But it will most likely be a waste of time if you ignore it or decline to present arguments from your side.
You have several times accused us of being unwilling to look at the evidence, of being dogmatic, blind, arrogant, etc., but when given an invitation to seriously discuss the evidence pro-and-con, you decline to participate. I'm looking forward to having an in-depth test of the arguments on both sides, and you're unwilling to. At the very least, might this lead you to reconsider your preconceptions about our alleged closed-mindedness?
Now sure, I'm confident that my side would win in such a head-to-head comparison. But that doesn't make me closed-minded, since you feel a similar confidence about your evidence. But I'm open-minded because I'm willing to look closely at what you choose to offer for scrutiny, and confident enough to let you examine mine (which goes against the common creationist charge that evolutionists "know" that their field is some kind of rotten shell which wouldn't withstand close examination).
Are you open-minded enough to do the same?
This decision is based upon several elements:
1) I have observed a strong bias against any creationist or non-evolution source of information on this thread.
I can't disagree there, but that in itself is no reason not to "show us the light" by presenting your best evidence and letting us flounder against its unassailability, if you're confident of its strength.
Furthermore, a "strong bias" against something is not in itself proof of closed-mindedness. Tell me, do you have a "strong bias" against any "flat-Earth or non-spherical-Earth source of information"? Why or why not?
Don't forget, some of us have spent *decades* looking over each new creationist argument or "find" as they have been introduced. Speaking for myself in all honesty (although you've disbelieved many things I've said and probably will discard this one as well), I have a "strong bias" against creationist sites *not* because I've never looked at them and simply presume they "must" be wrong because they contradict what I already believe -- instead I have a "strong bias" against them because almost every time I've looked at something from them, it's been full of obvious errors, misstatements, false claims, logical fallacies, and misunderstandings of what evolution actually does and does not encompass.
When you know enough science, reading a creationist site trying to "debunk" science is like reading a liberal website trying to discredit conservatives -- the amount of disinformation and misunderstanding and misrepresentation is just mind-boggling (and irritating). On the liberal sites you read that conservatives want to starve schoolchildren, poison the air, throw granny out in the streets, and install a Christian theocracy. These are, of course, all gross distortions of the actual conservative position, and either reveal a complete failure to understand, or willful dishonesty. And that's what it feels like when someone with a strong science background reads creationist literature. It's not the fact that the creationists come to differing conclusions, it's that every other sentence we go, "say what?!?" at the number of things that are either misrepresentations of science/evolution, or distorted attacks on its actual positions.
I don't expect you to just take my word for it, of course. I'd be happy to show you -- but you have to be willing to look. If not, all I can do is say, "well, believe what you want, no evidence will change your mind, it would be a waste of my time to show any to you."
2) The proposal assumes that if you can knock the legs out from underneath one argument, that must mean the rest of the science is bad across the board and all of the sources are flawed. There is no basis for that assumption whatsoever.
First, that's not what I said. I tried to be pretty clear, please reread my previous post and maybe it'll improve on second reading. My point(s) were:
1. We weren't going to look at just any argument, we were going to look at what you considered some of the *best* arguments. And more than one most likely, although a small enough number that we wouldn't take all year to cover them.
2. If the *best* arguments turned out to be actual duds, that of course would not prove that *all* arguments had to be, but that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it would provide supporting evidence to the concept that a) the person picking the "best" arguments wasn't as good at recognizing valid arguments as he thought he was, and b) the people who predicted they'd be flawed might not be as incompetent as the argument-picker kept thinking they were, and finally c) the source of the arguments are capable of putting their names and reputations on some bogus claims.
If you dispute these points, I ask you to consider what you would conclude about evolutionists if the top N "best" evidences for evolution were proven to be invalid after all. Would you agree that that would cast doubt on the field as a whole, even if it didn't automatically "disprove" the rest? Wouldn't you expect evolutionists to reconsider their confidence in the theory? Wouldn't you use it as a reason that evolutionists should take the naysayers more seriously next time? If so, why is it wrong for me to ask if the same would apply in reverse if the shoe was on the other foot? I'm asking if you would apply the same standards to our position as you would to yours?
3)There is a fundamental level of unfairness about what you propose. I have been for 1500 or so replies largely standing alone against a team of evolutionists, some of whom are claimed to be scientists.
I can sympathize. But remember that you chose this mission yourself. :-)
And by challenging the majority view in biology (accepted by over 98% of biologists, according to at least one poll), you're facing off indirectly against a few hundred thousand more scientists. So if you feel outnumbered, it's because you set out to claim that you're right and they (along with all their millions of pieces of evidence and millions of studies) are all wrong. That's a big job you've taken on.
Sooner or later, many creationists make some form of the complaint about how they're being outnumbered, or outmatched, or buried in rebuttals, and how it's not fair. There's an obvious lesson in that, but most usually don't see it. Please do me the courtesy of reading this essay, "The Mirage", which explains why this is a common occurrence. (Note, there are three essays on that page -- all are informative, but the one I'm talking about is the first one).
Even if I had a PhD. in physics, I would personally not be an expert in all of the fields of science represented here on Free Republic and would not be able to tell if the arguments presented to me are valid or not.
This raises the question, then why do you feel qualified to proclaim that millions of scientists around the world are flat wrong on everything from evolution to dating methods to geology to plate tectonics and more...?
You can't have it both ways -- you can't be proficient enough to claim to have more correct knowledge of their fields than they do and know where they are all wrong, but not knowledgeable enough to be able to recognize a valid argument from an invalid one...
In short, if you can't distinguish a valid argument from an invalid one, how can you say that mainstream science's arguments are invalid?
Nonetheless, I have more faith in you than you may have. I think you'll be able to hold up your end, you strike me as a very bright woman. As for the science, science may be "big", but most of it's not complicated, at least not when taken little bites at a time. And if we argue anything which isn't clear or which you think needs to be broken down more or demonstrated to be true, we'll be glad to go into more detail. Feel free to challenge anything, or ask why there can't be alternative explanations, etc.
I have gone to sources that are more well trained than I in the area of science, but those sources are rejected outright.
Not outright. It may look that way to you because you just got here, but many of us have looked those over in detail *long* ago -- often multiple times, since they keep getting brought up again and again. So it's not a matter of "we don't care to look at that", it's a matter of "been there, done that".
Also, while I understand your desire to present arguments from people you feel are more qualified than yourself, the problem is that in the end it just comes down to a matter of "my expert can beat up your expert". But that works both ways, of course, and no one will convince anyone. Plus, you're at a disadvantage again -- we've got a *lot* more experts on our side (98+% of biologists, remember).
That's why I never present a link to a study or argument that I don't understand myself and can personally verify as consistent with the known evidence and logically sound. I don't just present it as, "I really don't know, but maybe this guy's right because he has a degree". If that's what you're doing, that's yet another reason why I think it would be valuable to "dissect" one of them for you and show whether it actually passes a reality-check.
And if you can't personally validate a study or argument, are you picking them (and rejecting them) solely on whether their conclusion matches your expectations or the author is "ideologically correct"? If so, isn't that the same as what you accuse us of doing?
In all this time, I have never seen proof that my sources are wrong,
Now wait a minute... For example, one of your sources claimed that the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon was formed underwater, and that any apparent reptile tracks found in it were caused by amphibians. I showed actual photographs of those sandstones with tracks of terrestrial insects (spiders and scorpions) and terrestrial mammal tracks, along with raindrop impressions, along with links to other indications that those sands were actually laid down by wind-blown processes and not water. That seems like pretty good "proof" that your source was wrong.
And that's just one example from this thread out of several. Don't claim that there have been no refutations of your sources when there certainly have been. You can't make opposing evidence go away by pretending it doesn't exist.
just blanket accusations that when they question the dating scenarios (which is the heart of the matter) of the evolutionists they are defying the laws of physics or something to that affect.
Because they *are* defying the laws of physics. That's the sort of thing we'd be glad to get into in detail if you agreed to honestly look at some of the evidence and arguments. But it'd be a waste of our time if you declared in advance, "that wouldn't prove anything, my mind is made up". Thus my earlier questions about whether you're open to having your mind changed.
If they lay down a plausible scenario about how it could have occurred another way, they are either ignorred or scoffed at.
Again, the problem here is that the scenarios they lay down are *not* "plausible". Not once you know enough science and the evidence underlying it to realize just how badly the creationist scenarios would clash with just about everything else. For example, the creationist ad hoc scenario of "accelerated nuclear decay" would have killed Noah and his family through both intense radiation *and* enough heat to boil the oceans into steam. Even if by some miracle they managed not to be flash-fried, such accelerated decay would leave *countless* tell-tale pieces of evidence all over the Earth (an inevitable result of the verified laws of physics which even creationists do not dispute) which would be unambiguous and impossible to miss. But, it turns out, the tell-tale signs that would have been left by "accelerated decay" simply aren't there. Every bit of evidence that would be one way if nuclear decay had been "uniformitarian" and another way if nuclear decay had varied more than a few tiny fractions of a percent turn out to be exactly as they'd be if nuclear decay had been (drumroll please) uniformitarian.
*That* is just one example (out of countless) why almost everyone with a significant science education looks at the creationist scenarios, boggles, and declares them to be *im*plausible.
This brings up another problem with many creationist scenarios... They postulate all sorts of never-before-suspected enormous variations from well-established principles (established by the evidence, not just by tradition) which clash with a great deal of existing evidence, often piling one giant "what if" on top of another (e.g. accelerated decay *plus* an instant ice age *plus* continents colliding like bumper cars *plus* changes in the speed of light, etc. etc.)... Then as if that's not bad enough, after they've invoked all these "watch me pull a revolutionary idea out of my hat" ideas to "resolve" *one* thing they'd like to "explain", they completely fail to address what effect their explanation has on anything *else*.
A minor but instructive example is the way they invoked a certain exact sequence of behavior by the Flood waters to lay down the Coconino sandstone layer of the Grand Canyon, including "waning" flood waters topping off the sandstone with dune-like hillocks on top... BUT UTTERLY FAILED to address how exactly these "waning" flood waters would then deposit another 600 feet of a different kind of rock on top of the sandstone (*and* not disturb the pretty dunes). Oops.
This is, shall we say, not "plausible". I pointed out several other very implausible features of that scenario, but I didn't see that you addressed them.
If they "lay down a plausible scenario", we'll be glad to think it over. But if we reject something, it's because we've found it to be *im*plausible, for several good reasons.
4) I distrust your evidence because I know that it is based upon several presuppositions which I do not trust to be true.
Actually, one of the reasons I wanted to do the "test cases" was because if you dug deeply enough into any scientific argument, including challenging the evidence, etc., you'd see that scientific principles are *not* based on "presuppositions". Each accepted principle is based on evidence, and the reasons for interpreting the evidence in a given manner is based on more evidence, and so on. To update an old science joke, "it's evidence all the way down".
Feel free to challenge what you see as our "presuppositions". We've got nothing to hide, and are confident that science can stand up to close examination (and that creation science can't). And yet that's not what some of the creationist websites tell you about us, is it?
One of these presuppositions is that the geological column is dated correctly.
We can show you why it is.
I present evidence that dinosaurs could have lived much more recently and rather than even consider the fact that the dating could be wrong in the evolutionary scheme, the evolutionist response has been "gee, isn't it amazing that a dinosaur cold have survived 65 million years." I never said that such evidence negated the 65 million year claim, but there is an absolute REFUSAL to even so much as HINT at the idea that the dating of the column could be wrong.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. Or maybe I'm missing your point.
Why would a few "survivor" dinosaur species in any way raise questions about fossil dating methods? What's wrong with this scenario: 65+ millions of years ago zillions of dinosaurs roamed the Earth, but something (probably a meteor strike) killed off 99+% of them 65 million years ago. Nonetheless, a few tiny populations of 1-4 different species survived the disaster, and lived in remote (or underwater) areas and had baby dinosaurs and so on until present day, remaining undiscovered (albeit spotted on rare occasions) by mankind. So... Why would this raise any questions about dating methods? In this view, dinosaur fossils date to 65+ million years because all the ones found have been from the the pool of zillions of dinosaurs from 65+ million years ago, and no bones have been found from the relatively tiny population of "survivor" dinosaurs, which are so remote or few that we haven't even found a *live* specimen, much less a fossilized one.
Again, even if the Loch Ness Monster greeted tourists tomorrow and turned out to be a modern-day descendant of ancient pleisosaurs, how would that call into question any dating tests on genuinely ancient dino fossils? Please be more specific.
Hince, there is a blindness, based upon your presuppositions, that will not allow you to learn anything different than that which has been drilled into your head.
Uh huh...
Once again -- which side has announced that they would indeed change their beliefs if sufficient evidence or better theories were presented, and who has announced that he doesn't want to look at the arguments in detail and that it wouldn't prove anything to him anyway?
I present that there are unconformities in the radiometric dating system, but it is still proclaimed to be sound.
Because a) you have declared uncomformities but not presented any to be examined (unless I missed them), and b) we are familiar with 100+ previous examples of creationists declaring "uncomformities", and under examination they have been found to be making mountains out of molehills.
I could present evidence of humans living in just about every era where they weren't supposed to be found,
Please do.
but that would be explained away as well.
If they *can* be explained away, then they weren't very good to start with, were they?
Arguments for a flat Earth can be explained away -- does that prove that people are closed-minded... Or that the arguments are invalid?
In other words, I will not be taking you up on your proposal, because a)it is set up deliberately to try to make me look inflexible (which I will at least admit as opposed to this group),
Wait a minute, I thought you said that *we're* the inflexible ones...
gullible, and just plain stupid.
Not at all. It's an honest proposal to take a hard look at the evidence and arguments. If I may say so, I think it reflects worse on you that you're refusing to put your ideas (and ours) to the test.
b)It assumes that evolutionary science is just "good science" and that all of its presuppositions which help it to come up with its conclusions are valid.
No, it assumes that we will be able to demonstrate to you that it is good science, and that what you see as our "presuppositions" are actually arrived at by following the evidence. Or if we're wrong about that, it allows you to demonstrate that to us.
c)And, three, it assumes that if you can "demolish" one or more creationist's arguments that you can declare victory for the debate and with a broadbrush paint all creation scientists with the label of incompetency, lack of understanding of "true" science, and unreliability.
As I explained above, that's not what I'm saying. If I may be flippant for a moment, I'm just asking that if we could "demolish" some of what you thought were the strongest arguments for a young earth (or against evolution), whether you'd be able to admit, "gee, I guess some of this creationist stuff isn't as good as I thought it was, and I'll consider that maybe the rest of it may not be infallible either, and I guess you guys aren't quite as stupid and blind as I first thought you were".
Again, nice try.
I always try to demonstrate the evidence for what I claim. I'm disappointed that you choose not to look at it.
However, I may not be a highly decorated scientist, but I am not stupid.
I never thought that you were. Indeed, I'd never make such an offer and promise to devote my time to it if I didn't think you were up to it. Stupid people are a waste of time.
Yes, it's the YECs against the world, and it's not just in biology. The YECs have trouble with the rest of the world's geology, astronomy, paleontology, cosmology, nuclear chemistry (so far as it supports an old universe), etc. One need only look at the list of issues presented in 1375. None of its points address anything Darwin ever said or thought in his life or much of anything in biology.
There is no astounding discovery to rescue the YECs from this hopeless position. Something that overturns all of biology won't do it. Something that overturns all of astronomy won't do it. Something that revolutionizes cosmology won't do it. Something that revolutionizes geology won't do it.
They have to pull the impossible revolution in biology, then they have to do it in geology, then they have to do it in astronomy, then they have to do it in nuclear chemistry, then they have to do it in cosmology ...
That's approximately the story of the metasequoia (dawn redwood). they were known from cretaceous fossils, but a stand was found in China in the 1940s. http://www.icogitate.com/~tree/dawn.redwood.timeline.ac10.htm