Professional scientists expose AiG museum's unscientific nature

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology ^ | July 17, 2007 | Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

[stillwaiting]

yes, evolutionism is a philosophy as lewontin himself admits.

[doc30]

No philosophical assumption involved. Unless, of course, you are a science denier, which you are. When physical evidence that has clear and unabiguous causes is collected, the creationist’s only recourse is to question the validity of of objective reality. That’s an up hill battle because science has provided real life applications derived from it’s observations. Only the insane or the ignorant would say that sciencec works in case A, but not in case B, even though the underlying principles are identical in both.

[stormer]

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

So you agree with him as he accurately describes the shortcomings of science and technology, but you disagree with his contention that magic and superstition should be excluded from entering into explanations regarding the physical world?

[stillwaiting]

your bias is showing thru, as you refer to God manifesting himself in our world as magic and superstition. that is hardly open-minded and inquiring, is it?

[doc30]

don't have a dog in this fight, but I've never read where a team of scientists has evolved one animal into another. That would seem to be the real test.

That is a big misunderstanding. For some reason, people think evolution dramatically changes one organism into another. Evolution makes no such claim. Changes occur between generations. Offspring are imperceptably different from parents. But across many generations, those miniscule changes do add up. New species of organisms have been observed appear in nature and in the lab. The idea of a fish becoming a bird, like what you are most likely thinking, is ludicrous in evolution.

[stillwaiting]

yes, tell that to the punk eek crowd....hopeful monsters abound in that scenario.

a build of a mutations or small changes has never been seen in a lab to make a complete new species of creature from an earlier one.

im not talking about different strains of wheat or fruitflies, or some other nonsense....im talking about what was once ‘object or creature A’ is now ‘object or creature D’

never been observed, because it has never happened.

[Triggerhippie]

If the scientists could not reproduce the results, the “testing” that you were talking about seems like “taking-it-on-faith-that-the-scientific-results-would-be-consistent.”

That’s all I’m saying...

[doc30]

Geologically, that part of the U.S., as well as much of central North America were undersea and subsequently uplifted. Sandstone features do not need to arise from sand dunes. But those are still typical ocean sediment deposits and do no corespond to a sudden deposition. Even more sophisticated creationist theories still do not conform to known physical processes. These creationist processes seem to have occurred extremely selectively and go against how things otherwise work in the real world.

[doc30]

I think it is on big joke God has played on us when we were granted free will. The of the observable elements to evoulution can be easily explained and acceted by creationism, however models and tests are set up by humans with a distinct point of view. I can set up a test to get one set of results and another can get a different set of results.

That's not science. You must perform a test that can refute your theory for it to be a true test. If you set it up to produce a particular outcome, it is not a test, but some form of demonstration. The only way something can be accepted as scientific is if you can propose something that could invalidate your theory.

It is also a mistake to think that people who are behind evolution are athiests. Many people of faith accept evolution and believe the first Genesis chapter to be allegorical and not literal. The important point to me is to understand that God is responsible for everything. Evolution does not challenge this.

[Bruinator]

Agreed, not all are but some of the people that have engaged me and what I have read and seen in other places forms my opinion.

So, in your scenario on testing, does this scenario play out with the global warming crowd. Seems to me, it would have been refuted long ago.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Wrong. See here.

My degrees are in chemistry and chemical engineering and I've worked in scientific fields all of my life. I have also taken Hebrew classes and many, many Bible classes and know enough to understand when I'm being fooled and when I'm being told the truth.

Young-earth creationism is not supported by the Bible and is not supported by what God has shown us through his creation. It's a dangerous man-made doctrine that has kept many from coming to Christ.

Sorry if I'm being rough but I have witnessed to too many people who think that all Christians are young-earth creationists. Their argument is that if Christians are so wrong on this topic, how can they be right on who Jesus Christ is? They have a valid point.

To paraphrase the apostle Paul: if you've been a Christian for more than a couple of years, it's time to put away childish beliefs and receive mature Christian beliefs.

Citing an opinion as proof for a question? C'mon.

Fine, I'll do ya one too. Both of my degrees happen to be in chemistry (organic) as well, and I've been working in scientific fields for all my life, also. I am also quite familiar with the Bible as well, AND am familiar with the Hebrew language. As such, my qualifications to speak on this question are roughly equivalent to his.

And his claim that YEC is not supported by the Bible is abject foolishness. If he actually knew the Hebrew he claims to know, he'd know that yowm is NOT used to mean anything other than a simple 24-hour period, when it does not receive a specific contextual modifier (as is the case in Genesis 1).

Like it or hate it - the Bible says what it says, and it doesn't support old-earth "creationism". In fact, if he knew as much Bible as he puts across, He'd know that Romans 5:12 understood in conjunction with Romans 8:19-21 positively denies any sort of old-earth creationism. Paul did say to put away childish things - and nothing is more childish than taking demonstrably refutable positions on the Scripture, simply because you're afraid that some fool might ridicule or despise you for it.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Anything J.P holding doesn't cover at Tektonics, Glenn Miller more than adequately deals with at the ThinkTank.

In my years, what I've noticed is that practically all of the claims made by sceptics against the Bible, all the lists of "One Billion and One Unbelievable Contradictions in the Buy-Bull!!!!!!!" lists that float around the internet like the detritus of our civilisation, basically boil down to three problems on the part of the sceptic:

1) An absolute refusal to actually read anything in context. Pulling things out of context, trying to "spin" them to seem like a contradiction/seem like some terrible, horrible practice "commanded" by the Bible, is far too common on the part of our supposedly intelligent and rational sceptics.

2) An unswerving determination to completely ignore any relevant historical, cultural, or other pertinent contexts. The Bible is revelation, but it was given to real people who lived in real cultures and who operated within their own cultures. Expecting them to act just like 21st century Americans is ludicrous.

3) An unfailing tendency towards reading the Bible like it was a newspaper - so woodenly literal that virtually anything that is poetic, or uses allegory, or which contains figures of speech, can be pulled out and trumped up as a "contradiction" or an "absurdity". Yeah yeah, snails don't melt, we know that. Now, Mr. Sceptic, trying reading it in the context of the poetic language that is found in that Psalm.

The moral of the story is, if people are absolutely determined to find something horrible, or absurb, or contradictory in the Bible, they will keep working until they can produce one.

[elk]

I don’t disagree.

[stormer]

Well, let’s see. Invisible beings overseeing the activities of mankind and granting imaginary favors to adherents while denying the existence of other invisible beings that grant favors to their adherents? Events taking place through supernatural intervention that contravene the laws of physics? Whole societies to adopting rituals and world views that directly contradict the empirical evidence laid plain before them? Devotion to charismatic individuals that claim to be able to directly communicate with (and therefore influence) deities? OK - call me closed-minded, but don’t confuse your own beliefs as anything other than bias; bias in support of a cult.

[atlaw]

3) An unfailing tendency towards reading the Bible like it was a newspaper - so woodenly literal that virtually anything that is poetic, or uses allegory, or which contains figures of speech, can be pulled out and trumped up as a "contradiction" or an "absurdity".

Somewhat ironic, given the insistent denials of allegorical intent by Biblical literalists.

[stillwaiting]

again, you set up a straw man....what invisible beings? you assume what you already believe, ignoring the historicity of the bible, its people and occurences, including the risen Christ, which, im sure, galls you to no end.

so each comment you make about it is couched in terminology and phrasing designed to cast in doubt anything that is pointed out to you.

[stillwaiting]

there are allegorical parts of the bible, who is denying that?

there are also straight forward historical narratives, i.e. genesis, why do you deny that?

[BrandtMichaels]

Here’s a very good link to answer many of these Biblical flood questions (in part II - the hydroplate theory) and more...

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

Also this link and several more on my FR Links page...

Another question for the evolution crowd that understand the problems with global warming (mainly warming temp data extrapolated for the past few years while ignoring known temperature fluctuations - both up and down - for every decade and/or century). How is global warming bunk but not all the uniformitarian extrapolations that naturalism and evolution has applied to earth-aging techniques?

[BrandtMichaels]

To those prior postings about ‘quick’ formations for GC and other canyons - please research the little grand canyon for Providence, GA. Amazing how quickly this canyon was formed.

Also more specifics re link in post 278 above:

“Many of the Earth’s Previously Unexplained Features Can Be Explained by a Cataclysmic Flood.

The origin of each of the following is a subject of controversy within the earth sciences. Each has many aspects inconsistent with standard explanations. Yet all appear to be consequences of a sudden and unrepeatable event—a cataclysmic flood whose waters erupted from interconnected, worldwide subterranean chamber with an energy release exceeding the explosion of 30 trillion hydrogen bombs. Consequences of this event included the rapid formation of the features listed below. The mechanisms involved are well understood.

103. The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons
104. Mid-Oceanic Ridge
105. Continental Shelves and Slopes
106. Ocean Trenches
107. Earthquakes
108. Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
109. Submarine Canyons
110. Coal and Oil
111. Methane Hydrates
112. Ice Age
113. Frozen Mammoths
114. Major Mountain Ranges
115. Overthrusts
116. Volcanoes and Lava
117. Geothermal Heat
118. Strata and Layered Fossils
119. Metamorphic Rock
120. Limestone
121. Plateaus
122. Salt Domes
123. Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
124. Changing Axis Tilt
125. Comets
126. Asteroids and Meteoroids”

[js1138]

So which parts are the Jewish Fables that we are not the heed?