Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Captain Scarlet]

Ooh Statler quite a tantrum, from a 'logician' such as yourself

So first it was, “Creationism has made no successful predictions.”- now it is “well the predictions that creationists have successfully made were not impressive enough for me.” Moving the goal posts I see. If this was such an easy prediction, then why did it take all the secular scientists so long to figure it out?

I never said Creationists don't make predications! You have invented the goalposts to move all by yourself. I'll wait for you to revoke that. Sure Creationists make lots of predictions, mostly garbage: see Kent Hovind. He also has a lot of interesting theories; one which sticks in the mind explaining the formation of the polar ice caps from a comet impact. Brilliant! You remind me of him :-). What I actually said was:

"When you have done that could you tell us how superntural creation can be used to predict results as successfully as evolution does in its application in the fields of medical research and agricultural research?"

It has still not been answered, but hey take your time.

The age of the Earth is closely tied to Evolution. That’s why the high school textbook “Teaching About Evolution” has two whole chapters dedicated to the age of the Earth. Secular scientists believed that it was impossible for C14 to be measured in both coal and diamonds because they are both believed to be far too old. Creationists believe they are young so they asked for secular labs to do the tests. Of course, there was C14 in both, and every time the tests were done. Rather than admitting this is strong evidence against old ages for the coal and diamonds, Evolutionists just say there was cross contamination, something they of course never observed and can never demonstrate. So it’s a nice way of ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit the paradigm.

I think what you meant to say was that evolution requires time to take effect, and to get to current bio-diversity a lot of time. I would agree with that. Thus when we look at the age of the earth it is good support that evolution did infact have enough time to take effect. c14 It is not strong evidence against the ages of coal seams as there are many other stronger indicators including the process of petrification, stratigraphy, well preserved fossilised remains of plants in the coal seams from amongst the matrix. For sure its an anomoly, but I'd rather wait for the research first, wouldn't you?

If you can’t see how organisms suddenly appearing in tact and identical to today’s creatures in the fossil record is evidence for Creation then I don’t know what to tell you. It most certainly can’t be used as evidence for evolution.

No I can't see how they remotely provide evidence for creation. Just as the crocodile has a common ancestor with alligators and caymens, but in itself is relatively unchanged from the Cretaceous period. There is no proof of creation here. If someone found a living dinosaur tomorrow that would not prove creation. However if someone found humans remains in a Cretaceous sedimentary layer, then we would have some evidence disproving evolution, but not evidence supporting "YAHWEH did it".

50 million years is not nearly enough time for all of those different phyla to evolve. The genetic differences between them are far too great, and mutations occur far too slowly. Besides, the millions of transitional fossils depicting this evolution of all these phyla are still MIA. You are really operating under a faith based system.

Are you an expert in evo-devo? How do you know this?

If this is no big deal then why did Mary Schweitzer have to do the test 17 times before she would believe it? The answer is because it’s young Earth implications were so undeniable that she thought it was impossible. This is the same reason Jack Horner didn’t believe her when she told him, and many reviewers told her what she was finding was impossible. They all knew the implications. It is impossible for soft tissue to survive for 65 million years. It’s amazing it even survived for a few thousand. So if you don’t see the obvious implications of this evidence, then you really are just ignoring evidence that doesn’t fit your paradigm.

I would imagine she tested the result 17 times because scientists are skeptical, tend to care about the truth and be rigorous around validating it. I guess she was a little surprised as it is a unique find (at least thus far!). Bare assertion and incredulity on your part, to assume that she had it in for YEC. But how does it prove YEC? Again it demonstrates how petrifiction is not a linear process but varies with environment and conditions, although given the enormous timescales involved most dinosaur remains are fully petrified, whereas those from more recent strata are less so and for ancestral hominids are not petrified at all given they are 100-200k years ago.

You are going to have to do a lot better than this rag-tail assortment to show evidence FOR creation. Still it is no surprise when you look at the stats. for Intelligent Design (creation by any other name; and before you argue with that - yes it is!)

when 20m scientific papers were searched through a couple of years ago:
the keyword evolution appeared 115k times
the keyword intelligent design 88 times (yes eighty-eight and not thousands)
of the 88, 77 were in engineering journals
of the 11 remaining 8 were critical of intelligent design
the remaining 3 failed to get published in research journals

So far your arguments a taking a very familiar line. One put down by Dawkins in the blind watchmaker:

Dawkins quotes Montefiore: "As for camouflage, this is not always easily explicable on neo-Darwinian premises. If polar bears are dominant in the Arctic, then there would seem to have been no need for them to evolve a white-coloured form of camouflage."

Dawkins gives this translation of Montefiore's paragraph: "I personally, off the top of my head sitting in my study, never having visited the Arctic, never having seen a polar bear in the wild, and having been educated in classical literature and theology, have not so far managed to think of a reason why polar bears might benefit from being white."

Perhaps you would like to add Bishop Hugh Montefiores argumentation to your arguments/evidence FOR creation as well?