Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Thor]

Seems like kind of an arbitrary definition to me. Considering both sides point to evidence like this, I don’t think this really proves anything. It’s not the evidence itself we disagree on, it’s the interpretation of that evidence.

Yes, scientists look at the Grand Canyon and, using a variety of disciplines, they conclude the Canyon was carved by the action of the Colorado River over a very long period of time (i.e., millions of years). You look at the Grand Canyon and conclude it was created by the flood of Noah.

This isn't "interpreting" evidence, it's making shit up to fit your fairy tale.

All I can do is read what you wrote, not what you meant to write.

And your ability to comprehend what I write is amply demonstrated a bit further below (which I'll get to shortly)....

Yes, I give serious consideration to scientific explanations that don't involve supernatural nonsense or woo-woo bullshit.

Ruling out possible answers beforehand (the supernatural) is not being objective and is hardly scientific.

There is nothing "scientific" about the supernatural. And do you really want scientists wasting their time considering "possible answers" that involve the supernatural? Suppose you have crushing chest pains and are rushed to the hospital. Would you want the doctor to "consider" the possibility that your chest pain is being caused by a demon sitting on your chest? Would you want him to run around looking for holy water so he could sprinkle it on your chest and see if that relieves your pain because the demon has been chased away? Or would you rather have him assume you're having a heart attack and administer appropriate treatment? Or would you consider such action by the doctor to be "not objective"?

So, to you, TWO examples where the majority of scientists were wrong qualifies as being wrong "time and time again"? As for the General Theory of Relativity, that was published in 1916, so it just barely falls into "the last 100 years". Also, the theory corrected what was previously incorrect. In other words, science progressed! Same goes for the discovery of DNA. Science progressed! Science long ago moved past the point where a young Earth was thought to be the case. You and your ilk have been left in the dust of scientific advancement.

You just asked if I could name any, so I did.

And your examples prove my point!

Actually there are tons of examples because any time we make a breakthrough in science it means that everyone else was wrong before that breakthrough was made.

So you want to rip science because when it makes advances, what was previously thought to be true is shown not to be? Then I suppose science shouldn't ever make new discoveries.

As to the progression argument, that is only valid if science is actually progressing towards truth.

You are confusing science with philosophy. Science does not seek "truth". Science looks for the best answer given the available evidence.

Of course, if the earth really is only 6,000 years old and was created, then adopting Evolution was not a progression at all.

And if there are invisible angels pushing the planets around the solar system, Newton's laws of motion were not a progression at all. Also, evolution has nothing to do with how old the planet is.

So that argument doesn’t really hold any water.

Says the guy who thinks the planet was created at about the same time as the Sumerians were inventing glue.

Uhhhhh... yes, we can test the validity of those claims. We do not use ONE method of radiometric dating. We use several. And they all produce similar results.

First of all this is not testing the validity of the claims, you would have to directly observe the age of the earth to do that.

Wrong.

Or have an infallible source tell you the age of the earth.

Wrong again.

Secondly, those methods actually are not very consistent, different radiometric methods yield very different results on the same rocks, and they never date rocks of known age accurately.

Source?

In fact, radiometric dating dates the flows that flow into the Grand Canyon (which are obviously younger than the canyon itself) to be older than the canyon.

Source?

No, it's a pretty poor analogy. It would be foolish to assume a person grows at a constant rate. This is not comparable to radiometric dating.

Why would it be foolish?

Because you're comparing a living being to non-living material.

If you only got to measure the person’s growth rate for a few months you would completely assume it was constant.

Yeah, if I was a complete fool.

The same goes for measuring radiometric decay rates, we assume they are constant just because we have measured them.

Do you have any evidence to indicate that decay rates change over time?

The analogies are very parallel.

I suppose to a Creationist they would be...

No, but I can observe rock formations. And the claim that layers of rock thousands of feet deep (such as at the Grand Canyon) formed in just a few thousand years (a blink of an eye in geologic time) is simply absurd.

Why? A blink of an eye in geologic time only because it assumes long ages. We have observed catastrophes that can carve out 600 foot canyons (Mt. St. Helens), assuming a global flood could do the same but at a larger scale is not absurd at all and actually rather reasonable. I assure you, the Colorado River did not carve out the Grand Canyon. I am basing my evidence on events we have observed and not unobserved events (rivers carving out huge canyons).

And here is where you demonstrate how well you comprehend what I write. I did NOT talk about how the Grand Canyon was formed! I talked about the ROCK LAYERS at the Grand Canyon! Have you ever been there? I have. And you can see the different rock layers that have been laid down over time. They are composed of different materials, fossils vary depending on the layer, and the layers are even different colors! These layers are stacked one atop the other (much like a layer cake) and total up to a mile deep. The idea that these layers piled up to that depth in the space of a just a few thousand years is absolutely laughable.

Also, the Grand Canyon is shaped just how you would expect running water to shape a canyon over a very long period of time. A one-time cataclysm would not create something like the Grand Canyon.

And what is the "correct" interpretation for the rock layers at the Grand Canyon?

As the flood waters receded back to the ocean they carved out the Grand Canyon.

Read my question again, genius. I did NOT ask how the Grand Canyon was formed. I asked you to explain the ROCK LAYERS. Care to try again?

Oh, and the idea that receding flood waters carved the Grand Canyon is simply ludicrous. I truly find it difficult to believe that any reasonably intelligent adult can believe crap like this.

Oh well that’s easy then. CMI is an international scientific organization that publishes a peer-reviewed journal that has many articles written by experts that confirm the validity of the creation model. As to acceptance in the scientific community, that’s irrelevant because we both agree that scientific fact is not determined by consensus or majority opinion.

Anything with the word "Creation" in its name does not qualify as a legitimate scientific organization or publication. So please stop trotting out this garbage.

And you have just committed the logical fallacy of making a faulty definition. I did no such thing.

Actually I was doing exactly what you were doing (to prove a point). You kept using the words “reputable” and “legitimate” sources but these of course are arbitrary terms.

Obviously you can't point to a legitimate or reputable scientific source that supports your position, so you must argue the meaning of words.

So you were deeming the only legitimate sources were the journals that agreed with your position,

This is the second time you have made this false argument.

since there are several creation peer-reviewed journals that I am sure you do not accept

There's that word "creation" again.... What if I told you the Holocaust never happened? And what if I supported my argument with "research" conducted by The Nazi Party Institute? Would you accept it?

Also, who exactly "peer-reviewed" the conclusions of the creation journals? Other creationists? This is the same as other Nazis "peer reviewing" the conclusions of Nazi researchers. Epic fail.

This of course is the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy.

And obviously you don't understand the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

By definition, "The Journal of Creation" is most certainly NOT a "scientific source".

It may not be by your arbitrary definition, but I am not about to let you redefine the English language for the purpose of the debate.

Would you consider the "Nazi Journal" to be an "historical source" in matters concerning the Holocaust? If not, then (according to you) you are imposing an "arbitrary definition".

Using the actual definition of science the Journal of Creation is very much a scientific source, it takes a systematic approach to gaining knowledge about the physical world.

Except their "systemic approach" is tainted by their assumption that some deity created the universe. This poisons anything they may conclude.

And I can say there is strong empirical evidence to suggest the Earth is much older than 6,000 years. Recall those rock layers at the Grand Canyon?

Only if you have been around long enough to observe the age of the earth, which I highly doubt.

Go back and read what I wrote about the ROCK LAYERS. Then try to explain how they could have possibly formed in the time frame you're promoting.

How do you figure this? The DNA evidence is observable. What the woman is testifying to is NOT observable. We can't observe what she witnessed, we can only take her word for what happened.

The woman made observations, or else she wouldn’t be a “witness”.

And you miss my point. The jury can't observe what she witnessed. They can only decide if what she is saying is the truth. I must also point out that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

The DNA evidence is actually rather circumstantial because just because someone’s skin is under her finger nails does not mean that man attacked her and it does not mean that the other man did not attack her.

Okay, I guess I need to be more specific. The woman fought off her attacker and she scratched his face. The police found skin under her fingernails immediately after the attack. The DNA found does not match the man she is accusing.

You still want to insist the DNA evidence is "circumstantial"?

Observation is the key to empirical science.

And we can observe those rock layers at the Grand Canyon...

Yes, we can! We have numerous methods of radiometric dating that all give us similar results. Of course, all can you do is try to discredit all radiometric dating.

This is not directly testing the age of the earth.

No, it tests the age of rocks. And we know the planet has to be at least as old as the rocks.

This is using rates and assumptions to extrapolate the age of the earth.

And do you have any evidence to suggest that the rates are in error? I mean other than just saying "it's prone to error".

Just like measuring the growth rate of the boy, it’s prone to error and does not always give you the real age of something.

So then, I guess the answer is no.

And you just love that awful analogy where you compare a living being to non-living material, don't you?