Posted on 01/08/2006 2:56:32 PM PST by Dichroic
Most paleontologists look into the mouth of an allosaurus and see a prehistoric eating machine with a jaw full of flesh-tearing teeth.
Peter DeRosa peers into that mouth and sees the hand of God.
Working from a business park about 80 miles north of Tampa, Fla., DeRosa and his family are hammering away at two bedrock principles of modern science: evolution and the notion that Earth is about 4 billion years old.
The DeRosas are part of a small but growing band of creationists using dinosaurs - the icons of an ancient Earth - to argue that the world is only 6,000 years old. The DeRosas' tool of choice? The fossilized bones of Ebenezer the allosaurus and other creatures cramming their makeshift laboratory.
"It's very clear in Scripture. God's word is true," said DeRosa, 22.
"Everything we've found supports that." The DeRosas run Creation Expeditions, a ministry that relies on dinosaurs to spread what they say is the infallible word of the Bible.
The family operation includes Peter, his brother Mark, sister Leah, and parents Pete and Linda.
The DeRosas have no formal training but have studied dinosaurs and fossils for more than a decade. .......... The DeRosas' digs have produced impressive results. They have uncovered a 22-foot-long allosaurus - a smaller relative of the T. rex - and a 15-foot-tall edmontosaurus, a plant-eating, duck-billed dinosaur.
The DeRosas and their movement, in essence, are trying to turn science against itself.
By digging up fossils and interpreting their finds, some creationists hope to convince others that evolution and a 4-billion-year-old Earth are nonsensical notions unsupported by the data.
They maintain, for example, that they've found organic plant matter buried with fossils indicating the animals died only a few thousand years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at macon.com ...
<<<<
Just a little info for you. Coyoteman works with carbon dating on a regular (weekly) basis. You have been warned, though a little too late to help you. :)
>>>.
So does John Woodamorpe. So I guess it is one expert's opinion against another.
The Bible does say that Adam brought sin and death into the world; there is no hint that eons of death brought Adam into the world.
While Christians have diferent perspectives on creation, I hate to see the "mean spirited" attacks on the intelligence of those who believe in a literal translation.
You'd think He would have known better than to put His hand within biting range.
Complete horse manure. Try reading more science journals and fewer creationist pamphlets.
Because they're idiots and/or charlatans.
You may call them ignorant, thats fine with me. But I don't think you can dismiss their academic credentials so easily.
Sure I can, since I can identify the elementary, bone-headed errors they make. For example, from your own post:
Examining the science behind the claims of a very old earth using carbon dating techniques
See, there's an idiotic, incompetent comment right there. "Carbon dating techniques" top out at about 40,000 years. Thus they're not used, *can't* be used, to examine or make any conclusions about "a very old Earth". OTHER techniques are used for that.
Only a completely ignorant, clueless creationist could make such a childishly stupid error as that. It's like saying, "Examining the science behind the claims of very distant stars using yardstick techniques"...
You creationists are welcome to come back and try again when you have the first clue, and have a better grasp of science than the average junior-high school student. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case, thus the need for enormously long lists such as this one, detailing the errors and fallacies that creationists keep making time after time after time after time. Read it and weep, it deals with all the classic blunders in your links, and then some.
Just for variety, why don't you guys go get some *new* fallacies for a change? The old ones are getting really stale.
Uh....just a second here. Are you actually saying that ALL science is based on fact? Cause I've seen a helluva lot of science that's based on mere THEORY. Like global warming, for instance. For every scientist that claims global warming is a fact, there's another that claims it's not a fact and has not been proven (ergo, is a theory). A lot of science (for instance, re: deep space) is based on theory, not fact.
"Science is based on fact..."
On this point the matter is not so clear. Faith denotes trust. Few people trust in something for which there is no evidence. Science and religion both deal with facts. Both require a certain amount of faith. Furthermore, science is at heart a conjectural process. While it deals with objective evidence, untimately it must make leaps of faith as it interprets and applies the same. Why? Because science cannot possibly observe and test every case, and thus arrive at ultimate proof of its deductions.
I agree with you completely that this issue, while divisive on the face of it, should not prevent both sides from finding common ground in a country that by definition accomodates people of all stripes.
What will evolutionists and anti-God scientists say when we don't find life on Mars? I'm sure they'll have some convenient conclusion to share with the world.
"And what will creationists say when we find microbial life on Mars ?"
But they don't believe in an old earth. They believe in a young earth, so if you are dealing with 6,000-10,000 years, radiocarbon works just fine. [/creationist mode]
Now if they could just get the results of radiocarbon dating to agree with their claims they might have something!
Does anyone know what the age of a freshly created piece of matter dates at, with our modern dating methods? When we can create matter out of nothing, we may be able to comment with authority.
God has already commented on the Theory of Evolution and pre-Adamic man being untrue; so letting go of defending an Old Earth in contradiction to the Word of God, becomes easier.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Red letters indicate words spoken by Jesus Christ).
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul;
Adam was not a mythological figure as we can see from the following:
Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
"Cause I've seen a helluva lot of science that's based on mere THEORY."
Theory is the highest level that science attains. Facts are data points that support of go against theories. Saying something in science is "only a theory" is only derogatory if you don't know what you're talking about.
Thanks for alerting us to yourself.
So does John Woodamorpe. So I guess it is one expert's opinion against another.
No, it isn't, because it's easy to identify the errors and false claims that Woodmorappe makes. You don't have to just flip a coin and decie which "expert" to believe, you can examine the strength of their claims yourself, and find out who knows what he's talking about and who's incompetent and/or dishonest. Woodmorappe, like almost every "creation scientist", has been caught screwing up, and misrepresenting sources, countless times over the years:
Geochronology kata John WoodmorappeHow Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? Additional Topics: Woodmorappe's list of "bad" dates
How Can Woodmorappe Sell Us a Bill of Goods if He Doesn't Know the Costs?
More Classic Misquotations in Woodmorappe (1999)
And conversely....saying something in science is a fact when it's only a theory, and has not been proven as fact, is giving credibility to something where credibility is not due. It's true I'm no expert on global warming, for instance. But I do know that it has yet to be proven as a scientific fact. And yet, it is claimed to be a fact by some scientists. If my attitude comes off as derogatory to you, I'll take that hit. I have a very low opinion of those scientists that claim to know what they can only theorize about, and unless something has changed, I am still allowed to have and voice my opinion.
"Theory is the highest level that science attains. Facts are data points that support of go against theories. Saying something in science is "only a theory" is only derogatory if you don't know what you're talking about."
ROFL
Global warming is a fact. It has been going on, in fits and starts, for some 12,000 years. That is when the last of the ice ages began to wane.
The theory part would be what is the cause of global warming.
Some has to be natural, and part of the normal cycles. There was not enough human influence 12,000 years ago to cause any climate change, but we have had a sea level rise of some 325 feet since then, most of which happened before about 5,000 years ago as glaciers melted.
So the theory part comes in to explain the increase in warming since the Little Ice Age. The increase can be measured, and is a fact, but the cause is still subject to multiple interpretations.
<<<<
No, it isn't, because it's easy to identify the errors and false claims that Woodmorappe makes. You don't have to just flip a coin and decie which "expert" to believe, you can examine the strength of their claims yourself, and find out who knows what he's talking about and who's incompetent and/or dishonest. Woodmorappe, like almost every "creation scientist", has been caught screwing up, and misrepresenting sources, countless times over the years:
>>>>
Of course Woodmorappe has not remained silent and has responded to the critics with his own rebuttals as in here :
Misuse of Woodmorappe’s List Of Discrepant Isotopic Dates
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp
and here :
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_01.asp
...with the usual hand-waving and inadequate excuses. The "quality" of Woodmorappe's "rebuttal" can be seen in the following passage:
It is a pitiful sight to behold my sisters and brothers in Christ, such as Schimmrich, blindly believe and defend humanistic ideas and premises with such intensity and abject servility. It reminds me of SOME of the Christian pacificists of WWII, who were absolutely blind to all of Hitler's crimes while constantly hurling venom against the Allies for their "unChristian" attitudes and conduct.When the facts on your side, pound on the facts. When the facts are not on your side, as they clearly aren't in Woodmorappe's case, try to hysterically slur the people who point out the errors in your argument...
Here's the response to Woodmorappe's attempted rebuttal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.