of fundamental laws of physics, it would be all over the news. A cause that is outside the laws of physics yet clearly influences our world could be observed to be there. And it would likely be an epoch-making event it if happened. It just never has.

And finally in post 120
"I suppose this can beg the question as to why no other scientists, eg ID, could deem causation irrelevant and outrage common sense with theistic determinism."

You don't even grasp your own pet nags, don't you peabrain? ID does exacty the opposite of deeming causation irrelevant. It invokes a designer of superior intelligence. QM on the other hand describes the world as it functions today, without invoking fairy tales. Fairy tales that have been disproven for ID btw, see the numerous reminders by DD of why ID is rubbish.

Peter

Here is the link to the journal article I mentioned:

I would suggest that if Norman Nevin really is a creationist, it would be *astonishing* that he would put his name to a paper that explicitly uses evolutionary theory as a core underpinning of one of its central points.

So, PB, I think you are going to have to do a bit of work and demonstrate that Norman really does believe in creationism as you describe. My reading of the above is that he must be a theistic evolutionist, although he may project a carefully-worded different impression to the crowd at the Cres. I couldn't comment on that.

-A

Amen

I posted Prof Nevin's credentials in post 121.

I doubt you can touch him regarding his reputation on the field, being a mere phd.

Yes its arguing from authority, but as I said, is this an appropriate response to somone who majors in ad hominems?

;-)

You really think someone with his standing "accidentally" signed the truth in science letter to the Dept of Education and never retracted it?

That makes as much sense as... frogs turning into princes by random selection.

/////////////////

Hi Pete

Post 98 with the definition of catastrophism from enc brit appears to show it as a mainstream view.

DD certainly accepts it as a mainstream view in conjunction with uniformatism, which appears to concur the with the Enc Brit def definition.

Are DD and Enc Brit wrong?

I understand perfectly that ID invokes a divine causation and have repeatedly made that point above.

My point is that if ID has a supernatural cause which cannot be considered by science then why can it not be considered without the causation as science without determinism?

By the way, QM outraged common sense and abandoned the question for causation and WAS ALL OVER THE NEWS!

Albert Einstein said in ref to QM "God does not play dice".

I understand the lack of causation in QM can also be termed as this lack of determinsm, as Einstein saw it.

Instead of attacking me, can you address Will's question and demonstrate that your understand the issue at hand;-

Can metaphysical naturalism survive in a quantum mechanical world?

And can you address mine;

Why should QM be allowed to dispense with scientific causation/determinsim but ID cannot?

a plus

PB

Pete

I think i got where you are coming from and it is a good point you make.

ID has a causation, you state.

However, this is a causation that cannot be considered by science.

Therefore, why can ID minus the causation not be considered by science in the same way non-deterministic QM is?

Is it not special pleading by QM?

Another interesting question is, if science can actually catch up with creationism and understand and describe how it happened "shut up and calculate" then it would no longer be supernatural and can be a scientific causation:

Arthur C Clarke:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Albert Einstein:
"I want to know the mind of God".

PB

PB, Norman Nevin's credentials are irrelevant. It is his arguments that count, and he would be the first to assert this.

In fact, we have with James Watson the prime example of a prominent figure within the field (of much higher profile than Norman Nevin) showing that he holds views that are unscientific and unacceptable, and he can't back them up. Are you seriously suggesting that we should accept Watson's views simply because he is of such a high profile? Because that is what your "argument" amounts to.

As it is, I have provided evidence that all is not as it seems, and that Norman has endorsed an evolutionary position by putting his name to a paper that explicitly makes use of evolutionary theory.

So you need to provide answers for the following:
1. Does Norman believe the universe is some 6000 years old?
2. Does Norman believe that humans were "created" in pretty much their current form, without an evolutionary connection with other species?
3. Does Norman believe in a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago?

You need evidence. You cannot simply state what you *think* Norman's views are on any of these topics, and then slag off other people for arguing against them. Please let us know what Norman Nevin really thinks about these issues.

Hello peabrain,

"Post 98 with the definition of catastrophism from enc brit appears to show it as a mainstream view."

No it doesn't. It just mentions Cuvier and those in the 20th century who followed his thinking. Nowhere does it state that it's a mainstream view. Oh, how dishonest you are again peabrain, to knowingly claim otherwise.

"DD certainly accepts it as a mainstream view in conjunction with uniformatism, which appears to concur the with the Enc Brit def definition.
Are DD and Enc Brit wrong?"

No, they're not, you're citing them for things they never said. Again, dishonest.

"My point is that if ID has a supernatural cause which cannot be considered by science then why can it not be considered without the causation as science without determinism?"

Because qm, while mostly a mathematical framework, makes astonishingly accurate predictions etc. ID is disproven, it's main claims like irreducible complexity and information theory elements of it have been falsified. So even if it didn't invoke a devine hand, it would still be plain wrong.

"Instead of attacking me, can you address Will's question and demonstrate that your understand the issue at hand;-
Can metaphysical naturalism survive in a quantum mechanical world?"

DD answered that one for you already, several times.

"And can you address mine;
Why should QM be allowed to dispense with scientific causation/determinsim but ID cannot?"

Because qm describes the world around us, how it works. And it does so very well. Regardless of whether wave funtions, eigenvalues and other counter-intuitive elements of it allow us to understand its causation or not. It makes testable predictions, that come true very accurately, and that is much appreciated in science.
ID, even without invoking a designer, does nothing to help us understand the world or predict where it's going. It's just falsified nonsense, game over.

Peter

PB

You certainly did set out to deceive with this statement...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

It's simply *not* true! simple as that.

Your 'clarification' is simply back-tracking and it's not working!

As for my expert well I did what you could have did eg., go and ask working scientists? have posted links before but as ever they were ignored. Last chance, here is a link to a usenet group-why not ask them questions?(btw I am in no way trying to trap or trick you by doing this, all I saying is if you are *genuinely* interested then this is what you should do).

I did answer Will's question-I believe that it is a non-starter and indeed QM is a further death blow to your form of creationism/faith(not that a further blow was needed).

I certainly do *not* regard catrastrophism as a "mainstream" opionion! stop mis-representing! Indeed the new evidence regarding sudden change re: Luis Alvarez. Paradoxically this info is a further blow to to creationism(not that any was needed).

As for the Einstein/Clarke quotes-goodness! not again! look at the context in which they were written! neither were in any way shape/form creationists indeed Clarke was a well-known opponent of creationism!

You never cease to amaze me PB by citing "evidence" that when looked at is actually evidence against you-astounding and inept!

If you really want to retain any slight degree of credibility then I think you should acknowledge you made a false statement(I am very kind when I put it in those terms) re: QM...undermining science/evolution.

"Another interesting question is, if science can actually catch up with creationism..."

ha ha ha ha! you do kill me PB! science catch up with creationism lol!

I know PB you can use all the medical/science breakthroughs brought on within the creationist "science" framework like...well...there isn't any!

Looks like you will have to go back to that nasty old science and use those pesky vaccines inspired by evolution...damn!

You are funny!

have some more rope PB...

Just realised that I forgot to provide the link in the previous post...

Layman, are you still here? With the many posts since your interesting idea of 'best evidence for old and young earth' you should be able to get an impression of the credibility of both sides. So what's the verdict?

greets,
Peter

What about the variable speed of light (VSL) which debunks the Einstein theory of relativity!

a/ what is the evidence for a variable speed of light? (citation of scientific articles, please)
b/ how does this debunk the theory of relativity? (specific arguments, please)

Peter

What did Einstein mean when he used the words

"Spooky action at a distance" to express his discomfort with QM?

Amen

IN answer to an earlier Q, if you are suggesting that Nevin is suggesting one thing in his professional work and then misleading people into thinking he believes something totally different in his Truth in Science work, you are accusing him of decieving and defaming his character.

Look out for that writ!

Funny how you bend the rules to suit your prejudice.

On and on you go saying that God does not exist (you have absolutely no evidence which can prove this) and you rant on an on with endless ad hominems at anyone who expresses a contrary viewpoint.

Then you plead the wounded scientist when I deliberately provoke you with an argument from authority ref Nevin in order to puncture your hot air balloon and bring you down before you disappear.

Please make up your mind whether you are discussing your opinions on religion or scientific evidence.

But dont try to be smart and blur the lines between the two.

PB

If Nevin wants to explain to the world why he works with Truth in Science, his call. As you stated, the one article which you CLAIM supports evolution was co-authored.
The questions remain, does it REALLY support evolution and did he support its inclusion?

PS DD

Yes, I do reserve the right to amend my questions and wordings ref QM. I understand almost as little about it as you and as a complete scientific layman I make no apology for updating my understanding and expression of what I understand.

If this offends you, please remember not to discuss any subject here with anyone who does not have a full grasp of it. (That would include yourself, a self confessed scientific layman, when you are discussing any scientific subject).

PPS I was thinking about these questions again from Will Crawley. It might appear that actually putting down answers in writing might be a lot more challenging that you might imagine. I suspect from Will's original posting on this he has some sympathy for ID but not YEC.

- What constitutes "proper science"?
- How should we recognise "pseudo-science"?
- What should (and should not) be taught in state-financed science classrooms?
- What is the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural"?
- Can "metaphysical naturalism" be sustained in a quantum-mechanical world?

My reflection-
Would Newton have considered a nuclear detonation or 747 in flight to be supernatural, if he did not have a chance to understand how they worked?

Is pseudoscience science which is proven wrong rather than propositions which science cannot yet reach a firm verdict on one way or the other?

PB,

on your closing remark. Did Newtion consider the means of the apple's downward flight to be supernatural?

PB, we've all learned your ways enough not to fall for your diversions anymore. You have such a long list of questions you can't answer, that it's up to you to either admit that (and therefore what a of waste of keystrokes your posts have been), or answer them. Not try to divert attention with new questions.

So where is that positive evidence for creationism DD has asked for so many times?

How about those intermediate feather fossils you can't explain away? Read any articles yet?

How about living animals with intermediate limbs, like emus?

Figured out how many labs can do radiometric dating yet?

Please explain your laughable 'qm has little respect for the laws of scienmce', when qm is very fundamentally the laws of science for everything on a none-too-large a scale.

Do you admit that your own link on cathastrophism dug your own grave on yet another subject, giving the non-believers here yet more ammo against you?

And how about ID being crushed in the Dover trial, with the creationists shown to be so horribly dishonest. You fit well amomg them. And yet you defend ID?

Come on peabrain, you've lied and distorted so many times, even said you'd stop debating me on the pretext of me addressing you by your full name rather than your initials 'pb' (in yet another transparent withdrawl). You have absolutely nothing then?

greets,
Peter

PB

Your answer to Amenhotep-what a sustained, stunning piece of arrogance and distortion!

"Funny how you bend the rules to suit your prejudice."

and this absolute stunner...

"Please make up your mind whether you are discussing your opinions on religion or scientific evidence.

But dont try to be smart and blur the lines between the two."

Lol!!!!

Pot...kettle...black...

Peter is right about your diversionary tactics and I am growing very tired of them.

As for your backtracking on your dishonest statement-it doesn't wash. I gave you ample opportunity to retract earlier and even to retain the slightest piece of respect.

I do admit that I am a complete layman on science however I do admit that and if ignorant on a subject that doesn't work...I go and find out about it-something that you could do but never do...maybe if you did then you would not get continually caught out making false, erroneous dishonest statements.

Proper science gets results, pseudo science gets no results(eg., Biblical, Hindu, Muslim, Shinto etc creationism, astrology, new age healing etc ad nauseum). Science that gets results should be taught in a science classroom. Look up in a dictionary the difference between supernatural and natural.

The last point was answered, you may not have liked the answer but there you go! Incidentally QM is an even further death blow ot deterministic theism/literalism than to naturalism.

I see from your responses that in all the time that I have observed you on this blog you haven't changed a bit and that is very depressing...sigh...

PB there is name for the fallacy you continually commit it's argumentum de Torquemada', which is
the assumption that facts which run contrary to your conclusion will, if
twisted sufficiently, stretched on the rack, broken on the wheel, and
threatened with pots of boiling oil, eventually come around to support
your position.

just to add to all the other fallacies you commit...

Why not answer Peter's questions...

For years the logical vacuum and scientific failings of the Big Bang theory and evolution have been taught in our public financed schools RELIGIOUSLY, with no consideration being given to the works of Lee Strobel, or Jonathan Wells, (double PHD) two leading scientists who flawlessly point out the short comings of these theories.

It seems to me that as the schools, and education boards are financed by the public, with the prefix of NI on the titles, that the cirriculum must reflect the wishes (were accidemical) of the tax payer. Within Northern Ireland an overwhelming majority profess to be of the Christian faith, to ignore their beleifs and wishes within the cirriculum appears completely un democratic, and a case of accommodating the minority

Hello jga, you wrote

"Within Northern Ireland an overwhelming majority profess to be of the Christian faith, to ignore their beleifs and wishes within the cirriculum appears completely un democratic, and a case of accommodating the minority"

You could hardly paint a better picture of the religious crowd being clueless about science. Science is not a democracy jga. At some point Galileo and very few others would have been the only ones to state that the sun was the centre of the universe, going against what a near-unanimous population of christians thought. Did that make the christians right? Of course not. The cry of 'undemocratic' when talking of science is a good example why it is a good thing not to let a numerical majority of your fellow 'thinkers' decide what is good in science classes.

As far as I can tell Lee Strobel is not a scientist but a journalist. As for Jonathan Wells well his 'ideas' have been thoroughly debunked.

I really don't get why all these great minds like jga, PB, the creationists etc waste their time on these boards-if they have such stunning info then why not publish it?

Why not start here?

And jga not all Christains are as narrow-minded/ignorant as creationists so don't put them all in the same boat.

well well well.

So it appears Pete and DD are running scared of Einstein describing QM as "spooky".

Lets cut all the insults.

Here are William Crawley's questions again;-

- What constitutes "proper science"?
- How should we recognise "pseudo-science"?
- What should (and should not) be taught in state-financed science classrooms?
- What is the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural"?
- Can "metaphysical naturalism" be sustained in a quantum-mechanical world?

By virtue of the fact you are all on his blog so much I presume you have SOME respect for Will and his views.

And as a phd in philsopy who drew quite a crowd of scientists at the festival of science, I contest these are self evidently VERY pertinant in the world of science.

I suspect DD and Pete are running scared either because they cant grapple with these issues, or they are afraid of the conclusions, or perhaps both.

Do tell guys.

PB

PS DD I am quite clear that supernaturalism (creationism) is outside the bounds of current science so I am being quite clear about the dividing line. Amen never is.

You make the mistake of believing that "science" is synonymous with "truth" but that is your faith opinion and not a scientific view.

True science does not and cannot pontificate on art, music faith or spirituality, for example.

The questions Will is asking about QM appear to me to ask if science is really being consistent in how it deals with as Einstein described it, "spooky" events aspects of QM and the supernatural aspect of creationism.

If supernaturalism is simply a process not yet understood by science (as Arthur C Clarke suggests) then all the Meta' Naturalists who are violently opposed to ID on a-religious grounds are in BIG trouble.

This appears to be what Will is driving at, and from his comments it appears he has some sympathy for ID.

Watch this space!

PB

Neither myself nor Peter or 'running scared'! Why not look at the context at what Einstein was actually saying...

You are right to cut the insults-you could start by improving your behaviour re: your post to Amenhotep-in any case your posts are an insult...

I did answer your questions in a previous post and tried to keep the answers as simple as possible...obviously not simple enough...

"I suspect DD and Pete are running scared either because they cant grapple with these issues, or they are afraid of the conclusions, or perhaps both."

You are funny!

Why not have a go at the long list of questions that you seemingly cannot answer-see Peter's post 141

Never said science is synonymous with truth rather the best way to evaluate evidence(more distortion).

PB for the 100th time! AIG and other creationists say that empirical evidence points towards "special creation"!!you even posted a link to it!

You have to realise that Biblical creationism is complete bunk! try and get over it! Have a look at Peter's posts again on QM

As usual your posts are a complete waste of time and a stunning example of argumentum de Torquemada', which is
the assumption that facts which run contrary to your conclusion will, if
twisted sufficiently, stretched on the rack, broken on the wheel, and
threatened with pots of boiling oil, eventually come around to support
your position.

You would really think that you would have learnt something after being caught making such an erroneous, dishonest, false statement as "Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Sigh....

PB you haven't got a clue what QM is

Hello peabrain,

Another classic post from you, thanks for that. Answering exactly none of the questions that have been asked to you. Some for almost a year now. Are you going to answer them ever (or be wiser and admit defeat) or will we soon see the first (but possibly not last) 'unanswered questions to peabrain' anniversary?

No point trying to divert attention agian pb, we know the drill. Bit rich of you to come up with a list of counter questions on the eve your 'unanswered questions to peabrain' anniversary.

You really have nothing to the list of questions then? Last chance for you peabrain. Just to remind you, here is a part of your to-answer list:

Where is that positive evidence for creationism DD has asked for so many times?

How about those intermediate feather fossils you can't explain away? Read any articles yet?

How about living animals with intermediate limbs, like emus?

Figured out how many labs can do radiometric dating yet?

Please explain your laughable 'qm has little respect for the laws of scienmce', when qm is very fundamentally the laws of science for everything on a none-too-large a scale.

Do you admit that your own link on cathastrophism dug your own grave on yet another subject, giving the non-believers here yet more ammo against you?

And how about ID being crushed in the Dover trial, with the creationists shown to be so horribly dishonest. You fit well amomg them. And yet you defend ID?

Last chance peabrain before oficially declaring the complete and total bankruptcy of your views pb. You have really absolutely, totally nothing then on anything put to you so many times?

Peter

WOW.

Why be so scared of Dr William Crawley's questions?

- What constitutes "proper science"?

- How should we recognise "pseudo-science"?

- What should (and should not) be taught in state-financed science classrooms?

- What is the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural"?

- Can "metaphysical naturalism" be sustained in a quantum-mechanical world?

Why are these words so terrifying?

??????????????????????????

PB

Errrr PB,

I did answer these questions in post 142, I did try to keep them as simple as possible but...obviously not simple enough...

"Can "metaphysical naturalism" be sustained in a quantum-mechanical world?"

This one has been answered countless times-it's nonsensical in that I see no connection between my contention that ghosts, ghoulies, goblins,Zeus etc etc do not exist and QM.

Now PB there are some long standing questions that you have failed to answer...

And PB do you not think that you should apologise to the gentle readers of this blog for the dishonest, deceitful, misleading, false statements you have made?

'qm has little respect for the laws of scienmce',

and...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Quite disgraceful-no *true* Christian would sink to such depths.

DD & PK
Apologies for the long delay in getting back on this issue - but there was a lot of material to read.

Before I get into any detail on the dating of rocks can I ask a question to those that know more about these things than me.

If I were to take a rock and send it to a lab to be dated, would the lab require me to provide any additional information e.g. where was the rock from, what was the geological history of the area etc?

Yeti
Thank you for your pointers for a young earth, I hopefully will get time to look at these later.

Layman

Hello layman,

Don't worry about taking some time to respond. Nothing you missed in the meantime, other than DD and me knocking peabrains waste-of-keystroke posts :)

"If I were to take a rock and send it to a lab to be dated, would the lab require me to provide any additional information e.g. where was the rock from, what was the geological history of the area etc?"

It should not really be necessary, although if you provide any such data it might speed up the process of getting an answer. Suppose you hand in an old specimen without any info, a lab might first try for a method involving some element with short decay time. Since the specimen is so old, all the short-lived unstable isotope would be gone already. So they would then have to try a method with an isotope with a longer half life. And so on, untill they find a measureable quantity of parent isotope.

If you e. g. hand in a rock sample that comes from a volcano that you know erupted between 10 and 15 thousand years ago, they could immediately pick a suitable element to test for and get a useful reading the first time. So it would be helpful to provide info, but strictly it should not be necessary.

greets,
Peter

Hi Peter

theres no need to racket on calling pb a "peabrain". thats just arogance, sugesting that pb cant understand you because he has some kind of inferior intelect, get over yourself mate. we dont need it.

am

Hello am,

Ok, just the abbreviated form then again from now on :)

greets,
Peter

Layman

In answer to your question, first remember that there are very few people that arent laymen in this discussion, me included.

It is worth looking at the qualifications and expressed beliefs of those you are questioning.

Even scientists with phds in one area are not guaranteed to know any more than you (yes even you) in another and it doesnt matter if they are batting for evolution or creationism in this regard.

As you are a layman like me, why not look up the subject in Encylopaedia Britannica, or perhaps our illustrious posters can suggest some other entry level science reference work that is not specifically activist oriented.

It would be my understanding that tests can be done without backround knowledge of the case.

But I also understand that the tests considered most transparent and reliable are done with pickles of rock which are very, very carefully selected.

Please bear in mind that you CANT test any rock which has a fossil in it as these are sedmintary; only igenous rocks can be radiometric tested.

Here are some thoughts from a young earth creationist who has a phd in geology. However, from memory I dont think even he has the expertise to do the radiometric tests himself;-

To me it seems the young earthers have not proven a young earth but simply raised the question as to how scientific it is to project the activity of radioactive materials over 4.6bn years based on measurementst taken over 90 years.

This phd, Snelling, argues that such extrapolation is "special pleading" that would normally be laughed out of court by the science community but that it is allowed in this case to bolster evolution.

PB

DD, Pete

Well guys I have been giving you some time but it now seems you have all but surrendered.

HOW DOES SCIENCE DEFINE SUPERNATURAL?

It appears to me that science has no meaningul definition and that this issue is certainly debated.

This being the case, how can we be consistent if we dismiss ID but embrace string theory, for example?

What is the difference between protoscience and the supernatural for example?

If arbitrary definitions are used to discriminate this suggests the "scientists" concerned are not judging by objective standards but by personal prejudice and stifling legitimate scientific discussion on this basis.

This would appear to be the relevance of the questions William Crawley is raising in his post on "Festival of Science" see post 149.

In that entry Will said ID (as opposed to creationism) "conducts its business in the currency of science".

So William obviousy believes ID has scientific credibility and has challenged DD, Amen and Peter Klaver among others to define where the demarcation line is between natural and supernatural.

/blogs/ni/2007/09/the_god_debate_at_the_festival_1.html

Over to you guys.

PB

The answer you are looking for is Occam's Razor pb.

Hi GW long time since we spoke.

How exactly do you think Occam's Razor illuminates this issue?

PB

GW/Amen/DD/Pete

Interesting extract from wikipedia on demarcation problem;-

Kuhn and paradigm shifts

Thomas Kuhn, an American historian of science, has proven very influential in the philosophy of science, and is often connected with what has been called postpositivism or postempiricism. In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn divided the process of doing science into two different endeavors, which he called normal science and extraordinary science (which he sometimes also called revolutionary science). The process of "normal" science is what most scientists do while working within the what he calls the current accepted paradigm of the scientific community, and within this context Karl Popper's ideas on falsification as well as the idea of a scientific method still have some currency. This sort of work is what Kuhn calls "problem solving": working within the bounds of the current theory and its implications for what sorts of experiments should or should not be fruitful. However, during the process of doing "normal" science, Kuhn claimed, anomalies are generated, some of which lead to an extension of the dominant "paradigm" in order to explain them, and others for which no satisfactory explanation can be found within the current model. When enough of these anomalies have accumulated, and scientists within the field find them significant (often a very subjective judgment), a "crisis period" is begun, Kuhn argues, and some scientists begin to participate in the activity of "extraordinary" science. In this phase, it is recognized that the old model is fundamentally flawed and cannot be adapted to further use, and totally new (or often old and abandoned) ideas are looked at, most of which will be failures. But during this time, a new "paradigm" is created, and after a protracted period of "paradigm shift," the new paradigm is accepted as the norm by the scientific community and integrated into their previous work, and the old paradigm is banished to the history books. The classic example of this is the shift from Maxwellian/Newtonian physics to Einsteinian/Quantum physics in the early 20th century. If the acceptance or failure of scientific theories relied only on simple falsification, according to Kuhn, then no theory would ever survive long enough to be fruitful, as all theories contain anomalies.

The process by which Kuhn said a new paradigm is accepted by the scientific community at large does indicate one possible demarcation between science and pseudoscience, while rejecting Popper's simple model of falsification. Kuhn instead argued that a new paradigm is accepted mainly because it has a superior ability to solve problems that arise in the process of doing normal science. That is, the value of a scientific paradigm is its predictive power and its ability to suggest solutions to new problems while continuing to satisfy all of the problems solved by the paradigm that it replaces. Pseudoscience can then be defined by a failure to provide explanations within such a paradigm.

Demarcation can be problematic in cases where standard scientific ways (experiments, logic, etc.) of assessing a theory or a hypothesis cannot be applied for some reason. An example would be of differentiating between the scientific status of metereology or medicine, on the one hand, and astrology, on the other; all these fields repeatedly fail to accurately predict what they claim to be able to predict, and all are able to explain the regular failure of their predictions.[3]

Interesting extracts from wikipedia on supernatural;-

This is a view largely held by monists and process theorists. According to this view, the "supernatural" is just a term for parts of nature that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand, similar to how sound and lightning used to be mysterious forces to science. Materialist monists believe that the "supernatural" are just things in the physical universe not yet understood by modern science while idealist monists reject the concept of "supernatural" on the grounds that they believe "nature" is the non-material. Neutral monists maintain that "nature" and "supernature" are artificial categories as they believe that the material and non-material are both either equally real and simultaneously existent, or illusions that stem from the human mind's interpretation of reality.

so what is YOUR definition of supernatural guys?

PB

Hello pb,

I have too little time to reply to all your new nonsense tonight, but I'll take care of your post 155.
Again you demonstrate your very elementary misunderstanding of science by focussing on peoples authority rather than what they say. You once again tout peoples phds and do even worse by explicitly wanting to bring in peoples beliefs. How unscientific. Try presenting substance rather then putting the spotlight on the messenger.

Talking of 'the messenger', you wrote

"perhaps our illustrious posters can suggest some other entry level science reference work that is not specifically activist oriented."

The Wiens article on dating methods is an an excellent start. It's quite extensive and easily written. And you could hardly complain about the author. If there is any activist agenda in there it is an explicitly christian one. But even when judged by a standard that is so favourable to you, your position is still a lost one.

And then yet more phd-carrying creationist touting:

"This phd, Snelling, argues that such extrapolation is "special pleading" that would normally be laughed out of court by the science community but that it is allowed in this case to bolster evolution."

Did you know that Snelling got his phd by writing real scientific articles, confirming the old age of course:

There you have it pb. Not one yec has ever done a proper bit of creationist science. So the usual way for creationism-touting nuts to come up with phds is to bring in phds from unrelated fields. Or even more ridiculous in the case you point out: tout a guy who got his phd doing some proper science (importantly: the old age is all over his scientific writings), then completely disavow the basis he got his phd for. Then write yec rubbish and pretend that it is supported by the guys phd, while what he wrote in his scientific career actually disspells his yec rubbish. Is such contradictory rubbish the best you can come up with pb? I don't need to do argue anything here, do I? I'll just sit back, relax, and see how the work of your touted creationist phd cancels itself out completely.

Peter

Occams razor states that the theory thay postulates the smallest number of undemonstrable entities is the most likely.

It is a question that throws light on scientific v supernatural.

Supernatural is not science. It is not measurable, visible etc, nor can it's existence be deduced from those things which are measurable or visible etc.

Religion is an excellent example.

More stunning examples of argumentum de Torquemada', which is
the assumption that facts which run contrary to your conclusion will, if
twisted sufficiently, stretched on the rack, broken on the wheel, and
threatened with pots of boiling oil, eventually come around to support
your position.

Any chance of answering those questions PB? some are very, very old...

Any chance of an apology for the blatant untruths you have told?

How do you reconcile this with your alleged Christianity?

Ever hear of cognitive dissonance?

PB

"It is worth looking at the qualifications and expressed beliefs of those you are questioning."

Lol!!! please do Layman, ask why in AIG you have to belong to the extremes of Protestant fundamentalism and why you have to sign a document that you *MUST* agree with Ken Ham? I have asked PB on numerous occasions to name the same document that the rest of the world scientific community have to sign but have got...nothing! The thing is that the religious opinions in science are immaterial and a non-starter-you examine the evidence deductively rather than subjectivley.

Encyclopaedia Britannica is a good point to look at, unfortunately for PB he perverts, contorts, twists the data for his own purposes indeed it's argumentum de Torquemada', which is
the assumption that facts which run contrary to your conclusion will, if
twisted sufficiently, stretched on the rack, broken on the wheel, and
threatened with pots of boiling oil, eventually come around to support
your position. Poor old PB has been caught doing this on numerous occasions eg., catrastrophism mainstream, QM, Phylogeny, Jesus(which is my personal favourite on the Belfast Biblical flood thread in which PB leaves the first paragraph out of a 3 paragraph article and states boldly that the Enc Brit says something it doesn't actually say!?!and this was an article on Jesus!!).

I have posted links many, many times to usenet groups of working scientists but PB never goes on them-because he is not interested.

Strange how PB should link to AIG when he has exclaimed on many occasions his "evidence" is supernatural yet links to a site that claims empirical support! you can't have it both ways PB! Could you name an independent experiment that would confirm Snelling opinions? Also I did inform you before that science has to produce results so...could you name me all the oil, mineral, natural resource companies(their bottom line is money)who use Biblical creationist "science"? should be easy and did ask this before...

And PB why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods eg., radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archaeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

As for post 156 we haven't surrendered anything(bit hypocritical coming from you since there is a rather long list of questions that are unanswered from you-but more on that later)

"In that entry Will said ID (as opposed to creationism) "conducts its business in the currency of science".

Yes it does but that does not mean that it is! basically ID is Biblical creationism with a GCSE in Media studies (E grade).

"So William obviousy believes ID has scientific credibility"

Err no...more argumentum de Torquemada

ID has no scientific credibility whatsoever like creationism(all forms) it's crap indeed crap on so may different levels. (and Will did not challenge "us")

Strange that you are now best buddies with Will when not that long ago you were slagging him off at every opportunity for putting up posts that according to you slagged off Bible-believers!?

Now PB there is a list of questions that you have failed/refused to answer and we are all growing sick of your well-worn diversionary tactics so here they are again...

"Where is that positive evidence for creationism DD has asked for so many times?

How about those intermediate feather fossils you can't explain away? Read any articles yet?

How about living animals with intermediate limbs, like emus?

Figured out how many labs can do radiometric dating yet?

Please explain your laughable 'qm has little respect for the laws of scienmce', when qm is very fundamentally the laws of science for everything on a none-too-large a scale.

Do you admit that your own link on cathastrophism dug your own grave on yet another subject, giving the non-believers here yet more ammo against you?

And how about ID being crushed in the Dover trial, with the creationists shown to be so horribly dishonest. You fit well amomg them. And yet you defend ID?

Also...And PB do you not think that you should apologise to the gentle readers of this blog for the dishonest, deceitful, misleading, false statements you have made?

'qm has little respect for the laws of scienmce',

and...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

Have you heard of cognitive dissonance?

I was wondering how you reconcile telling blatant untruths, perverting information etc to back up the "truth " of the Bible?

Regards

DD

Peter

Would you expect a phd in nuclear physics to be an expert in molecular biology? No sane person would, so the area of a person's phd is very revelant.

For example, you Peter, a phd in physics, presented me a with a research paper on feather evolution which you thought defended evolution.

In fact the author admitted it was a model based theory with little concrete evidence to support it.

Ask an expert in the field you are interested in - not an expert in a field you are not interested it.

The link you gave on Snelling confirms that he refers to commonly held classification terms for rock strata such as Archean and Lower Proterozoic.

The critic of Snelling has to interpret these to the reader to press the argument that Snelling is thereby endorsing that these terms are generally understood to be millions of years old.

Snelling nowhere said he believed these terms mean the rocks were millions of years old.

Saying all that, I am not a died in the wool young earther BTW.

Lastly ref Wien, he actively campaigns for an old earth perspective and is pretty qualified to do so. However, he is coming out and arguing against a young earth position so I would consider him an activist.

My suggestion to Layman was that he read up on the matter from objective mainstream experts who are not out to prove a point, but who simply want to explain current understanding.

I think that is the best route to an objective understanding but I will let Layman make up his own mind.

DD

I most certainly never selectively quoted end brit article on Christ and elshewere you accepted this as I recall.

I quoted a stand alone summary article and DD is talking about the in-depth one.

ref cpgniative dissonance, you are suggesting I am trygin to reconsile totally conflicting viewpoints illogically.

But all I am asking you and Amen/DD/Pete/GW is;-

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS A WORKABLE DEFINITION FOR "SUPERNATURAL" OR IS THIS AN ARBITRARY TERM USED BY CERTAIN SCIENTISTS TO STIFLE DISCUSSION ON MATTERS WHICH INFRINGE ON THEIR PERSONAL [A-]SPIRITUAL OPINIONS?

I notice GW/Amen/Pete/DD are all strangely silent on this matter and doing their utmost to drag me down into old matters.

I assure you it was not I that created the wikipedia entries linked on post 159.

Kuhn seems to be an internationally respected figure on science.

I am amazed at how such objective minded steadfastly refuse to even discuss these matters.

GW - I dont think you have eplained anything ref Occam's Razor and supernatural but am willing to see you make your case.

Lastly, why is Dr Will Crawley, after interviewing many of the top minds on this topic, arguing that ID conducts its business in scientific currency while challenging scientists to define exactly what they mean by the term "supernatural"?

Who has the guts to pick up this gauntlet?

DD?

Amen?

Pete?

GW?

I am standing in front of all four of you waiting, me a laymen and two of you with phds in science.

When you're ready, come one; come all.

Who has the guts?

PB

PB

You are funny!

"My suggestion to Layman was that he read up on the matter from objective mainstream experts who are not out to prove a point, but who simply want to explain current understanding."

Too true! so stay away from clap-trap that dresses itself up as "science" such as AIG and is anything but objective!!! and you do realise PB that by asking Layman to look at objective evidence that you are cutting your own throat?

So Wiens is "activist" because he does not take the YEC position!? you still do not realise after all this time PB that YEC is crap-indeed crap on so many different levels(and this is an another example of the either/or fallacy eg., if a is false b must be true without taking into consideration c, d, e...z)

"I most certainly never selectively quoted end brit article on Christ and elshewere you accepted this as I recall."

More dishonesty! you certainly did selectively "quote" the Enc Brit article and *nowhere* did I accept this-more distortion!

The piece was not standalone-you removed the 1st paragraph and stated the the Enc Brit said something that it did not say.

"ref cpgniative dissonance, you are suggesting I am trygin to reconsile totally conflicting viewpoints illogically."

Yes(though you may think that you are doing it logically).

The supernatural question was answered as usual your argument is argumentum de Torquemada', which is
the assumption that facts which run contrary to your conclusion will, if
twisted sufficiently, stretched on the rack, broken on the wheel, and
threatened with pots of boiling oil, eventually come around to support
your position.

Will is saying that ID conducts it's business in "scientific currency"-he is correct! ID is dressed up to look scientific but...it ain't!

It's not a question of trying to drag up old matters it's just trying to make you answer some very bold statements which you continually run away from and hope we forget.

Where is that positive evidence for creationism DD has asked for so many times?

How about those intermediate feather fossils you can't explain away? Read any articles yet?

How about living animals with intermediate limbs, like emus?

Figured out how many labs can do radiometric dating yet?

Please explain your laughable 'qm has little respect for the laws of scienmce', when qm is very fundamentally the laws of science for everything on a none-too-large a scale.

Do you admit that your own link on cathastrophism dug your own grave on yet another subject, giving the non-believers here yet more ammo against you?

And how about ID being crushed in the Dover trial, with the creationists shown to be so horribly dishonest. You fit well amomg them. And yet you defend ID?

and a new one...

Could you name an independent experiment that would confirm Snelling opinions? Also I did inform you before that science has to produce results so...could you name me all the oil, mineral, natural resource companies(their bottom line is money)who use Biblical creationist "science"? should be easy and did ask this before...

Also...And PB do you not think that you should apologise to the gentle readers of this blog for the dishonest, deceitful, misleading, false statements you have made?

'qm has little respect for the laws of scienmce',

and...

"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."

(some of these are over a year and a half old!!!)

And as for those ad hominems on the scientists on this thread...I did post many, many links to groups in which you could ask scientists working in related fields questions. Try and be honest for once PB and just admit that you are not interested and your only purpose on these threads is to waste peoples time.

PB

Here's a definition I would agree with...

It all depends on what you define as the supernatural? Because theists cannot agree on what is supernatural and what aspects of the supernatural would like to see admitted into science?

Layman

I would urge you to look at the objective evidence in all this.

PB

Could you name one piece of objective, credible and verifiable evidence that would back up YEC(just to help Layman out).

And you still have a long list of questions that you have failed to answer from a while back...

Hello layman,

Pbs answers are again less than honest. To spot some of his distortions you would have had to have followed this blog for a while longer (like the theoretical paper on evolution, he came up with that one, I never held that up as an example for evolution). But the Snelling example is blatantly shameless and obvious to all. Snelling is quoted as

"The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550掳 to 630掳 C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

So, sediments of 1870 to 1800 million years old then. So based on Snellings own work it's bye bye young earth. Yet stunningly pb manages to claim that Snellings writing do not go against a young earth and he says that Snellings words require 'interpretation' to read an old age paradigm into it. Do you think it requires interpretaion? This is an excellent example of pbs way of doing things.

We've been on threads like this with pb before. It won't end any time soon. If you have some time you could perhaps give us your verdict sofar. Or if you're pressed for time just your opinion on pbs spin on Snellings old/young earth quotes.

greets,
Peter

Hi Peter,

I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on string theory and it's apparent relation to ID as given by PB. I would be genuinely be interested to hear your opinion.

Does appear that Snelling has a severe case of cognitive dissonance!

PB,

Lets put all this to bed...

Show us the objective evidence for YEC and make it credible and verifiable(1 would do to start).

As I mentioned before a simple definition of science is that it has to produce results and psuedo-science doesn't.

Science operates on the principle of naturalism.
We accept the findings of science for the purely pragmatic reason that
science produces results. This includes quantum mechanics, by the way.
If science did not produce results, we would abandon it as a tool of
enquiry.

As science continues to produce results, why should we abandon it,
especially as the demand is that we abandon it in favour of a failed
paradigm?

Could you show me could you name me all the oil, mineral, natural resource companies(their bottom line is money)who use Biblical creationist "science"? should be easy and did ask this before...

Is there any observation which was predicted by your "theory"?

Do vaccines, computers and suspension bridges usually work as predicted.

Lets put this to bed because I think that everyone is becoming bored...

Off for the weekend-have a good one everyone!

Hi Peter,

I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on string theory and it's apparent relation to ID as given by PB. I would be genuinely be interested to hear your opinion.

Does appear that Snelling has a severe case of cognitive dissonance!

PB,

Lets put all this to bed...

Show us the objective evidence for YEC and make it credible and verifiable(1 would do to start).

As I mentioned before a simple definition of science is that it has to produce results and psuedo-science doesn't.

Science operates on the principle of naturalism.
We accept the findings of science for the purely pragmatic reason that
science produces results. This includes quantum mechanics, by the way.
If science did not produce results, we would abandon it as a tool of
enquiry.

As science continues to produce results, why should we abandon it,
especially as the demand is that we abandon it in favour of a failed
paradigm?

Could you show me could you name me all the oil, mineral, natural resource companies(their bottom line is money)who use Biblical creationist "science"? should be easy and did ask this before...

Is there any observation which was predicted by your "theory"?

Do vaccines, computers and suspension bridges usually work as predicted.

Lets put this to bed because I think that everyone is becoming bored...

Off for the weekend-have a good one everyone!

Hi Peter,

I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on string theory and it's apparent relation to ID as given by PB. I would be genuinely be interested to hear your opinion.

Does appear that Snelling has a severe case of cognitive dissonance!

PB,

Lets put all this to bed...

Show us the objective evidence for YEC and make it credible and verifiable(1 would do to start).

As I mentioned before a simple definition of science is that it has to produce results and psuedo-science doesn't.

Science operates on the principle of naturalism.
We accept the findings of science for the purely pragmatic reason that
science produces results. This includes quantum mechanics, by the way.
If science did not produce results, we would abandon it as a tool of
enquiry.

As science continues to produce results, why should we abandon it,
especially as the demand is that we abandon it in favour of a failed
paradigm?

Could you show me could you name me all the oil, mineral, natural resource companies(their bottom line is money)who use Biblical creationist "science"? should be easy and did ask this before...

Is there any observation which was predicted by your "theory"?

Do vaccines, computers and suspension bridges usually work as predicted.

Lets put this to bed because I think that everyone is becoming bored...

Off for the weekend-have a good one everyone!

PB,

My point re Occam's razor is the postulated existence of a deity. This is an unecssary addition and by Occam's tent (Occam was a monk by the way) a deity is a superfluous addition.

clear enough?

(disclaimer: the next post is lengthy and off-topic for this thread)

Hi DD,

"I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on string theory and it's apparent relation to ID as given by PB. I would be genuinely be interested to hear your opinion."

Pb has thrown about the names of a lot of fancy theories, obviously he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Let's look at other theories that were the state of the art previously, before turning to string theory.

When Newton formulated classical mechanics it seemed to describe everything there was. So for almost two centuries it was thought to be the final answer to all questions. Not just obvious examples like the orbit of a canon ball, but also things like the blood flowing through your veins. You can describe that by assigning a vicosity to blood, factor in the pressure your hart exerts when it contracts and voila, you will predict with reasonable accuracy how your blood flows through your aorta.
The canon ball and blood flow are two examples of models on different levels. For a canon ball (if we neglect the drag the air exerts on it) the Newtonian picture with only very small assumptions (like the air drag) is the perfect answer. Dropping an object in a vacuum tube would be described just about perfectly. The blood flow example on the other hand involves various assumptions, like approximating a blood vessel like a small round tube (when it isn't perfectly circular of course), and approximating blood as a continuum medium that can be described with a single parameter, the viscosity. The model can still be quite accurate, but not perfect of course.
We could make things much more perfect by taking a much more detailed look of blood. We could calculate the forces on all individual cells in it, proteins dissolved in the water etc. That's undoable of course since the number of particles would be so astronomical. But a Newtonian picture would do, and be more accurate to describe e. g. local fluctuations in blood celldensity than the model where all characteristics are shoved into one average viscosity (and therefore can't handle fluctuations at all). So you see some models are more fundamental than others.

No matter how detailed a picture you take of something like atoms and electrons, a Newtonian picture will never do. If you approximate atom cores and electrons as little balls with opposite charge, then why don't they attract each other and why does all matter not implode on itself? Classical mechanics just can't capture certain things on very fine length scales. Nor can it it handle things on very large scales like the formation of galaxy clusters. This is where quantum mechanics and relativity come in. They each describe their own world astoundingly well. They are the most fundamental physical laws we have. Simpler models are benchmarked against them to see. Some predictions that have been made from them have been verified experimentally to be correct to something like 14 digits behind the comma. Most impressive.

So we have two models that can handle anything from very small to very large scales. So why are there any open questions left then? Well, in the same way that it's undoable to describe blood flow by taking into account every individual particle in it, qm and relativity are mathematically very difficult to wield. I do qm calculations for a living and even the most powerful computers in the world start crying when you make them calculate systems of more than a few thousand atoms. So we have two models to answer everything, but we can only apply them to a very limited (although growing) range of problems.

Then why not just wait untill computers are so powerfull that they can capture every electron in e. g. mouse brain so that we can simulate e. g. thought processes etc too? Why bother with this extremely complicated thing called string theory? QM and relativity are bafflingly good in their own field, but they fail in each others. QM deals with three interactions (strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism) that are powerful but short range. Extremely good for describing e. g. how matter sticks together, not good for explaining why the planets orbit the sun. On the other hand relativity deals with a fourth interaction (gravitation) that is weak but long range. If your body was tied together only by gravitation the smallest pat on the back would make you disintegrate. String theory seeks to be a framework that describes it all. A single theory capable of explaining anything on any scale. As with the example of blood flow modelled by Newtonian mechanics, keep in mind that a theory that can explain and predict all will not be easy to apply to everything. But theorists are looking for 'the theory of everything', and string theory is the leading candidate.

How does string theory relate to evolution? Hardly at all. As with qm, there are so many levels of complexity and scale between string theory and even a single chromosome that it is laughable for pb to bring in fancy, fundamental theories. That's just 'how to bluff your way out of a lost situation'. Nice tried for pb, but wrong person to try it on, as that stuff is what I spend many of my working hours on.

DD

Congrats, you have acutally attempted to address the question, albeit you are not demonstrating that you have really understood it. ie you are simply providing a link to someone else's thoughts.

You're missing the point though, I never said that string theory relates to evolution.

Nor have I rejected naturalism, which your link attempts to equate as a default position for creationists.

I just reject the metaphyscial addition to naturalism made by some which asserts there is def no God or supernatural, rather than concluding they are unproven which is the true position of the non-metaphysical variety of naturalism.

You will note that on your link it says many scientists who use naturalism but belive in more than nature; that is the voice of a metaphysical naturalist using ordinary naturalists as a fig leaf to cover the nakedness of his unscientific spiritual opinion.

You will also note that your link does not acutally attempt to define "supernatural" BTW,

ergo it would appear to defend an arbitrary position which suits its current position as the dominant ideology.

ie constructive ambuguity puts IDers on the back foot; before they even get a chance to debate the science they are forbidden a seat at the table.

It also says "supernatural" is accepted if it can show observable results. But what if those wanting to argue their case are forbidden from making it because its proposed orogin is supernatural?

ie you are not allowed to make a scientific argument for your "supernatural" theory becuase we deem it "supernatural".

And no, we refuse to give a working definition of supernatural as this would allow you to work to resolve the alleged shortcomings of your theory and give it a scientific footing.

I ask again, what is the difference between proto-science and the supernatural?

How much of Quantum Theory is purely concept with no evidence? worm holes? faster than light travel? etc etc

Without any question, ID was not thrown our of the Dover trial because it was not credible science (the judge carefully said it might be and that he took no position on this).

It was ruled out only on the grounds that it was thought to have a Deity as the cause.

The judge explicitly took no position on its observable results (evidence) but barred it because some scientists highlighted the potential supernatural origins it had.

That is actually not decision making on the grounds of good science; that is decision making on the grounds of religious prejudice (ie pre-judging the evidence using your subjective religious convictions).

That is metaphysical naturalism (as opposed to simple naturalism) in action.

The argument for intelligent design was itself prejudged by a secular interpretation of the US constitution (ir freedom of religion or freedom from religion?)

So how can you make an argument to your peers that ID is scientific if they rule out discussion on the grounds that it is supernatural?

This scientist participated in such an attempt and he was persecuted and hounded;-

read post 159 again!

ref Layman and radiometric testing, I think he should read Wiens and AIG and both sides generally if he wants to understand the debate.

I am simply suggesting that he uses mainstream reference works (which incidentally are against my position) to build a foundation of knowledge as both sides could be liable to a non-neutral arguments in order to bolster their cases.

I wont dispute Peter's claim that I know little about QM, but I will ask him once again to explain why Einstain used the term "spooky" to describe aspects of it???

I never heard a answer to this Peter but I dont see much difference between "spooky" and "supernatural!"

GW, so a deity is an unncessary addition? That sounds just a tad subjective. If you accept the view that science is largely descriptive you still have to explain the origin of the processes, ie eventally the origin of matter and the origin of the first cause of the universe.

It appears to me the Dawkins approach is to take God's creation apart in a lab and declare that God is not in it. Ok, if you want to know how a liver works fair enough, but in the bigger picture that seems just a tad myopic to me.

First cause of universe? Origins of matter? Origins of life from inaanimate matter?

If all is order from chaos by chance why should scientific laws be constant and why would we expect them to be?

Why would occam's razor work consistently if there was nobody keeping the laws of the universe stable?

Does order really come from chaos without intelligent guidance?

Thanks for the contributions guys

PB

PS I am going down to hear this guy speaking this Friday night in Co Down if anyone is interested in looking at evidence for God I will give you details.

Ever heard of a gangster who was reformed by atheism and freed from drug addiciton by belief in nothing?

Here you have demonstrable results and he is claiming a supernatual cause.

I would like to see the athiest's control experiment!

/tyne/content/articles/2007/07/24/davey_falcus_faith_feature.shtml

to clarify, I am sure there will be reformed gangsters out there who were not inspired by Christ.

But even I could take you to meet dozens of people who have been inspired and empowered to rescue their lives from chaos through God.

Could any of you take me to dozens who were empowered to do the same through belief in nothing?

Surely there has got to have been some formal studies on this type of thing?

Thanks for that Peter!

PB

You wrongly equated string theory with ID and wrongly and dishonestly equated QM with evolution.

It would help if you could define what you mean by supernatural.

Theistic scientists are not a problem for me but rather for you.

Supernatural is beyond nature-ok?

Proto-science is something like alchemy which became chemistry eg., it produced results. The supernatural doesn't.

"Without any question, ID was not thrown our of the Dover trial because it was not credible science (the judge carefully said it might be and that he took no position on this)."

Wrong, wrong, wrong! it was thrown out because it was shown to entirely *un*-credible. The Judge said no such thing and we have been over Dover many, many times with you. You still do not get how much a massive kick in the clinkers Dover was to the ID movement-quite incredible how you continually distort and twist things.

It was ruled out because it was shown to be crap(this was gone over with you before).

The Judge did rule on the evidence eg., irreducible complexity was shown to be garbage ironically by a Christian Ken Miller.

ID is the evolved version of Biblical creationism(though they are mutually exclusive positions) and the case illustrated perfectly how dishonesty of religious fundamentalists.

I did read post 159 again and again it is the old argumentum di Torquemada-it is not saying what you think it says-in fact it is against what you are arguing.

"The process by which Kuhn said a new paradigm is accepted by the scientific community at large does indicate one possible demarcation between science and pseudoscience, while rejecting Popper's simple model of falsification. Kuhn instead argued that a new paradigm is accepted mainly because it has a superior ability to solve problems that arise in the process of doing normal science. That is, the value of a scientific paradigm is its predictive power and its ability to suggest solutions to new problems while continuing to satisfy all of the problems solved by the paradigm that it replaces. Pseudoscience can then be defined by a failure to provide explanations within such a paradigm."

By that definition creationism and ID are pseudoscience.

Again the "spooky" thing was you getting the wrong twist on it.

I am glad you brought up the article from AIG as it illustrated the moral, intellectual bankrupcy of the creationist movement! You are still under the mistaken impression that creationism and science are somehow on an equal footing and fighting it out-creationism is non-starter.

PB what you mean by this whole convoluted argument with the supernatural is a very narrow definition eg., the "supernaturalism" of Protestant fundamentalism. The reason why they are rejected is the same reason why astrology, alchemy, haruspication, necromancy, ornithomancy, and witchcraft are rejected from our science courses. Because they aren't science-simple as that! and science has to produce results pseudo-science doesn't.

You do not have to run away and hide behind this as Biblical creationism and ID have been tested.

PB you were caught red-handed telling blatant untruths, twisting perverting information on this thread(and others)how do you justify this to yourself and your so-called defence of the truth of the Bible?

You still have many questions that you left unanswered...want to give them a go and stop wasting peoples precious time?

Btw would you include geo-centrism in your definition of what is "science"?

PB

I have understood what you are attempting to say-you have equated evolution with metaphysical naturalism in that it's that tired old canard that evolution is the faith of the atheists etc etc yawn! It is ironic that you should criticise anyone for failing to answer questions when there is a long list of questions that you cannot answer.

You did relate string theory to ID and I wanted some clarification.

You cannot reject naturalism as your whole life revolves around it-you cannot live your life around creationism as it simply doesn't work-it's garbage!

Reject all you want the metaphysical addition to naturalism-that's your right! You do love your argumentum di Torquemada PB! all spirituality is unscientific!

Well supernatural is outside nature and therefore can't be tested and if it could be tested it would be 'natural'. No single irrefutable example of such a phenomenon exists.

How do you define the supernatural PB? If it can't be tested then ergo all claims of the supernatural are equally valid. If you do have a method of 'testing' it must surely just boil down to special pleading.

I am afraid that ID(iots) have had plenty of opportunity to get their feet under the table but...their claims have been shown to be dishonest and clap-trap eg., irreducible complexity-it's simply *not* science!

You have to remember PB that ID(iots) and for that matter creationists both claim that empirical testable evidence back up their claims-this has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions and you have even helpfully provided links showing this! Saying it has a supernatural cause is a red herring and in any case anyone can name a supernatural cause eg., Tharg from the planet Beetlejuice used the magic jewel in his forehead to create the world in 2001(AD)...just as valid as other supernatural explanations.

Proto-science can be shown to give results eg., alchemy became chemistry. The supernatural does not give results.

"Without any question, ID was not thrown our of the Dover trial because it was not credible science"

Oh dear PB! I am afraid that this comment and your others on Dover(and indeed any scientific subject)only reveals your stunning wilful ignorance. We have tried to help you in the past understand Dover but to no avail. Why not have a look at what Judge Jones *actually* said not what you think he said...

First off Judge Jones described the whole ID case as "breathtaking inanity"(a phrase which could also be used to describe your posts).

" (the judge carefully said it might be and that he took no position on this)."

Judge Jones said "We have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

No "carefully" about it PB Judge Jones said it!

"It was ruled out only on the grounds that it was thought to have a Deity as the cause."

Judge Jones said "Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs鈥� scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

also

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980鈥檚; and (3) ID鈥檚 negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research."

In saying that ID may be true Judge Jones is talking about the theological issue not scientific.Indeed read section 4 Judge Jones ruling on whether ID is science-he uses no "careful" language.

I did read post 159 and ironically it's against your position!

As for Sternberg more dishonesty...

Do you not think that you should apologise to Peter for misrepresenting him re: Snelling?

Why not look up what Einstein meant?

The last bit of your post is off topic but...do you not think it is a tad hypocritical of you to triumph your religion when you have been shown on this thread to have acted in a dishonest manner see post 166. Not a very good ad are you PB?

Peter

(With ref to comment 152) I got the impression from my reading that some history of the rock was required, but I may have assumed that. However I take your point that it should not be required.
If the process works by means of the iterative method you suggest there should be no fear of getting the wrong results. Given that, how do we explain the instances of known wrong results? In the material and links suggested by the bloggers I read of at least two examples of rock of known age being dated wrongly (from memory I think they were from Mount Etna and some other eruption in New Zealand).

Are there examples of dating being carried out on young rocks (say from mount Etna) that produced the right results?

Also folks I am going to opt out of commenting on the other issues under discussion, most of it is so far over my head I'm not sure I could come any where close to being able to distinguish between fact or fiction.

Thanks again folks for allowing me to interupt your interesting debate.

layman

Hello layman,

"In the material and links suggested by the bloggers I read of at least two examples of rock of known age being dated wrongly (from memory I think they were from Mount Etna and some other eruption in New Zealand)."

I'm not sure which links that refers to, could you repeat them please? Or maybe it's not important anymore, given what comes next:

"Also folks I am going to opt out of commenting on the other issues under discussion, most of it is so far over my head I'm not sure I could come any where close to being able to distinguish between fact or fiction."

Ah, pity. But if you say you can't make a sure judgement then it's not a bad idea to refrain from making one.
Perhaps I could just ask you then to look at post 168 again. Pbs suggestion that it takes 'special interpretation' to read an old earth into Snellings post is easily falsified, just from the fact that Snelling mentions rocks from 1870 to 1800 million years old. Spotting that distortion by pb doesn't require any detailed knowledge. Perhaps you could give us your opinion if anone is giving what I quoted from Snelling 'special interpretation', 'to bolster evolution' before you bow out? Or whether it is just a matter of reading plain English to know that Snelling talks of billions of years rather than the 6000 that young earthers adhere to.

greets,
Peter

LAYMAN - Peter ref 152.

If you tell the testers what period the rock came from isnt that sort of biasing the test?

I dont think radiometric testing has been discredited, but it does assume a closed system for 4.6 bn years.

How safe is this?

We already know for a fact that daughter elements can be leached out by water and that extreme heat can reset the clock you are testing.

What other surprises might be in store?

Layman - ref the tests that appear to show contradictory results - please note what I am about to say undermines the YEC position;-

I have seen reports such as this from AIG etc and to date I dont think they have proven their case. All they appear to show is that numerous tests on the same rock provide a variety of results in and around the original tests. They dont appear to give radically different results.

DD

Thanks for engaging again and discussing the issue at hand.

In post 59 I quote the Dover judge from his conclusion where he made it clear that ID "may be true" but that it "was not science", as currently defined.

How do you mean the judge could have considered ID to be theologically true but not scientifically? This just doesnt make any sense to me?

Are we talking two seperate realities?

DD you are very ewrong I do not see creationism and science battling it out.

Science is neutral and does not battle with anything. But scientists who hold a metaphyscial presumption about the supernatural clearly use the tool of science to scorn any discussion about creationism.

Kuhn was saying that major paradigm shifts occur in science. You actually can't say that ID/creationism will not cause a paradigm shift in the future.

According to Will Crawley ID has already got scientific credibility and he is hardly a "fundamentalist" Christian so perhaps the shift has already begun.

Here is a key point - who can say the difference between the supernatural and proto-science until the evidence is provided and accepted for both?

As I see it, a 747 or nuclear explosion would have seemed supernatural to Newtown, for example.

According to the wikipedia author above meteorolgy and medicine both use scientific method but dont have predictable results and should have questionable value in science.

No DD I am not equating evolution to MN. Evolution is a scientific theory which is the mainstream consensus of the scientific community and many people form all faith backgrouds would believe it to be true.

MN goes one step further and states, without scientific justification, that the "supernatural" does not and cannot exist and anyone who thinks it does is a crackpot. MNs cant back this opinion up with science though.

All that science can say is that the supernatural is unproven. Anything else is a prejudgment of any further facts that may come to light.

Ref geocentrism, I dont buy it and neither does AIG fyi.

Also FYI, just to remind you, I dont buy everything AIG says; I dont yet see hard scientific evidence for a young earth and I expect current creationist theory to find it is mistaken on different points as it progresses, both scientific and scriptural.

Definition of supernatural, I am giving you a reaction rather than a considered view but at the moment it would appear to be "anything beyond the understanding of current naturalism/current science."

If you help give a better definition it would be appreciated.

DD, sorry for my a triumphalist attitude, you are quite confrontational and it is hard not to buy in.

Ref all my "dishonesty" though sorry I just dont see it like that.

If I am discussing a subject I am unfamiliar with and use slightly incorrect terminology which I then update, in good faith, I just dont see that as dishonest.

You might ask why someone like yourself, who abides only by scientific evidence, makes countless ad hominem attacks on me, evidenced by just about every post you make.

That is anti-scientific.

Ref Steinberg, the whole affair appears to be one big ad hominem attack (do you know better?); was the evidence that was presented subjected to the normal procedures or was it subjected to special procedures (pre-judged) on account of its creationist content?

This would appear to be Dover all over again; you have written a lot but you havent even begun to refute the central point of post 174.

But credit to you, you are giving it a good go.

The question is, why has Dr Peter Klaver refused to even try?

Hi Peter,

Thanks again for your post on string theory-I found it illuminating and one plus of getting into a debate with people like PB is that my knowledge increases. I just managed to get my head round the basics of evolution when PB brought in QM and string theory. From what I have picked up on the net is that these ideas are a refuge for all sorts of cranks and weirdo's because so few people understand these concepts.

I think that Layman is referring to an earlier post by Yeti which Amenhotep answered.

The claims can be found here

Layman

Just look at the evidence dispassionately. Science has to produce results, pseudo-science doesn't. Look at the objective evidence.

If anyone is still interested PBS have done a documentary on Dover and it can be viewed here...

Hi DD,

Thanks for the link to the documentary. I has asked my Flying Spaghetti Monster Friends if any of them could record and post it. Good to know it's already online.

In the post before that you wrote

"I just managed to get my head round the basics of evolution when PB brought in QM and string theory. From what I have picked up on the net is that these ideas are a refuge for all sorts of cranks and weirdo's because so few people understand these concepts."

Absolutely. Pbs rubbish quotes like "qm has little respect for the laws of science" and "Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." display to anyone knowledgeable in the area what a total vacuum underlies his posts. I could hardly come up with worse rubbish even if I did my very best to do so. He picked the wrong audience to try to bluf with jargon.

Speaking of those FSM friends I mentioned at the beginning, you might like that group. Send me an email sometime if you'd like an introduction to a bunch of people with some knowledge and common sense about creationism who also keep up a good sense of humour about it.

greets,
Peter

Hi DD,

Thanks for the link to the documentary. I has asked my Flying Spaghetti Monster friends if any of them could record and post it. Good to know it's already online.

In the post before that you wrote

"I just managed to get my head round the basics of evolution when PB brought in QM and string theory. From what I have picked up on the net is that these ideas are a refuge for all sorts of cranks and weirdo's because so few people understand these concepts."

Absolutely. Pbs nonsense quotes like "qm has little respect for the laws of science" and "Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." display to anyone knowledgeable in the area what a total vacuum underlies his posts. I could hardly come up with anything more erroneous even if I did my very best to do so. He picked the wrong audience to try to bluf with jargon.

Speaking of those FSM friends I mentioned at the beginning, you might like that group. Send me an email sometime if you'd like an introduction to a bunch of people with some knowledge and common sense about creationism who also keep up a good sense of humour about it.

greets,
Peter

DD

Sorry but my posts have been refused for a week or so.

In that time I was reflecting and came to this conclusion;-

A perfect example of the point I am making is seen in the post that DD made here;-

In it DD reproduces William Crawley's question about how metaphysical naturalism can survive in a QM world.

DD also reproduces the Enc Brit quote about QM have abandoned the search for causation.

DD says he doesnt understand the points I am making and asks for help.

But here is the interesting part, before hearing a single reply he says he recognises the points are "fallacies".

He then asks for suggestions as to what answers he can give me.

But how can an empiricist such as DD recognise my points as "fallacies" if he doesn't understand them?

The answer is of course that he is not judging by the logic/evidence of my arguments but by his judgement that they are sympathetic to ID/creationism.

So here we have a perfect example of an evolutionist rejecting any suggestion of scientific credibility of ID/creationism on account of the religious implications.

Please note he was not judging the case by the evidence, but by his religious assumptions.

This is why William Crawley challenged listeners at the Festival of Science to define "supernatural".

Any definition I have seen to date seems to take in experimental science that is not yet proven.

Imagine Newtown watching a 747 in motion, a nuclear bomb, a satellite phone etc etc. All those things would have been beyond the understanding of science at that time and could therefore have been defined as "supernatural".

DD has well illustrated the mindset of the Dover trial in this regard, IMHO.

It rejected the argument of the IDs simply on the ground that it had religious connotations. IN other words the ID case was judged by an extreme interpretation of the US consitution, not by a consistent agreed standard of science.

Remember, the judge said ID may have been true and that he took no position on that matter.

So there we have it.

To date, no definition of supernatural has been offered on this website that would not shoot down lots of experimental science along with ID and creationism.

For example, lets see a definition of supernatural that would not lump these two projects from BAE and NASA into anti-gravity technology and faster than light travel in with ID/creationism!!!

The only way for metaphysical naturalists to keep on top is to shout loudly that ID/creationism is religion loudly enough so that nobody notices they have slipped into religious judgements, for which they have absolutely no authority to make.

Now, believe it or not there is an even bigger blooper on the talkorigins debate which ensues, amongst some obviously very well eductated people.

NOT ONE OF THEM PICKS UP ON THE PREJUDGMENT MADE BY DD BUT THEY ALL JOIN IN MAKING SNIDE COMMENTS ABOUT ME AND MY POINTS, MOST OF THEM TOTALLY MISTAKEN ABOUT WHAT I MEAN.

In other words, here you have the MV evolutionary community openly displaying their prejudgement (prejudice) when it comes to looing at ID/creationism.

There, ladies and gentlemen, is the modus operandi of the MNs in prejudging any presentation or argument in favour of ID/creationism.

Shout loudly, shout repeatedly and shout often.

Just dont let anyone notice you are not judging ID/creationism by normal scientific standards.

In truth, I honestly believe that none of them even realise they are doing it, so blinded are they by their prejudice.

PB

PS I notice Dr Peter Klaver has repeatedly attacked me personally in this discussion but has studiously avoided getting drawn into discussing the science/religion demarcation problem and the definition of "supernatual".

Can you explain why that is Pete?

///////////////////////

PPS

Here is DD's submission to talkorigins in full in relation to this subject.

Hi everyone,

I have posted a couple of times before on this group for info and
found you to be very useful and helpful.

I am in a debate with a Biblical creationist, his position is that
quantum mechanics undermines the whole of science and evolution:-his
view is "Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning
the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by
quantum science."

"I have asked for evidence to back this up, have got no peer-reviewed
papers only snippets from the Encyclopaedia Britannica like "Some
insist that genuine understanding demands explanations of the causes
of the laws, but it is in the realm of causation that there is the
greatest disagreement. Modern quantum mechanics, for example, has
given up the quest for causation and today rests only on mathematical
description." and from this he gets... "That would sort of make the
Lemon test in the Dover trial rather redundant, wouldnt it?"

"He also asks "How can your metaphysical naturalistic faith be
sustained in a quantum mechanical world?"

"I am a layman in terms of science and I am up on most creationist
fallacies and feel confident enough to discuss biology, paleontology
etc but quantum mechanics is bit beyond me from the little I can get
the length scales in quantum theory and evolution are so far apart
that it makes as much sense as measuring the distance between the
earth and the sun with a 10 inch ruler..but trying to explain that is
another matter.

"I do recognise that these are fallacies and I was wondering if any of
the contributors here could point me in the right direction for
answers.

"Any help in this matter would be appreciated.

ENDS

Oh PB!

For goodness sake get over yourself!

They are fallacies because they are not true-eg., "Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning
the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by
quantum science."

This is a wholly dishonest statement-for which the good members of this board have still to receive an apology.

In short PB I recognised it as "fallacies" because you come out with them-you do have a long, unfortunate record on these matters.

"The answer is of course that he is not judging by the logic/evidence of my arguments but by his judgement that they are sympathetic to ID/creationism."

There is *no* logic/evidence to your posts.

"So here we have a perfect example of an evolutionist rejecting any suggestion of scientific credibility of ID/creationism on account of the religious implications."

No, because it has no evidence and ID is the bastard offspring of Biblical creationism.

The Enc Brit article was you up to the old argumentum di Torquemada.

"DD has well illustrated the mindset of the Dover trial in this regard, IMHO."

Lol!

"It rejected the argument of the IDs simply on the ground that it had religious connotations. IN other words the ID case was judged by an extreme interpretation of the US consitution, not by a consistent agreed standard of science."

Again this blatant lie repeated! Judge Jones made it abundantly clear that ID is *NOT* science!

Judge Jones said "We have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Layman stated that he had difficulty in distinguishing between fact and fiction in this thread, I would urge readers to to look at what PB said and what the Judge *actually* said...

"Remember, the judge said ID may have been true and that he took no position on that matter."

The Judge *actually* said that ID may be true, he said "...ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."

Many things may be true or not true in a theological sense.

"So there we have it."

Yes indeed! there we have it! you are still as wilfully dishonest as ever!

PB it is very difficult not to make snide comments about your points as they have been shown to be dishonest-simple as that-end of!

PB if you want to be taken seriously then you should apologise for the constant dishonest, perversion of material etc etc that you have been caught doing-I am sure the good members of this board would be willing to forgive you!(not sure your god will though!).

Eg., "qm has little respect for the laws of science" and "Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." and " Catrastrophism is now mainstream" etc etc (see post 166) and the latest cracker of a dishonest statement "Without any question, ID was not thrown our of the Dover trial because it was not credible science (the judge carefully said it might be and that he took no position on this)."

PB you have to remember a very simple fact ID/creationism is crap, not only is it crap but it is dishonest crap-something that you have made abundantly clear! For that I must thank you from the bottom of my heart!

Btw I really don't see how I misrepresented you PB I just put up your "quotes"-indeed maybe if you actually checked what you said by maybe going on to talk origins usenet you would not constantly be caught out making dishonest statements-not a particularly good ad for your faith are you? After reviewing the documentary you do fit in well with the Dover "Christians" eg., 鈥淭he citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.鈥�

Cognitive dissonance PB? ever hear of it?

Oh PB!
For goodness sake get over yourself!
They are fallacies because they are not true-eg., "Current scientifc assumptions (including those underpinning
the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by
quantum science."
This is a wholly dishonest statement-for which the good members of this board have still to receive an apology.

In short PB I recognised it as "fallacies" because you come out with them-you do have a long, unfortunate record on these matters and I was shown to be 100% correct that they are indeed fallacies.

"The answer is of course that he is not judging by the logic/evidence of my arguments but by his judgement that they are sympathetic to ID/creationism."

There is *no* logic/evidence to your posts.

"So here we have a perfect example of an evolutionist rejecting any suggestion of scientific credibility of ID/creationism on account of the religious implications."

No, because it has no evidence and ID is the bastard offspring of Biblical creationism.

The Enc Brit article was you up to the old argumentum di Torquemada.

"DD has well illustrated the mindset of the Dover trial in this regard, IMHO."

Lol!

"It rejected the argument of the IDs simply on the ground that it had religious connotations. IN other words the ID case was judged by an extreme interpretation of the US consitution, not by a consistent agreed standard of science."

Again this blatant lie repeated! Judge Jones made it abundantly clear that ID is *NOT* science!
Judge Jones said "We have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Layman stated that he had difficulty in distinguishing between fact and fiction in this thread, I would urge readers to look at what PB said and what the Judge *actually* said...

"Remember, the judge said ID may have been true and that he took no position on that matter."
The Judge *actually* said "...ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."
Many things may be true or not true in a theological sense.

"So there we have it."

Yes indeed! there we have it! you are still as wilfully dishonest as ever!

PB it is very difficult not to make snide comments about your points as they have been shown to be dishonest-simple as that-end of!

PB if you want to be taken seriously then you should apologise for the constant dishonest, perversion of material etc etc that you have been caught doing-I am sure the good members of this board would be willing to forgive you!(not sure your god will though!).

Eg., "qm has little respect for the laws of science" and "Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." and " Catastrophism is now mainstream" etc etc (see post 166) and the latest cracker of a dishonest statement "Without any question, ID was not thrown our of the Dover trial because it was not credible science (the judge carefully said it might be and that he took no position on this)."

PB you have to remember a very simple fact ID/creationism is crap, not only is it crap but it is dishonest crap-something that you have made abundantly clear! For that I must thank you from the bottom of my heart!

"Just dont let anyone notice you are not judging ID/creationism by normal scientific standards."

Errr PB I have been asking you for over a year and half now for the evidence for these(mutually exclusive positions-another eg of cognitive dissonance!)and *none* is ever forthcoming-I set the bar *very* low for you but no evidence is ever forthcoming...mmm wonder why that is? maybe because you have no evidence?

Btw I really don't see how I misrepresented you PB I just put up your "quotes"-indeed maybe if you actually checked what you said by maybe going on to talk origins usenet you would not constantly be caught out making dishonest statements-not a particularly good ad for your faith are you? After reviewing the documentary you do fit in well with the Dover "Christians" eg., 鈥淭he citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.鈥�

Cognitive dissonance PB? ever hear of it?

PB

If you are so worried about Talk origins usenet saying nasty things about you why not go on to the group and post your questions? I have invited you many, many times to use this group and many others if you are genuinely interested in finding out more but sadly I have to come to the conclusion that you are not interested.

Here is the address again

As John Wayne once said "fill your boots...."

I don't know why you are asking me about QM and physics when you know I know very little about it! though it is strange that you cannot respond to Peter-is it because you cannot use your favourite little line "you are speaking about areas that are outside your expertise" on him? In any case you really should apologise for the false witnessing you did against Peter re: the Snelling article, indeed you have a lot of apologising to do!

If you detest science so much why don't you live your life by the discoveries made by the mutually exclusive positions of ID and Biblical creationism (clear case of cognitive dissonace again!)like....mmmm....errrr there don't appear to be any-oh dear!

"Just dont let anyone notice you are not judging ID/creationism by normal scientific standards."

I ask again! OK by normal scientific standards and I will make it very simple...show me how the (mutually exclusive) positions of ID/creationism are confirmed by...independent experiment. These (mutually exclusive) positions both claim empirical evidence so shouldn't be a problem.

Show me the results of Biblical creationism as a simple definition of science is that it has to produce results-show me the medical/science breakthroughs gained as a result of the creationist framework.

Btw you do know for ID to be admitted as "science" astrology would also have to be permitted so in "science" classes we would hear how since Mars is about to enter the inner ring of Uranus you are going to meet a tall, dark, handsome stranger!

Peter,

If you are about I would be interested to hear your opinion about this...

"For example, lets see a definition of supernatural that would not lump these two projects from BAE and NASA into anti-gravity technology and faster than light travel in with ID/creationism!!!"

many thanks

DD

DD I rest my case:

"Oh PB!

"For goodness sake get over yourself!......

"In short PB I recognised it as "fallacies" because you come out with them-you do have a long, unfortunate record on these matters."

So you reject my ideas on ad hominem assumptions.

How "objective, credible and verifiable".

Ref QM undermining science... if I never apologised to you, did you ever answer the challenge?

ie why must ID have causation but according to Encyclopaedia Brit, Quantum Mechanics has "abandoned the search for causation???"

I made a provoctaive statement to highlight the apparent inconsistany between these two points.

The onus is on you to explain why Enc Brit says that about QM and why Will Crawley says the QM is underming Metaphysical Naturalism.

And as far as Peter Klaver is concerned, look around you.

He high tailed it out of here when he was challenged to define "supernaturalism".

He has never even acknowledged William Crawley's philsophical questions; out of his depth????

Here's one for Peter; why should wormholes be considered legitimate science but ID should not? Where is the evidence for wormholes?

( GRAVITY CAN BE OBSERVED AND DEMONSTRATED IN LABS ALL DAY LONG PETER BUT SPECIES TO SPECIES EVOLUTION CAN NEVER BE. It is naughty of you to try and confuse the issue using gravity like this Peter ).

I can come to no conclusion but that even at Dover an arbitrary religious definition was presented in order to exclude scientific arguments for ID.

DD - My understanding of Dover is that the judge said ID was unconstitutional because of the religious implications to it.

My views on this main three points are as follows. I must make time to digest the whole case so I can comment more fully.

The Dover Judge said:

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science.

They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

MY RESPONSE: PLEASE DEFINE SUPERNATURAL IN A MANNER WHICH DOES NOT EXCLUDE ANTI-GRAVITY RESEARCH (BAE) AND FASTER THAN LIGHT TRAVEL (NASA). THIS IS WILL CRAWLEY'S POINT.

(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and

MR RESPONSE: I AGREE THAT WEAKNESSES IN EVOLUTION ARE NOT EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM.

HOWEVER, THE FOSSIL RECORD EASILY SUPPORTS CREATIONISM FAR BETTER THAN EVOLUTION. DARWIN SAID THE MAJOR LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS WAS A MAJOR WEAKNESS IN HIS THEORY WHICH WOULD BE SUPPORTED WHEN NEW TYPES OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS WERE FOUND. BUT IN FACT THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS ONLY CONFIRMED EVER MORE STRONGLY WITH THE MILLIONS OF FOSSILS FOUND SINCE THE GAPING DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN KINDS.

TO FORCE EVOLUTION AS TRUE WHILE THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISM AND UNDERMINES EVOLUTION MORE AND MORE WITH EVERY YEAR THAT PASSES SEEMS TO RUN CONTRARY TO ALL LOGIC.

REMEMBER, THE FOSSIL RECORD IS THE FOUNDATION ON WHICH ALL EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WAS FORGED AND STILL STANDS.

COMMON DESIGN IS ALSO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR A SINGLE CREATOR RATHER THAN COMMON DESCENT, SO LONG AS YOU DONT USE A RELIGIOUS PREJUDICE TO RULE OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF GOD'S EXISTENCE; EVEN DAWKINS DOESNT RULE THIS OUT!

NEITHER OF THESE POINTS (FOSSILS OR COMMON DESIGN) ARE DUALISM BUT POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF THE STRONGEST KIND IN THEIR OWN RIGHT.

(3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

MY RESPONSE: IN THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY YES. BUT A CASUAL REFERENCE BACK TO POINTS ONE AND TWO BEGS THE QUESTION OF JUST HOW SOLID THE GROUND IS ON WHICH THEY ARE STANDING. IT IS ALSO A GIVEN THE EVOLUTION IS A PROVISIONAL THEORY.

I HAVE YET TO SEE MY RESPONSES TO 1 AND 2 REFUTED. THE CHALLENGE REMAINS OPEN.

PB

DD - If you want to test the credentials of creationism / ID I suggest you do the following;-

1) Give me the exact criteria by which a theory can be accepted as legitimately scientific.

2) show how evolution fits into these criteria. one point at a time.

3) show how creationism/ID fails to fit into these criteria. one point at a time.

Please note, if you introduce any criteria for creationism that you dont use for evolution, you are making a non-scientific religious presumption and not being "objective".

This would be religious prejudice.

I suspect this will be quite informative for us all.

PB

PB

You are getting less and less funny and even becoming an even greater pain.

Well PB I admit that I did not know what you were on about and neither do you! You have got nothing right and you have been consistently and downright dishonest.

"I made a provoctaive statement to highlight the apparent inconsistany between these two points."

No PB you made a series of downright lies! for which we are still waiting on at least an acknowledgement and a t best an apology.

"The onus is on you to explain why Enc Brit says that about QM and why Will Crawley says the QM is underming Metaphysical Naturalism."

No the onus is on *you* to back up what *you* say about QM and (yet more twisting and perversion)Will never said that QM is undermining MN-it was a question and it does not mean that it has an answer. The short answer is that it doesn't.

I really can't be bothered with you any more and am absolutely sick to the back teeth of your consistent dishonesty and perversion/distortion of material.

If anyone can actually be bothered have a look at what Judge Jones actually said here...

and look at the documentary, which can be viewed here. There is an interview with Judge Jones, just try and square what he *actually* says with what PB claims he says.

The interview with Bill Buckingham is interesting, he gets all sanctimonious and self righteous about how can Christians believe in evolution-they are not "true" Christians but one thing to bear in mind is that Mr Buckingham is one of the *LIARS* named by Judge Jones in his decision. Strange how a true Christian like Buckingham can tell lies-this cognitive dissonance seems to be a feature of Bible-believers-doesn't it PB?

The rest of your post is an exercise in the argumentum di CAPSLOCK(goodness it must be true!) and an exercise in shifting the goalposts and in shifting the burden of proof. Further the points about evolution and the fossil record have been answered many, many times to you -not our fault you are too obtuse to understand them. You really think it would be easy to name one piece of objective, credible and verifiable evidence that would back up your position! If your claims about the fossil record are true then please name all the natural resource companies(oil, petrol etc etc) you use the creationist framework in their research-should be easy!

Now PB as I said I am growing rather sick of you -it is time that you started to answer a few questions that you keep ignoring, here they are again...(there are far more than this!)

"PB if you want to be taken seriously then you should apologise for the constant dishonest, perversion of material etc etc that you have been caught doing-I am sure the good members of this board would be willing to forgive you!(not sure your god will though!).

Eg., "qm has little respect for the laws of science" and "Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science." and " Catastrophism is now mainstream" etc etc (see post 166) and the latest cracker of a dishonest statement "Without any question, ID was not thrown our of the Dover trial because it was not credible science (the judge carefully said it might be and that he took no position on this)."

You really should apologise for your consistent dishonesty and perversion and distortion of evidence in order to deceive the good readers of this board.

You should apologise to all of us for your blatant false-witnessing it really is disgraceful. You do not seem to be aware but you should read the 10 commandments especially 4 & 9 (I do not see a clause that excludes you and Bill Buckingham) also you should be aware that St Paul gave a list of the people that will not enter the kingdom of heaven, amongst them include "deceivers" dear oh dear PB! I would advise you invest in an asbestos suit and factor 500 sun block!-really is not looking good for old chap!

How can you proclaim the truth of the Bible yet be so consistently dishonest? cognitive dissonance ever hear of it?

Hi Peter

With regard to my previous post (178) and rocks dated incorrectly I have attached a few links with info

As I have discovered a quick search on Google will throw up numerous sites about inaccurate dates.

Give that labs take an iterative appoach to find the best method how can this be explained?

Any comments folks?

Layman

Hello pb,

In post 188 you wrote

"He high tailed it out of here when he was challenged to define "supernaturalism"."

Wishful thinking pb. I just have better things to do sometimes than point out your increasingly ludicrous and dishonest posts. You've tried to sneak in bold posts on old abandoned threads before, thinking I was gone and you could have the last word. Do you still remember you 'Ok Pete, let's have that debate', referring to intermediate fossils? And then when I answered that post you once again came up blank. So the same question remains (nearing its birthday, next month): please give your explanation of all the intermediate fossils that have been presented to you. Similarly here on this thread, I'm not about to let you have the last word as you have once again presented nothing credible in favor of creationism. So please attend to DDs request (also quite old and often repeated already) for positive evidence of creationism.

It's also a bit rich of you to complain of ad hominems when you yourself employ such blatantly dishonest methods in the debate here. A rather annoying example of one of your distortions is:

"It is naughty of you to try and confuse the issue using gravity like this Peter"

That is so dishonest of you pb. Read my post on qm, relativity etc a while back. I know perfectly well that such fundamental laws of physics are many levels away from evolution. You brought it up when you were once again caught out posting rubbish, attempting another diversion. Very dishonest of you to try to pin your failed diversion attempt on me, when I posted at length about the IRRELEVANCE of qm, gravitation, etc in a debate about evolution. You should take DDs advice about re-reading that commandment: Thou shall not LIE.

And thanks again for demonstrating how for some, religion is the summit of anti-thinking, anti-questioning. How it's an impediment to our progress and knowledge. In post 184 you wrote

"Imagine Newtown watching a 747 in motion, a nuclear bomb, a satellite phone etc etc. All those things would have been beyond the understanding of science at that time and could therefore have been defined as "supernatural"."

The difference between thinking scientists and non-thinking religious people (which is not all religious people of course, I wouldn't paint all religious people with the same brush as you) is so clear from pbs statement above. The comparison is roughly as follows:

science: interesting thing going on there. I don't quite get it. Let's try and find out what's behind it!
religion as followed by pb: it's a miracle, it's supernatural. It must be god. Ok, that's the explanation then, no more need to think or investigate. Switch off your brains now everyone, as we have the answer.

But not content with all demonstrations he gave of his utter ignorance of science, pb also wrote

"For example, lets see a definition of supernatural that would not lump these two projects from BAE and NASA into anti-gravity technology and faster than light travel in with ID/creationism!!!"

I took the time to read the BAE greenglow project website (also in answer to your question DD). Pb, that site is not in any way the voice of science. It's some old page (dating from 1999) without a single reference to the science it's supposed to be based on. The sort of page anyone (maybe even you) could have put up. We may actually agree on this one pb! I don't think that is science at all. Unfortunately for you, it means that your negative creationist ways (try to undo science, never produce anything constructive yourself) have even less effect than usual. You want to knock project greenglow as unscientific? Fine. Why should I care about that?!

And very amusingly (especially in light of the all-capitols part of your post 188) you wrote

"Shout loudly, shout repeatedly and shout often."

Would you care to re-read your own post 188 please. Talking of that piece of lunacy shouting, in it you wrote

"HOWEVER, THE FOSSIL RECORD EASILY SUPPORTS CREATIONISM FAR BETTER THAN EVOLUTION"

Whahahaha! Pb, please.
And another classic:

"REMEMBER, THE FOSSIL RECORD IS THE FOUNDATION ON WHICH ALL EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WAS FORGED AND STILL STANDS."

Ever heard of scientific fields like genetics, pb? Go on pb, keep demonstrating how religion can poison the human mind and how you are so blatantly ignorant.

"PS I notice Dr Peter Klaver has repeatedly attacked me personally in this discussion but has studiously avoided getting drawn into discussing the science/religion demarcation problem and the definition of "supernatual".
Can you explain why that is Pete?"

Sure. It's because DD already answered that point sufficiently. But as usual you ignore anything that is inconvenient to you, like someone answering your question in a way you had not intended.

Finally, in post 188 you wrote to DD

"I rest my case"

About a year late, but if you stick to it this time then that will do.

greets,
Peter

Hello layman,

Two out of the three links you posted have already been answered actually, sort of. The second and third are from our well-known friend Andrew Snelling, the guy pb brought up earlier in this thread. In post 160 I posted the link to the page that describes how Snelling adheres to the billions of years old earth in all his peer-reviewed scientific publications:

See also my post 168 to you. So Snelling got his scientific credentials writing about how the earth is billions of years old, how accurate radiometric dating is etc. So what are we supposed to think then if he then goes on to publish web pages, none of them peer-reviewed of course (anyone can post anything without the rigorous checks and balances present when publishing peer-reviewed scientific literature) that state the exact opposite? Please read that page about Snelling that I posted. You may agree that his opposing and irreconcileable views mean what he says cancels itself out? I will therefore focus on the first link you posted.

The page corresponding to the first link makes damning statements about the accuracy of dating methods. The page does have some references, some even to respectable journals. However, the damning statements all refer to a book by Austin, "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe". I know this one, it came up in a previous debate I had, this is where it gets fun.

On the Wiens page I gave you, you would have read some embarresed statements by Wiens (himself a fervently christian, old-age earth christian believer) about how young earth creationists are disingenuous and make christianity look bad. That's why he speaks out against them, as he fears the dishonest ways of young earth creationists will drive people away from christianity altogether. Other old-earth christians are equally embarresed by young earthers and are more outspoken about it. Among them those who run

In their 'About' page they write

"Why does Answers In Creation exist? Many Christians claim that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Their belief has given birth to a movement within the church known as 鈥渃reation science.鈥� However, when we look at the scientific record, the earth gives solid evidence that it is billions of years old, and the universe gives solid evidence that it is over 13 billion years old. Therefore, the false teaching of young earth creationism must be confronted."

So there we have the spectacle of creationists showing their dishonesty. Either the young earth creationists are as dishonest as the old earth creationists say, or the old earthers are part of a vile slandering campaign against the young earthers. As an atheist I have it easy, I can just sit back and see how they tear each other apart. No matter who is right, at least some creationists are blatantly dishonest in their tactics, I think you will agree.

Back to the book by Austin which is at the heart of that first url you posted. Austins book is reviewed by the old earth creationists and the picture is ugly. Their review can be downloaded in pdf from

In it you'll read how Austin deliberately went out to get erroneous results. The lab he enlisted to do his measurements warned him that the method he insisted be used would give wrong results. But that's what he wanted. See p30 of the review:

"Geologists have known for many years (at least the last 40) that radiometric dating for young volcanic rocks is unreliable. In discussions with other geologists, I've learned that young volcanic rocks such as these are perfect for what Dr. Austin is trying to do...discredit radiometric dating. Dr. Austin knows this, yet he proceeded to date these rocks anyway, knowing that the dates he would get would be unreliable. It is also understood from one source that the laboratory that did the testing advised Dr. Austin that he would not get an accurate date. Dr. Austin was not after valid dates...he was after erroneous dates, and he knew how to get them. I leave it up to you to decide the ethics of his methods.[1]"

Quite stunning how far some will go to keep up their literal interpretation of Genesis, isn't it?

In summary: yes, if you Google, you'll find many pages stating how unreliable radiometric dating is. But they are invariably by self-contradicting people like Snelling or people who have been caught red-handed producing deliberately erroneous results for the sole purpose of discrediting radiometric dating. This anti-science, anti-knowledge, 'we'd rather be ignorant than wise', dishonest attitude is an important reason for me to be an atheist btw. Question to you: have you ever seen a web page in which the criticisms against radiometric dating etc have gone through the process of peer-review and all other rigorous steps demanded by the scientific process before they were published? I haven't.

If you still have doubt I leave you with a question. The Wiens paper also mentions various other dating methods like ice cores and tree ring counting. If radiometric dating can be so wrong, how come the results agree so well with non-radiometric dating methods? If series of dating methods are unreliable then they shouldn't agree so neatly with other, completely different methods, should they?

greets,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Thanks for getting back.

On PB's question on causation and ID and why ID must have causation when QM doesn't-been reading up on QM over the weekend and getting by brain boiled about causuality,Schroders cat etc.

If you come up with the proposition that that everything must have a cause-then ID cannot make an exception and say that the designer does not have a cause and therefore is exempt but anyone can make that claim-not just special pleading on the part of the ID crowd.

But in science must everything have a cause? or a way in which a cause can be explained? and is PB confusing his argument with science and from that trying to create a contradiction?

Hope that makes some sort of sense!?

The more I read about QM is that you can't really use it's findings to back up anything in "our" world(is that right?).

As I said before from what I have read QM is the refuge of all sorts of whacko's who make grand claims about it because it is so out there like...

Not only creationists but new agers as well!

BTW re: PB's claim in argumentum di CAPSLOCK REMEMBER, THE FOSSIL RECORD IS THE FOUNDATION ON WHICH ALL EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WAS FORGED AND STILL STANDS

I distinctly remember that this was covered in detail for PB(I think Tony Martin posted in detail and put up links as did others)and still he repeats guff that was pointed out to him to be guff! Also it is strange that PB should support ID when people like Michael Behe has no problem with the fossil record, no problem with man and ape sharing a common ancestor(since we are apes) nor with the earth being 4.6 billion years old-very odd that PB can support something that is in direct opposition to what he states very boldly! All this cognitive dissonance is very confusing!

Layman,

Another definition of science is that it has to produce results, if it doesn't it's ditched-just look at something like Fleischmann and Pons claims on cold fusion. When it came out it was hailed as a wonder device that would save energy *but* it didn't work in that the experiment could not be repeated independently.

I have asked PB on numerous occasions to show me how the claims of Biblical creationism/YECism are confirmed independently. One way that you could do this is to name all the natural resource companies(eg., those who look for fossil fuels) who do their research using the creationist framework. The bottom line with these companies is money(so you can't really say it's all a conspiracy)-if something doesn't work it's ditched and some other framework is used.

So can you name any natural resource companies who use the creationist framework?

Regards

DD

Peter

Once again thank you for your detailed response.

Before I discuss your post (193) I wish to point out that I am not going to comment on anything regarding individuals motives or apparent contridictions in peoples positions. This does not mean I have no opinion (I can read the detail just like the next man) The reason I have chossen not to comment is because I believe we will end up discussing material which will bring us no nearer the answer to the question - is radiometric dating reliable?

Firstly I not so much interested in if Snelling contridicts himself I am more interested in -Did the lab get the wrong dates?

Is there any more detail on these results? (did for example the lab comment on these results afterwards?
did Snelling alter the results? did he make them up?)

Secondly with regard to this guy Austin's work, if the lab said it would not give an accurate result no one could fault them when it did exactly that.

Thirdly you imply that everything that is not peer reviewed should be rejected. I am uncomfortable with this approach. However rather than be distracted from the question I do not want to take that aspect any further.

One final comment as I read your post and the line 'Geologists have known for many years that radiometric dating for young volcanic rocks is unreliable' a question jumped out at me -what if ALL the rocks are young (less than 6000 years)does this mean that radiometric dating is not appropriate for dating rocks? The important issue is what do you define as young? less than 100 years or less than 6000 years. Once we accept it is inaccurate the real question becomes at what point does it become accurate?

Trust I am not being a nuisance here.

Layman

Hello layman,

You ended your post by saying "Trust I am not being a nuisance here." You're not a nuisance at all. You pose reasonable questions, so I will do my best to answer them.

I'm glad to hear your say that if Austin was told that young volcanic rock can't be measured accurately, that the lab is not to blame for what came out. And the two pages by Snelling have the same explanation. On the Answersingenesis page Snelling, like Austin, reports dating results of young volcanic rocks. Snelling too has sent lava samples from recent volcanic eruptions to Geochron lab for dating with K-Ar dating. So the explanation is the same as with Austin: if you are out to get wrong results then it's not difficult to get them. Just insist that the lab you enlist use a method that you know will give wrong results.

On the other page from ICR Snelling reports work by someone else, Dalrymple. The work he cites is nearly 4 decades old. Again, it concerns work on dating young volcanic rock. During the 1960s the problems with dating young volcanic rock were not yet known. So in 20% of the cases Dalrymple reported on, the answers were later shown to be wrong. And admitted to be so (Dalrymple has published into the 1990s). The other 80% were later shown to be correct, confirming the earth to be billions of years old. But Snelling ignores that of course. He cherry-picks the results with their out-dated interpretation that are convenient to him, ignores the other data and also ignores the new knowledge that has been gained since, that would prevent similar errors today. When Austin set out to gather erroneous data, he was warned the answers on young volcanic rock would be wrong. So those who do radiometric dating today are perfectly aware of the issues with young volcanic rock. That means that 1 out of 5 of Dalrymples results were wrong and that his paper is out of date. But of course Snelling has to resort to citing such old stuff, because no recent scientific paper would contain the same errors. Science has made progress and learned to avoid such mistakes.

In summary, people like Austin and Snelling bash radiometric dating by deliberately and knowingly producing erroneous results (dating young volcanic rock seems to be the favourite method) or by citing very old results that stem from a period when knowledge of dating methods was very much incomplete. And then they try to give the impression that teething problems that produced errors 40 years ago mean that today radiometric dating is completely worthless.

And that's how pages like the ones you cited come into life. Peer review is not perfect, but it certainly adds a filter that keeps out a lot of ignorant nonsense and willful deception. The dating results by Austin and Snelling would never have passed peer review. The referee would have spotted the erroneous use of radiometric dating for young volcanic rock and rejected the paper. The peer-review process is far from perfect. BS still slips through occasionally and some proper work probably gets unjustly rejected from time to time. But on the whole peer-reviewed literature is hugely more reliable than what any person can put on a web server or write in an un-reviewed book.

Lastly you asked 'what if all rocks are old'. Please note that the problems arise only in young volcanic rock. Rocks formed by sediment layer deposition do not suffer from the same difficulties. And as always, cross-validation by different methods is a powerful way of weeding out errors. That can be radiometric methods using different elements or completely different methods like ice core measurements or tree ring counting. And given the agreement between completely different methods it is safe to assume radiometric dating is accurate.

greets,
Peter

Pete

A McGrath quotes Bass van Fraassen as saying that quantum theory requires much more imagination than theology.

McGrath is making the point that Dawkins claims that faith requires no evidence but that quantum theory is similar in this regard.

He quotes Dawkins as speaking of "the sublime and profound mysteries" of modern physics. Dawkins is obviousy talking about imagination based physics.

ie have another look at that NASA link Peter.

Were do YOU draw the line between science and faith (mysteries?/supernatural) Pete?

You dont like this subject do you Pete?

Incidentially, can you show how evolution can be falsified? If not, why is it a science theory?

And did you know that Kelvin ( aBelfast-born devout Presnyterian) based TSLOT on the bible, in verses such as 'the earth will wear out like a garment'?

Also his heat death conlcusion is based on the biblical idea that the earth will be eventually burnt up.

So much for the negative affect of faith on science!

PB

Peter

A quick post not much time tonight.

I actually was asking what if all the rocks are 'young' i.e. less than 6000 years. See my last paragraph in post '195'

Note my question, at what point does it become accurate?

Layman

Hello pb,

I think I'm falling madly in love with you again. Your posts are growing more desperate by the day. Such a fine example of how religion poisons the mind. You're a treasure to have. I'm crazy about having you around.
Now, you will have to be more honest than last time we gave our relationship a try. Passionate as it was, that alone can not compensate for all your dishonesty. Also, much as I love you, you blatant and willful ignorance is embarresing. You know how my mother hates it when you insist on playing stupid all the time. So get your act together. Your latest post was a textbook example of how not to do it.

When it comes to qm you are so far out of your league that I almost pity you. But then I care a lot about you of course. Person X quoting person Y on issue Z is not really hard science, is it? Instead, if you could perhaps give some examples where qm requires such huge faith and is not testable? This should be good. Pb, who doesn't know anything about qm, having to produce specific examples. Goof luck, my sweet!

"Were do YOU draw the line between science and faith (mysteries?/supernatural) Pete?
You dont like this subject do you Pete?"

Are you even literate pb? As I reminded you before, DD already answered that question. Read my posts answering your questions before repeating them please.

"Incidentially, can you show how evolution can be falsified? If not, why is it a science theory?"

Of course it can! In countless ways. When this question was asked to an evolutionary scientists his answer was a simple yet excellent: rabbit fossils dating from the pre-Cambrian. As just one of a thousand ways to disprove it. How ignorant of you that you need to ask such a question.

"And did you know that Kelvin ( aBelfast-born devout Presnyterian) based TSLOT on the bible, in verses such as 'the earth will wear out like a garment'?"

Whahahaha! So the bible had a lot to say about thermodynamics, eh?! Pb, some really well-meant advice: never reveal your identity to the readers of this blog. You would be in imminent danger of your neighbours laughing you off the planet.

"Also his heat death conlcusion is based on the biblical idea that the earth will be eventually burnt up."

And that idea was wrong. Thanks for providing yet more ammo against yourself by showing to what fallacies you get from following the bible.

greets,
xxxxxxxxx
Peter

Pete

A McGrath quotes science philsopher Bass van Fraassen as saying that quantum theory requires much more imagination than theology.

McGrath is making the point that Dawkins claims that faith requires no evidence but that quantum theory is similar in this regard.

He quotes Dawkins as speaking of "the sublime and profound mysteries" of modern physics. Dawkins is obviously talking about imagination based physics.

ie have another look at that NASA link Peter, above.

Were do YOU draw the line between science and faith (mysteries?/supernatural) Pete?

You dont like this subject do you Pete?

Incidentally, can you show how evolution can be falsified? If not, why is it a science theory?

REF the fossils, there are very very few chains that look like evolutionary chains, here is your chance, you list them.

For my part here is my problem; where are all the intermediate chains between the following;-

- Single celled lifeforms
- Plants
- Fish
- Amphibians
- Mammals
- Reptiles
- Birds

Bottom line Pete is that the fossil record shows huge gaps between these types that are much more compatible with creationism than evolution.

And did you know that Kelvin ( aBelfast-born devout Presnyterian) based TSLOT on the bible, in verses such as 'the earth will wear out like a garment'?

Also his heat death conlcusion is based on the biblical idea that the earth will be eventually burnt up.

So much for the negative affect of faith on science!

PB

Pete

the whole point of what McGrath is saying, quoting Fraasen, is that there is NO hard science for much of QM.

Did you miss that?

Fraassen is obviously a world standard science philsopher.

You could explain what hard evidence there is for worm holes for example?

Circular argument Pete.

Lots of bluster, but it is still the same point raised by Will Crawley and which you are shying away from.

PB

Pete

An exceptionally ad hominem posting even for you!

A bit dissapointing for a cool and objective phd in physics.

;-)

It seems you are playing an obstinate game of semantic hide and seek ref QM which you hope you can insult your way out of because QM is so complex and few people understand the points you make.

Quite a laughable tactic to challenge me for the evidence for these QM terms when I am demonstrating how little evidence there actually is!

You cant accept that Will Crawley has raised a valid question on QM which strikes at the very root of the Dover trial.

And you cant' accept that Princeton philsopher of science Bas van Fraassen makes the same point. He says;-

"Do the concepts of the Trinity, the soul, haecceity, universals, prime matter and potentiality baffle you?

"They pale beside the unimaginable otherness of closed space-times, event horison, EPR correlations and bootstrap models."

Your leader Dakwins himself talks of the "sublime and profound mysteries" of modern physics.

Game.

Set.

Match.

CONCLUSION:

Will Crawley, McGrath and Fraassen are quite right to point up the hypocrisy in MN scientists who reject creationism on the grounds of its supernaturalism/mystery yet find no problem whatsoever with welcoming the very same level of mystery and supernaturalism in quantum theory.

This exposes the religious prejudice of those making such arbirtrary judgements.

ie neither DD have actually made a single honest attempt at a definition of supernatural because you know full well it could also include any scientific breakthrough yet to be made.

I send ye "homeward tae think again".

PB

PS Ref the rabbit quote you took from Dawkins, we already have many many disprepancies in the fossil record.

Pb my dear,

"the whole point of what McGrath is saying, quoting Fraasen, is that there is NO hard science for much of QM."

Ah, classic pb. Ignorance and rubbish statements at their most extensive and not delivering one bit of substance. My sweet pb, there is now another question added to your list of points to answer. So please, as I asked before, indicate which elements of qm require a degree of faith and are not backed up by verifyable, reproducible observation (just to help you out, because I Iove you so much: worm holes are definately the wrong way to go, you fool!).

It gets more silly when you state that much of qm has no scientific basis. Perhaps you could also very briefly, in just a few lines, give your general idea of what qm is. You demonstrate time and time again not having the slightest clue about what you're talking. So let me throw down the gauntlet to you to see if you have an idea of even the most basic aspects of it. As on the many other occasions where you've chickened out (intermediate fossils, radiometric dating, postive evidence for creationism, etc) I'm calling you out here pb. Please tell us your views on qm. And where worm holes fit into it. As well as where it requires a degree of faith.

greets,
xxxxxxx
Peter

PB,

You are a complete lost cause and it is depressing reading the amount of fallacies in your posts-I wish that you could view your posts impartially.

Why not seperate the predictions and confirmed empirical basis of QM from the philosophy. From what I can tell it is no different from any other scientific theory nor does it violate the scientific method-but I will bow to superior knowledge on this point.

Lastly if *you* make a claim it is up to *you* to back it up.

ps.,Why not go onto to science websites/blogs/ask Peter what QM actually does-I did and I would not for one second pretend that I understand it but my knowledge has increased a little!

BTW Pete

The quotes about Kelvin basing his theories in part on the bible are found in;-

Energy and Empire
by Smith and Wise
Cambridge Uni Press.

Perhaps you ought to be a little more cautious about whether Kelvin was right in his prediction that the earth would end in "heat death"?

;-)

PB

some Kelvin quotes Peter.

I think you have been mistaken.

"We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall 'wax old as doth a garment.'"

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us."

"Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals 'new heavens and a new earth.'"

"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism."

"The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism."

"The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words."

"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion."

a few more;-

"The animal body does not act as a thermodynamic engine ... consciousness teaches every individual that they are, to some extent, subject to the direction of his will. It appears therefore that animated creatures have the power of immediately applying to certain moving particles of matter within their bodies, forces by which the motions of these particles are directed to produce derived mechanical effects."

"It is conceivable that animal life might have the attribute of using the heat of surrounding matter, at its natural temperature, as a source of energy for mechanical effect. .... The influence of animal or vegetable life on matter is infinitely beyond the range of any scientific inquiry hitherto entered on. Its power of directing the motions of moving particles, in the demonstrated daily miracle of our human free-will, and in the growth of generation after generation of plants from a single seed, are infinitely different from any possible result of the fortuitous concurrence of atoms." [Quoted in the preface to The Animate and the Inanimate (1925) by William James Sidis]

"Modern biologists were coming once more to the acceptance of something and that was a vital principle."

"The limitations of geological periods, imposed by physical science, cannot, of course, disprove the hypothesis of transmutation of species; but it does seem sufficient to disprove the doctrine that transmutation has taken place through 'descent with modification by natural selection.'"

"Hence and because we all confidently believe that there are at present, and have been from time immemorial, many worlds of life besides our own, we must regard it as probable in the highest degree that there are countless seed-bearing meteoritic stones moving about through space." [Source]

"The hypothesis that life originated on this earth through moss-grown fragments from the ruins of another world may seem wild and visionary; all I maintain is that it is not unscientific." [Source]

"I need scarcely say that the beginning and maintenance of life on earth is absolutely and infinitely beyond the range of all sound speculation in dynamical science. The only contribution of dynamics to theoretical biology is absolute negation of automatic commencement or automatic maintenance of life."

"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the Earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atoms. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living creatures."

"A very ancient speculation still clung to by many naturalists (so much so, that I have a choice of modern terms to quote in expressing it), supposes that, under meteorological conditions very different from the present, dead matter may have run together or crystallized or fermented into 'germs of life,' or 'organic cells,' or 'protoplasm.' But science brings a vast mass of inductive evidence against this hypothesis of spontaneous generation, as you have heard from my predecessor in the presidential chair. Careful enough scrutiny has, in every case up to the present day, discovered life as antecedent to life. Dead matter cannot become living without coming under the influence of matter previously alive. This seems to me as sure a teaching of science as the law of gravitation." [Source]

"I feel profoundly convinced that the argument of design has been greatly too much lost sight of in recent zoological speculations. Reactions against the frivolities of teleology, such as are to be found, not rarely, in the notes of the learned commentators on Paley's 'Natural Theology,' has, I believe, had a temporary effect in turning attention from the solid and irrefragable argument so well put forward in that excellent old book. But overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us, and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living beings depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler." [Source]

"I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being, but in the creating and directing Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief."

"...Creative Power is the only feasible answer to the origin of life from a scientific perspective."

he also stated that radio would never catch on an that heavier than air aircraft would never work - just goes to show you!

Oh dear PB!

Just when I thought of cutting you a bit of slack...there you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like...post 202!

Still no apology for the blatant untruths you told, nor for the false-witnessing...dear oh dear PB I would not like to be in your shoes come Judgement day. Your sanctimonious, hypocritical posts are like a modern day Pharisee!

I understand the points Peter is making, the point is that you do *not* want to understand.

Will Crawley and Fraassen are not linking QM to creationism nor to Dover. You are funny because ID was exposed for the fraud it was at Dover(still no apology for the untruths you told on that one).

Definitions have been supplied of supernatural.

The rabbit quote comes from JS Haldane-try and get something right-there's a good chap!

As for creation wiki...well here we have a bunch of looney tune religious nutters-surprise surprise!

Oh well...

Care to name some aspect of Biblical creationist "science" that is confirmed by independent experiment? what about one piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable? what about a list of all the achievements/discoveries found within the creationist framework? what about a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(their bottom line is money so should not be a problem).

As you can see I have set the bar very low for you PB.

Indeed PB as in game, set and match if creationism is so true why do you not live your life by its precepts? only use discoveries found within the creationist framework-so when you are sick make sure you only use creationist medicine etc etc if you drive make sure you use a company that finds fuel on a creationist framework and if you heat your house with fossil fuels make sure it is from a company that used the creationist framework etc etc

It is time to put up or shut up.

Dear oh dear PB it really is not looking good for you in the dishonesty stakes!

The link that you very helpfully provided is an excellent example of the perversion, distortion, false-witnessing, lies that goes on in creationism-thank you ever so much PB!

The (cough) "quote" attributed to Mark Ridley actually says...

The (cough)"quote" attributed to Niles Eldredge and co-author Ian Tattersall actually says...

As for the errr "quote" attributed to Eldregde actually says ...

The harummph "quote" attributed to Corner...

The mmmmm "quote" attributed to Woodruff actually says...

and on and (sadly) on it goes...(this is what I found in 5 mins)

Thank you from the bottom of my heart PB for giving yet another stunning illustration of what a dishonest bunch of creeps the creationist lobby is!

I am feeling Peter's love too! have some more rope-I love you too(that is if Peter would not mind sharing you?)!

A better analogy for you PB would not be game,set & match but rather someone who got caught cheating!

Really not looking good for you old chap! get an asbestos suit!

DD

XXXXX

Hmmmm, DD, it's nice to see you endorse my taste. Congrats on spotting what a treasure pb is. But I did see him first. Also, I signed my posts to my sweetheart with just lowercase xx's whereas you openly (under my very nose!!) start right of with the uppercase XX's. Do you realise how long it took the relationship between pb and me to evolve (bad pun intended) to the point of XX's instead of xx's? And you just barge in and unashamedly try take him away from me, straight away flaunting your XX's to him. I'm shocked!

Pb my sweet, never mind all the ugly things big, bad DD said to you (right though he was about your enormous dishonesty). I'll protect you. I would never let anything happen to you. Also, don't fall for DD's smooth moves. From his XX's in his very first post to you it's obvious he's just after one thing. He's not into the sort of serious, deep relationship we have.
Btw, yoru latest posts did make me wonder for a moment if you had gone insane or anything like that. Don't be too sad if that sounds harsh. I'll make it up to you the next time we're together.

Layman, I'll get back to you on the minimum required age for radiological dating to be accurate. The age threshold differs for methods employing different elements. I only know from the top of my head that for K-Ar it's something like half million years. Don't know for other methods.
Before I spend too much time on it, which are the methods for which you'd like to know apart from K-Ar?
Also, when you have more time, I'd like to hear your response to the rest of post 196.

greets,
Peter

Peter

Is there any radiometric dating methods which give an accurate age for rocks under 6000 years old?

I'll come back to post 196 at a later date.

Layman

Peter,

I must admit that I am only after one thing! you have seen right through my wicked sham! But could I not share just a teeny a little bit? Ppplleeeaaassseee!

But I afraid that PB has us rumbled, he said "Your leader Dakwins"-damn! he knows about the Evil Atheist Conspiracy!

Pesky kids!

Hello layman,

Yes, Thorium-230 measurements for instance provide accurate data for very young material. It can measure material so young that it is even able to distinguish between old and young coral. Below is a piece from Encyclopedia Brittanica that provides some more detail. I don't know how long corals live, but I assume shorter than 6000 years? If you find that corals can be older than 6000 years then my example would not be a good one for what you ask. If that turns out to be the case I will look for a better one. If corals are shorter-lived then this should be what you're looking for.

greets,
Peter

The isotopic dating methods discussed so far are all based on long-lived radioactive isotopes that have survived since the elements were created or on short-lived isotopes that were recently produced by cosmic-ray bombardment. The long-lived isotopes are difficult to use on young rocks because the extremely small amounts of daughter isotopes present are difficult to measure. A third source of radioactive isotopes is provided by the uranium- and thorium-decay chains. As noted in Table 3, these uranium鈥搕horium series radioisotopes, like the cosmogenic isotopes, have short half-lives and are thus suitable for dating geologically young materials. The decay of uranium to lead is not achieved by a single step but rather involves a whole series of different elements, each with its own unique set of chemical properties.

In closed-system natural materials, all of these intermediate daughter elements exist in equilibrium amounts. That is to say, the amount of each such element present is constant and the number that form per unit time is identical to the number that decay per unit time. Accordingly, those with long half-lives are more abundant than those with short half-lives. Once a uranium-bearing mineral breaks down and dissolves, the elements present may behave differently and equilibrium is disrupted. For example, an isotope of thorium is normally in equilibrium with uranium-234 but is found to be virtually absent in modern corals even though uranium-234 is present. Over a long period of time uranium-234, however, decays to thorium-230, which results in a build-up of the latter in old corals and thereby provides a precise measure of time.

Hello layman, you wrote

"Is there any radiometric dating methods which give an accurate age for rocks under 6000 years old?"

Certainly, young rock taken from e. g. sediment layers can be dated accurately. Dating young rocks is of course best done with isotopes that have relatively short half lives. Thorium-230 measurements for instance provide accurate data for young material. It can measure material so young that it is even able to distinguish between old and young coral rock. Below is a piece from Encyclopedia Brittanica that provides some more detail. The life span of coral colonies that generate stony coral can vary, long-lived colonies can last some centuries, see e. g. near the bottom of the page at

So no problem dating material even very young. Just not volcanic rock.

greets,
Peter

From Enc. Britt.:

The isotopic dating methods discussed so far are all based on long-lived radioactive isotopes that have survived since the elements were created or on short-lived isotopes that were recently produced by cosmic-ray bombardment. The long-lived isotopes are difficult to use on young rocks because the extremely small amounts of daughter isotopes present are difficult to measure. A third source of radioactive isotopes is provided by the uranium- and thorium-decay chains. As noted in Table 3, these uranium鈥搕horium series radioisotopes, like the cosmogenic isotopes, have short half-lives and are thus suitable for dating geologically young materials. The decay of uranium to lead is not achieved by a single step but rather involves a whole series of different elements, each with its own unique set of chemical properties.

In closed-system natural materials, all of these intermediate daughter elements exist in equilibrium amounts. That is to say, the amount of each such element present is constant and the number that form per unit time is identical to the number that decay per unit time. Accordingly, those with long half-lives are more abundant than those with short half-lives. Once a uranium-bearing mineral breaks down and dissolves, the elements present may behave differently and equilibrium is disrupted. For example, an isotope of thorium is normally in equilibrium with uranium-234 but is found to be virtually absent in modern corals even though uranium-234 is present. Over a long period of time uranium-234, however, decays to thorium-230, which results in a build-up of the latter in old corals and thereby provides a precise measure of time.

DD,

"I must admit that I am only after one thing! you have seen right through my wicked sham! But could I not share just a teeny a little bit? Ppplleeeaaassseee!"

No way, peab is mine and mine alone!! If you want him then that will only be after a duel at dawn. The one left standing after the pistol shots die down gets exclusive humping privileges with pb.

Peter

You are awful Peter...but I like you!

Peter

Just to clarify a point - are you saying that no radiometric dating method is suitable for volcanic (igneous) rocks?

Hi layman,

"Just to clarify a point - are you saying that no radiometric dating method is suitable for volcanic (igneous) rocks?"

No, I'm saying that (as far as I know) no radiometric dating method is suitable for YOUNG volcanic rock.

greets,
Peter

Layman

ref 215 - yes that is correct.

Radiometric dating does not work on sedmentary rocks, in which fossils are held.

Current creationist theory says that because some 85 per cent of the earth is covered by sedimentary rock (made by water and sedmiments) this would be best explained by a universal flood.

The many layers would have been formed in a very short space of time by hydrological sorting, which would explain several things;-

1) Why large fossils can be found to span several differnt strata.

2) Why animals of differing bouancy and therefore types sank and were buried at different rates ie giving appearance of "evolution" over millions of years.

3) But it also explains why there are still no transitional chains between the differetn types of animals, eg single celled, plants, fish, reptiles, mammals, birds etc.

The other 15 % of the earther's crust not covered by sedimentary rock would have been disturbed by tectonic movements and volcanoes etc.

I understand creationist theory is a much, much better fit for all the above than evolutionary theory.

Over on nutter politicians link here you will find Michael Hull express his doubts about radiometric dating, saying:

"...If modern physics is correct and the physical constants of the universe may vary with time then it is possible that our scientific data on the date of the Earth may be misleading us...."

/blogs/ni/2007/12/are_religious_politicians_nutt.html

Michael Hull is a phd scientist and of a liberal Christian outlook and is still an old earther, but you could discuss further with him here;-

regards

PB

PB you are being very very naughty!

You have left a lot of questions unanwered! We are still waiting on an acknowledgement of your blatant untruths and false witnessing! (like that last link to blatant, perverted practice of quote mining).

And in case you missed darling here are some points again...

Care to name some aspect of Biblical creationist "science" that is confirmed by independent experiment? what about one piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable? what about a list of all the achievements/discoveries found within the creationist framework? what about a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(their bottom line is money so should not be a problem).
As you can see I have set the bar very low for you PB.
Indeed PB as in game, set and match if creationism is so true why do you not live your life by its precepts? only use discoveries found within the creationist framework-so when you are sick make sure you only use creationist medicine etc etc if you drive make sure you use a company that finds fuel on a creationist framework and if you heat your house with fossil fuels make sure it is from a company that used the creationist framework etc etc
It is time to put up or shut up.

XX

yes DD you always ask that question and never listen to the answer.

The best undeniable and rock solid evidence for creationism is the fossil record.

There are no records of evolutionary chains to or from the following, so the evidence is that they were created as such. Darwin said new fossils would be found in time to support his theory, but this has been falisified.

The following have no evolutionary chains to or from them;-

single celled organisms
plants
fish
amphibians
birds
reptiles
mammals

There is your evidence DD.

It takes much more faith and imagination to believe in evolution than in creationism, on the strength of this.

The evidence is so strong that many evolutionists are mow moving away from the gradual evolution theory and into the field of huge leaps forward in evolution.

I guess this would be like a fish egg hatching a frog or similar.

PB

I am afraid PB old dear you are being less than honest again and fossils have been explained to you again and again and again but...you have shown yourself to very obtuse. There are many transitional fossils indeed all of them are!And your claims will of course be backed by objective evidence that is credible and verifiable? well fossils are of course excellent egs of empirical evidence(Hindu creationists make the same claims-does not of course make them true)

Anyway still waiting for an apology or at least an acknowledgement of all the blatant untruths you have told on this thread, the false witnessing-running away from your sinful activity does not make it go away!

And if your claims are so true then you will of course be able to answer these very, very simple points...

Care to name some aspect of Biblical creationist "science" that is confirmed by independent experiment? what about one piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable? what about a list of all the achievements/discoveries found within the creationist framework? what about a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(their bottom line is money so should not be a problem).
As you can see I have set the bar very low for you PB.
Indeed PB as in game, set and match if creationism is so true why do you not live your life by its precepts? only use discoveries found within the creationist framework-so when you are sick make sure you only use creationist medicine etc etc if you drive make sure you use a company that finds fuel on a creationist framework and if you heat your house with fossil fuels make sure it is from a company that used the creationist framework etc etc
It is time to put up or shut up.

There you go honey...

Take care sweetness I am off for the weekend-don't do anything that I wouldn't do!

XX

Peter

Again apologies for the length of time it has taken me to get back to this subject.

In our previous posts we had arrived at the point where you stated you were not aware of a radiometric dating method suitable for igneous (volcanic) rocks, which are of a young age (less than 6000years old). For me this raises a fundamental problem.

Approaching the question of evidence for a young or old earth the suggestion that radiometric dating points to an old earth begins to fall apart given the comment above. For radiometric dating to be accurate you have to assume that the rock is old 鈥� this assumption immediately denies that there is a possibility that the rock may be young. Hence you are starting from a position of basis with a preconceived conclusion 鈥� hardly a fair test.

I can appreciate that when one passionately believes something to be true a basis can be hard to acknowledge.

In this case I think I will have to conclude that radiometric dating is not in its self evidence for an old earth.

Any comments folks. I hope you can follow my logic above.

Layman

Peter

Again apologies for the length of time it has taken me to get back to this subject.

In our previous posts we had arrived at the point where you stated you were not aware of a radiometric dating method suitable for igneous (volcanic) rocks, which are of a young age (less than 6000years old). For me this raises a fundamental problem.

Approaching the question of evidence for a young or old earth the suggestion that radiometric dating points to an old earth begins to fall apart given the comment above. For radiometric dating to be accurate you have to assume that the rock is old 鈥� this assumption immediately denies that there is a possibility that the rock may be young. Hence you are starting from a position of basis with a preconceived conclusion 鈥� hardly a fair test.

I can appreciate that when one passionately believes something to be true a basis can be hard to acknowledge.

In this case I think I will have to conclude that radiometric dating is not in its self evidence for an old earth.

Any comments folks. I hope you can follow my logic above.

Layman

Hello layman,

The point you raise is not a problem. Young volcanic rock of a few hundred or few thousand years old can't be dated accurately, as it gives answers of about ~1 or 2 million years old. But it never yields answers of hundreds of millions or billions of years. See for instance the list of deliberate erroneous measurements held up by Austin and Snelling. All young volcanic rocks that they had tested with know inappropriate methods are dated to be a few millon years old at most. Never is a young rock dated to be hudreds of millions or billions of years old. Thus, any measurement that says a volcanic rock is 1 or 2 million years old is discarded, only the ones which are so old that they can't be explained by the margin of error are kept. So there is no assumption required in advance. The answer is the proof. Anything dated as a few million years old is possibly unreliable and therefore no date is given (although in the cases that Snelling himself quotes, 80% did give the right answer). Anything measured a billion years old can't be explained by the margin of error and must therefore be really old.

I would point out two more things. You were about to discard radiometric dating altogether because of problems with young volcanic rock. Rock formed in sediment layers or by coral has no such problems. Why discard all if only a one particular type of samples form a problem? Without volcanic rocks dating there are tons of other measurements that have no such problem regardless of age.

As mentioned a few times before, cross-validation can come to the rescue in most cases. Even pb noted the consistency among different methods. If answers that should be thousands of years are off and say millions instead (as they do for young volcanic rock) then how come different methods give the same answers in all cases other than young volcanic rock? If answers can be off by anything up to a factor of a thouand, then it would be impossibly unlikely for most measuremnts to agree. If it's all as problematic as the young earthers claim then doing the measurements would be as random as throwing darts while blind-folded. How often would a blind-folded dart player hit the same spot with all darts? And finally I will mention again that different methods do not all have to be radiological ones. Ice cores and tree ring counting confirm radiometric dating. So even if you thought that all radiometric methods suffer from the same systematic error, they are still backed up by totally different methods.

greets,
Peter

DD

The question is not why do I reject all non-creationist science, it is more like why you accept so much creationist science.

Arent something like 50% of US scientists creationists????

Remember the founder of the scientific method, kelvin, pascal, keppler, newton etc etc all had a biblical worldview.

in other words, the entire scientific endeavour was pretty much founded on a biblical worldview, which assumed there were contstant laws God had created and which could be explored.

The argument is not between science and religion or creationism and evolution; it is between good science and bad science;

Popper said evolution was "a metaphyscal [religious] research programme" and slammed.

He later climbed down somewhat but
could still not accept evolution as a regular science theory, even though he said it had scientific characterisitics.

He said evolution was very difficult to test, which it is.

You cant watch or prove species change into other species; you cant demonstrate it, replicate it or observe it.

So I say it is BAD science to try and force feed people evolution as proven beyond any doubt and good science to say it is a provisional theory, which of course is backed by the mainstream at present, but which has many problems.

I dont think that is so very far away from Popper's position and he was no raving creationist, was he?

I wont wish you a happy Christmas DD because I dont want to offend, but I hope you have a happy and peaceful holiday with your fammily and friends.

take care of yourself

blessings

Layman / Peter

Layman - I think carbon dating claims to date much younger rocks that radiometric dating and may be worth looking at for young rocks.

Pete

You may be surprised that I am not convinced by the work of Snelling et Al either. I just dont know enough at present.

However, I cant recall making the point about consistency you attribute to me. If I did I wouldnt affirm it in the context you are using.

Layman - Michael Hull, anothger poster here and a phd in chemistry of some sort makes a point that rings more true to me.

He says constants required to date and ancient earth may not always have been as we believe.

many question whether the constants on which physcis claims to extrapolte the age of radioactive decay for millions of years based on around 70-80 years of observed activity were as constant as is assumed.

Could radioactive decay have operated at different rates in the past? Could daughter elements have leached out of rocks? Could intense heat have interfered with the closed system and "reset the clock" by which rocks are aged?

I dont think anyone has any certain answers to these questions at present. Any thoughts Pete?

Michael Hull suggested I read "God's undertaker" which examines some of the broader issues, must have a read.

DD, Layman, Pete

Hope you have a peaceful holiday break with your friends and family.

shalom
PB

PB,

It is the season of goodwill but that last post was even more dishonest cobblers from you than usual!

"The question is not why do I reject all non-creationist science, it is more like why you accept so much creationist science."

Errr like what??? could you name all the breakthroughs/discoveries made within the creationist framework-in fact name one!?

"Arent something like 50% of US scientists creationists????"

No it is a minute, miniscule, insignifigant number and we were over this but as in so much else was wilfyully ignored.

"Remember the founder of the scientific method, kelvin, pascal, keppler, newton etc etc all had a biblical worldview."

However ALL the work was done within the scienfic method sweetie.

"in other words, the entire scientific endeavour was pretty much founded on a biblical worldview, which assumed there were contstant laws God had created and which could be explored."

garbage!

"The argument is not between science and religion or creationism and evolution; it is between good science and bad science;"

Exactly!

As for Popper that has been covered before and the basics of evolution but I cannot legislate for your obtuseness or wilful ignorance but there are some questions that you have left unanswered here(some for a very long time!)

I am afraid PB old dear you are being less than honest again and fossils have been explained to you again and again and again but...you have shown yourself to very obtuse. There are many transitional fossils indeed all of them are!And your claims will of course be backed by objective evidence that is credible and verifiable? well fossils are of course excellent egs of empirical evidence(Hindu creationists make the same claims-does not of course make them true)
Anyway still waiting for an apology or at least an acknowledgement of all the blatant untruths you have told on this thread, the false witnessing-running away from your sinful activity does not make it go away!
And if your claims are so true then you will of course be able to answer these very, very simple points...
Care to name some aspect of Biblical creationist "science" that is confirmed by independent experiment? what about one piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable? what about a list of all the achievements/discoveries found within the creationist framework? what about a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(their bottom line is money so should not be a problem).
As you can see I have set the bar very low for you PB.
Indeed PB as in game, set and match if creationism is so true why do you not live your life by its precepts? only use discoveries found within the creationist framework-so when you are sick make sure you only use creationist medicine etc etc if you drive make sure you use a company that finds fuel on a creationist framework and if you heat your house with fossil fuels make sure it is from a company that used the creationist framework etc etc
It is time to put up or shut up.
There you go honey...

They are very simple! but obviously not simple enough!

Anyway Merry Xmas!

DD xx

PB

It does not offend me in the slightest about Merry Christmas!(it appears that you reading too much crap from the Daily Mail).

What does offend me is your consistent obtuseness, ignorance and dishonesty(see your above posts).

Just to clear that up!

In any case(and it is the season of goodwill) MERRY CHRISTMAS PB! and I sincerely hope that you and yours have a great one!

DD

Hello layman,

Just a short post to point out that pb has it wrong again when he writes

"Layman - I think carbon dating claims to date much younger rocks that radiometric dating and may be worth looking at for young rocks."

Carbon dating is used for dating organic material, not rocks. The method depends on living organisms constantly taking in fresh C14 until they die. Then the amount of C14 in their remains starts to decay away. That way you can date organic material up to ~50000 years old. But it wouldn't work of course for a rock that doesn't take in fresh C14 all the time.

Hello layman,

Just a short post to point out that pb has it wrong again when he writes

"Layman - I think carbon dating claims to date much younger rocks that radiometric dating and may be worth looking at for young rocks."

Carbon dating is used for dating organic material, not rocks. The method depends on living organisms constantly taking in fresh C14 until they die. Then the amount of C14 in their remains starts to decay away. That way you can date organic material up to ~50000 years old. But it wouldn't work of course for a rock that doesn't take in fresh C14 all the time.

I will say up front that I am not a scientist. I am an evolutionist through and through, however, and I am baffled by creationism and those who defend it. I understand that my views have been shaped by my atheist upbringing and my education in U.S. public schools, which, thankfully, did not have creationism in the curricula. I was not exposed to creationist theories very much growing up, unless one considers ancient "mythology" to be some form of creationism. I do, by the way.

I will admit that I have not read all of the posts in this particular discussion, but I feel I have read enough to ask PB a question: What kind of point are you trying to make with your claim that "the following have no evolutionary chains to or from them;-

single celled organisms
plants
fish
amphibians
birds
reptiles
mammal?"

I can't even comprehend what I can do with that information except for shake my head in wonderment. Even I, a non-scientist, can clearly see how life is interconnected and how the life forms we see today have evolved from one initial source.

I'm not even getting to the part about how that life source arose in the first place. I'm much more interested in what is known about life since it began than how it got started in the first place.

DJ

Diane, PB does not realise that this is not a chain, but a tree. As for single cells getting to multicellular organisms, presumably he has never heard of a zygote. The genetic evidence is getting stronger all the time - you will note that big critters like us occupy only a small branch of the tree of life:

Enjoy!

-A

Dear Diane

"I will say up front that I am not a scientist. I am an evolutionist through."

How is this posible? is evolution not a scientific theory?

am

Peter

In response to your post 228

First para
You make the point that young rocks when dated 鈥榥ever yields answers of hundreds of millions or billions of years鈥� hence 鈥榓nything measured a billion years old can't be explained by the margin of error and must therefore be really old鈥�. Could I suggest that if a rock 30 years old can give you 2 million years could a rock a few thousand years old not give you hundreds of millions or billions?

Second para
Can rocks formed in sedimentry layers be dated with radiometric dating? With regard to volcanic rocks dating what are the other measurements that have no such problem regardless of age?

Third para
With regard to the cross validation among different methods 鈥� I hinted at this in one of my first questions 鈥� are samples dated independent of previous tests and preconceived ideas of age and geologocal history? If they are not (as I suspect) and non agreeing results disregarded, it is hardly surprising that different methods agree. Have labs ever come out and said the date for this rock is not what was first thought?

Having now looked at articles on ice cores and tree ring counting there appears to be issues with these as well!

Happy new year folks
Layman

Hello layman,

"You make the point that young rocks when dated 鈥榥ever yields answers of hundreds of millions or billions of years鈥� hence 鈥榓nything measured a billion years old can't be explained by the margin of error and must therefore be really old鈥�. Could I suggest that if a rock 30 years old can give you 2 million years could a rock a few thousand years old not give you hundreds of millions or billions?"

No. In some cases the error bar for very young volcanic rock can be ~a million years. As you go to older and older rock, that error bar doesn't increase very much in absolute terms. For rocks of a hundred million years old the error bar is less than a dozen million years. You assumed that the factor by which a sample is mis-dated is the same for old and young volcanic rock samples (as well as all other samples), but this is not the case. Cross-verification is again very powerful in establishing how large the error bars are, see later in this post.

Before that I would like to shift the debate away from young volcanic rock. The scientific community doesn't hold up radiometric dating on young volcanic rock as a basis for claiming the earth is 4.6 billion years old. There is the potential for problems in that area and this is acknowledged by people in the field. Young rocks of a few centuries old, volcanic or not, were never the problem to YECs anyway. So let's focus on what is held up by the scientific community as basis for saying the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

"Can rocks formed in sedimentry layers be dated with radiometric dating?"

I've never read about any problems that prevent the dating of sediment rock, so to my knowledge the answer would be yes.

"With regard to the cross validation among different methods 鈥� I hinted at this in one of my first questions 鈥� are samples dated independent of previous tests and preconceived ideas of age and geologocal history? If they are not (as I suspect) and non agreeing results disregarded, it is hardly surprising that different methods agree. Have labs ever come out and said the date for this rock is not what was first thought?"

If multiple tests are done they they would be done without any lab knowing the outcome of other labs, exactly to avoid the sort of preconception you refer to.
I suspect all labs have retracted all their old measurements on young volcanic rock once they learned that those are unreliable.

"Having now looked at articles on ice cores and tree ring counting there appears to be issues with these as well!"

Sorry, but now you're starting to sound like pb. I feel I have to be a little bit hard on you here. Tree ring counting and ice cores came up as an extra means of cross-validation. Cross-validation between radiological methods alone is a very strong proof. As I said, to suggest that agreements are just coincidence is like demanding that a blind-folded dart player hit the same spot with all three darts time and time again. If we then bring in completely different method it's like giving the dart player two extra sets of darts and expect him to hit the same spot with all nine darts. It was extremely unlikely for three, it's even impossibly more unlikely for nine.
Cross-validation, especially between completely different methods that can't be systematically biased in the same way to produce similar results, is simply the deathblow to the young earth story. You can't wish it away with the single sentence with an exclamation mark with which you finished your post (playing a bit of devils advocate there I suspect?).

Happy 2008 to you too,
Peter

Diane

It is quite simple really.

The fossil record shows that all these different types of animals "abruptly" appeared from nowhere.

Can you state which organisms evolved into birds, step by step? Have actually got evidence or are the steps speculation?

Repeat the question for each different area of life I mentioned.

Than ask yourself is speculation a solid base for science?

Staying inside the bounds of the fossil evidence it is much more conservative to say these lifeforms abruptly appeared from "nowhere".

In contrast evolution argues for chains or branches if you prefer which require large amounts of imagination and faith - because there is actually no evdeince they existed.

Pete

I stand corrected on the carbon dating issue. However is it not still relevent in that it can be used to date organic materials in different rock strata?

PB

PB sweetness I am so glad that you have returned to this thread!

Fossils have been explained to you ad nauseum! I don't know why with your stunning revelations that you do not publish your work and make billions!!!this is especially true of the natural resource companies! otherwise it does look like you are copying typical dishonest creationist crap.

In any case I am so glad that you are back on this thread as you have left many unanswered questions (especially concerning your dishonesty)remember how "QM...undermining evolution" etc
Anyway still waiting for an apology or at least an acknowledgement of all the blatant untruths you have told on this thread, the false witnessing-running away from your sinful activity does not make it go away!
And if your claims are so true then you will of course be able to answer these very, very simple points...
Care to name some aspect of Biblical creationist "science" that is confirmed by independent experiment? what about one piece of evidence that is objective, credible and verifiable? what about a list of all the achievements/discoveries found within the creationist framework? what about a list of all the natural resource companies that use the creationist framework in their research(their bottom line is money so should not be a problem).
As you can see I have set the bar very low for you PB.
Indeed PB as in game, set and match if creationism is so true why do you not live your life by its precepts? only use discoveries found within the creationist framework-so when you are sick make sure you only use creationist medicine etc etc if you drive make sure you use a company that finds fuel on a creationist framework and if you heat your house with fossil fuels make sure it is from a company that used the creationist framework etc etc
It is time to put up or shut up.
There you go honey...

Strange you keep missing these extremely simple points!!!!

Amen

Nevin in post 131 never mentions evolution fyi.

PB

Yes he does. Evolutionary conservation. A core result. Looks like you're wrong.

Amen

I checked the link in 131 for evolutionary conservation and it didnt come up.

Did Nevin mention these terms or not?

Can you point out where?

PB

Hello peab,

Welcome back to the blog. In your latest post to Amenhotep you wrote

"I checked the link in 131 for evolutionary conservation and it didnt come up. Did Nevin mention these terms or not? Can you point out where?"

I can probably take care of this one for Amenhotep. I quote from near the bottom of page 1 of the article:

'that is the most evolutionarily conserved motif amongst all intermediate filaments'

After spotting that I stopped reading. Who knows how many occurrences there are if you read the full article.

greets,
Peter