Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dino-blood and the Young Earth: YECs embarass Christians
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/YEC_and_dino_blood.htm ^

Posted on 02/15/2004 11:49:26 AM PST by truthfinder9

Once again, the YECS emabarass Christians with their shoddy "science" and give skeptics more reasons not to believe.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/YEC_and_dino_blood.htm

As the article says: Serious questions of credibility are raised by the falsehoods and misrepresentations exposed above. The dino-blood chimera has been widely promoted by Answers in Genesis...No scientist could continue his or her career guilty of such shoddy work, but we predict that there will be no negative consequence to Wieland or his organization. If you "own" the truth, you apparently needn't stint at falsehood.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: apologtics; crevolist; dinosaurs; science; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: HarleyD
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Evolution can be tested, is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

I also notice that you still haven't explained what creating a universe in a labratory has to do with evolution.
41 posted on 02/16/2004 3:47:27 PM PST by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
I wasn't going to say anything if you didn't. But you did! LOL! :-)

"It's a gift... and a curse."
- Adrian Monk

42 posted on 02/16/2004 4:38:36 PM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I thought I'd explained that in post #27.

While you may think that evolution can be tested I have yet to see such a testing of this "theory" in the laboratory. Perhaps you could point me to the scientific journal this is recorded in?

It may be widely accepted but only by those who don't believe in the power of God. Those of us who have experienced becoming "a new creature in Christ" also can testify how we are different. And even though it fits with theory definition #4 some scientists aren't interested in exploring that. Only their preconceived ideas. It all's what you would put your faith in.

BTW-Personally I believe that Adam and Eve existed in the garden of Eden for millions of years while the earth WAS evolving. Thus, the theory of evolution could be true just as well as Adam and Eve. I do not think man evolved but only the world around him. I've never heard anyone espouses this belief.
43 posted on 02/16/2004 5:02:54 PM PST by HarleyD (READ Your Bible-STUDY to show yourself approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Good scientific principles state that in order for you to have a "theory" you must be able to duplicate it under labortory conditions.

No. That would exclude much of geology and all of astronomy.

44 posted on 02/16/2004 5:09:27 PM PST by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

As you can see my definition best fits with the first and most widely held view until about 100+ years or so.

Sure, if you only use half the definition.

45 posted on 02/16/2004 5:44:16 PM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
While you may think that evolution can be tested I have yet to see such a testing of this "theory" in the laboratory.

Evolution is tested every time a new fossil is discovered or a genome is mapped.  Don't know why you're hung up on this "laboratory" thing.  Very few scientists work in laboratories.  Astronomers don't, geologists don't, paleontologists don't... 

46 posted on 02/16/2004 5:47:54 PM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
While you may think that evolution can be tested I have yet to see such a testing of this "theory" in the laboratory.

See, for example, this post.

Or study the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. This site gives many ways that lab experiments and field work *could have* (but didn't) falsify standard biology.

47 posted on 02/16/2004 6:20:15 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
While you may think that evolution can be tested I have yet to see such a testing of this "theory" in the laboratory. Perhaps you could point me to the scientific journal this is recorded in?

The ToE can be tested by checking for expected patterns within the fossil record and within DNA sequences among supposedly linked species. If you find something out of place, you've exposed a flaw in the theory.

It may be widely accepted but only by those who don't believe in the power of God.

Common arrogant excuse from those who ignore the existence of theists who accept evolution.

You still haven't explained what creating a universe in a laboratory has to do with the theory of evolution.
48 posted on 02/16/2004 7:35:25 PM PST by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; Junior
“You still haven't explained what creating a universe in a laboratory has to do with the theory of evolution.”

Perhaps I’m not making myself clear.

For hundreds of years man developed hypotheses and theories related to the “hard” sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). A scientist who would have an idea would put for a hypothesis (If A is added to B we will get C). The scientist would test the hypothesis and if proven true (A+B=C) and can be repeated over and over under controlled conditions the hypothesis became a theory.

Within the last several hundred years the “soft” sciences were created (psychology, sociology, etc.). This made the definition of “theories” impossible to apply since “soft” sciences experiments were unable to be duplicated in most (if not all) cases. For example, what goes on in a person’s “inner psyche” would be difficult to duplicate from person to person.

To make “soft” sciences align with the “hard” sciences the definition of “theory” was loosened. The term theory no longer took on the meaning of a repeatable experiment it once held. Instead it was modified to mean many things including “abstract reasoning”. Even though it made the definition a mess and contradictory, this made the soft “scientists” happy and legitimized their professions.

This degradation of the meaning of “theory” has in recent years been further degraded by “junk” science. In this case ANYONE can put forth “abstract reasoning” and call it a theory. Recently the Theory of Greenhouse Emissions has started appearing in articles where there is precious little evidence only abstract reasoning by people with political agendas. The downsize in all of this is that the term “theory” is used to legitimize junk science.

I’m not so much picking on the “Theory of Evolution” as I am the “Theory of Evolution. Today the term “theory” gets thrown around more times than a basketball at a NBA basketball game. If you find a “flaw” in your “theory” then modify your theory but don’t think it incorrect. This is science-on-the-fly. I personally think the bar for the term “theory” has been lowered to such an extent that it has render the scientific community almost inept.

When I talked about creating the universe in a test tube I mean just as it would have been applied under the “hard” scientist notion. Otherwise, in this case, it should be called the Hypothesis of Evolution. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It only says that it has not been confirmed.

With the muddling of the definition today one should question why terms like the “Theory of Evolution”, or the “Theory of Greenhouse Emissions” is used. What is the motive behind such a statement? This was always been good scientific practice-at least in the past.

I personally find nothing in Genesis 1-6 to be incompatible with the Theory of Evolution. But just as God was able to make an iron axe handle float, or a virgin birth or someone raised from the dead God sometimes supercedes nature and there are NO scientific theories to explain it. In cases where God has superceded nature man is faced with three choices; 1) rationalize God’s action towards our understanding, 2) dismiss God’s action as errors, or 3) reconcile the world around us to God’s Sovereignty.

49 posted on 02/17/2004 6:17:53 AM PST by HarleyD (READ Your Bible-STUDY to show yourself approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
I'll get to a more in-depth response later, but you still haven't explained what creating a universe in a lab (and I'm specifically referring to universe creation) has to do with the theory of evolution. Even assuming that theories should require the ability to do lab work, what does evolution have to do with creating universes?
50 posted on 02/17/2004 6:49:38 AM PST by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
It should actually be called the "hypothesis" of evolution until it is proven (har har).

Scientific theories cannot be proven, since we can never be certain that evidence that disproves the theory does not exist. The best that can be said about a theory is that, based on the available evidence, the theory has not been disproven.

51 posted on 02/17/2004 6:50:03 AM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

You assume that "tested" only means tested in a laboratory. "Tested" also encompasses application of the abstract theory to the real-world evidence.

52 posted on 02/17/2004 6:57:33 AM PST by Modernman ("When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." -Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
"If God created Adam & Eve in order to have someone to worship him, then why didn't he just create the rest of civilization by taking 6 billion lumps of clay & breathing into them? Why create an adult man & woman instantaneously, but then use a completely different mechanism to populate the rest of the Earth?"

In addition to this conundrum, there is God's perplexing use of a messy global flood and wholesale slaughter to "re-start" the world. Are we to presume that God lost the power to "blink" a new world and new humans into existence? Using an inelegant cudgel in place of a seamless display of galactic magic just seems so, well, minor league.

Kind of leads to that most heretical of thoughts -- Are we reading the Bible wrong?

Perhaps. As stated in the article that started this thread: "One must consider if Wieland's reading of the Bible is as poor as his reading of not only the scientific literature he distorts, but even the words from his own hand."

53 posted on 02/17/2004 7:23:05 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Sorry, we're just not connecting. I thought I explained it several times but I guess not.
54 posted on 02/17/2004 7:44:41 AM PST by HarleyD (READ Your Bible-STUDY to show yourself approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Sorry, we're just not connecting. I thought I explained it several times but I guess not.

You've explained several times why you believe that a scientific theory requires the ability to work with it in a laboratory (I think that part of your problem is that you're limiting the definition of "laboratory"), but even granting that, you've not explained this alleged connection between the theory of evolution and the creation of a universe, inside or outside of a lab.
55 posted on 02/17/2004 8:13:03 AM PST by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
Kind of leads to that most heretical of thoughts -- Are we reading the Bible wrong?

Some folks, in their quest for literalness fail to see the underlying message. Take the Flood story you've brought up. We all know that there is no evidence for a universal flood -- especially one of the monumental proportions spoken of in the Bible. However, the story can be read as an allegory. Noah was "saved" because he had faith in the Almighty. The story lets the reader know that, no matter what happens, including having your whole world (figuratively) washed away, in the end you will be fine as long as you trust God. One can see this as an allegory alluding to the message presented in the New Testament.

However, as I said before, the beauty of this message will be completely lost on some people because their eyes see only the forest (the literal words of Scripture) and not the trees (the meaning of those Scriptures).

56 posted on 02/17/2004 10:50:00 AM PST by Junior (No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

Comment #57 Removed by Moderator

To: Modernman
You seem like a sensible man. why do you even bother debating these YEC ? There is a socialist in my workplace ...and yes I "run from an honest free debate" . These people are so clouded by religious/cultural beliefs that sensible debate is pointless. Anyone who believes the earth is only 6000 or so years old really needs serious deprogramming to break free from their cult. To all YEC out there would you spend time "honestly debating" people who think they have been visited aliens? why not ?
58 posted on 03/24/2004 8:29:30 PM PST by newfarm4000n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson