Young-Earth-Creationism - can you prove it's not true?

[Minimalist]

When Theo talks about "peer review" he means his "peers."

[downbeatplumb]

Here are two sites that don't base their beliefs on the Bible but reject the theory of evolution for scientific reasons:

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/

http://evolutionfacts.com/index.htm

BZZT!!! Non peer-reviewed garbage. Try again.

EDIT: Also their silly "75 Theses" is broken by #11.

Heres film of a gnome attacking youths in argentina

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0fPoH2gWzc

this sort of internet fakery is why peer review is important.

[cookies4life]

cookies4life, which school do you go to?

I'm living in Germany, so I suppose the name is not much for you

[Darwinian]

Scientists who say the earth is billions of years old begin by assuming that all the natural processes we see have always gone on as they are now and that God has never intervened.

Of course scientists assume this, they also have evidence to back up their assumption. Why on earth would anyone assume that natural processes have been any different from the way they are observed today?

If you notice after years of careful study the rate at which bedrock is eroded due to the effects of water you can work out the age of the grand canyon. Who on earth in their right mind would then reject this on the basis that some magical deity has been fiddling around with the laws of physics?

Occam's Razor mean anything to you?

[theophilus]

Peer Review is the difference between science a some moron ranting on the Internet.

This is the start of article you linked to:

Peer review is a generic term that is used to describe a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals with the related field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, the term is often used to denote a prepublication reviews of academic papers; reviewing an academic paper is often called refereeing.

I would like to consider this phrase,

a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals with the related field.

Who determines which individuals are qualified? In the case of evolution, peer reviews are normally conducted by people who are committed to the belief that evolution is true so naturally they aren't likely to be impartial when evaluating the work of those who don't believe in it.

[Jaysyn]

In the case of evolution, peer reviews are normally conducted by people who are committed to the belief that evolution is true so naturally they aren't likely to be impartial when evaluating the work of those who don't believe in it.

No, that's how theology works, not science. I can understand why you'd get the two confused though.

[Minimalist]

I took a few moments to check out Theo's bullshit web pages. The first thing I noted is that they were trying to hide their point of view and pretend that they are scientists. They did, on another page, list their names.

"R. David Pogge"

"Thursday, April 15, 2010
R. David Pogge, Christian Creationist Charlatan
Over on one of the many cesspools of ignorance and disinformation, 'scienceagainstevolution.org', Ol' Do-While himself, David Pogge, software engineer and 'expert' on all things having to do with evolution, is up to his old tricks."


"Andrew S. Ritchie"

"Andy Ritchie is a native of Gary, Indiana. He earned his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree from the University of Florida in 1971"



In other words, these two shits know nothing about biology. I'm sure that's fine with Theo. He doesn't know shit about biology either.

[Tiberius]

Science isn't committed to any "belief". The theory of evolution has changed many times over the years, all because the people who are qualified individuals in the field are not committed to a belief that any of science is absolutely true. Science has no absolutes, and theories can change as new evidence emerges.

If evidence emerged that contradicted evolution, it would destroy the theory. Currently, no evidence has ever been brought forward that has done this. All attempts by creationists are refuted when studied closely; this isn't because scientists want desperately for evolution to be true, but because the evidence brought forward is either wrong, misinterpreted, or simply the result of bad science.

Yes, the idea that God changed the natural processes throughout time is unfalsifiable, as is the idea that the entire universe was created Last Thursday (which I believe sincerely), and all memories and evidence for an "old universe" is simply fake. The point is, science is built on several foundations; one of which is falsifiability. That is, if something cannot be demonstrated through empirical experiments to be wrong, it cannot be placed into the realm of science. This is the single biggest reason why creationism is not accepted as an alternative scientific theory to evolution; like Last Thursdayism, it is unfalsifiable, and therefore no different (in science's eyes) to any other idea that is thought up on the spot.

[Anomalocaris]

Who determines which individuals are qualified? In the case of evolution, peer reviews are normally conducted by people who are committed to the belief that evolution is true so naturally they aren't likely to be impartial when evaluating the work of those who don't believe in it.

Let me give you an analogy. In the case of journal on arithmatic, peer reviews are normally conducted by people whose most elementary training have already enabled them to demonstrate that 2+2 is indeed equal to 4 and grasp how this reflects the most basic principle fundamental to any significant work in the field, so naturally they aren't likely to be "impartial" when evaluating the "work" of those who don't "believe" in 2+2=4. And why should they? Similarly biology journals are not doodle boards for pre-kindergardeners. They are for well trained grown ups. So creationism need not been given the same airing as evolution in biology journal for exactly the same reason that 2+2=5 need not be given the same airing as 2+2=4 in a journal for mathmaticians.

[Minimalist]

I think Theo is under the mistaken impression that evolution and creationism are equivalent theories.

They are not.


They are also not a dichotomy. If evolution were suddenly shown to be totally false it would not provide one iota of evidence that life suddenly appeared 6,000 years ago in the mid-east in essentially the same form as it is now.

Frankly, that last one is so fucking asinine that there is no saving it.