Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 18854 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
You are perfectly at liberty to personally find the ToE to be wanting in certain aspects. However, that's never been my point of contention (even though I think you're wrong to). What I am trying my best to do is explain to you that every time you dismiss the ToE, or any other theory or hypothesis in fact, you are inadvertently claiming that your god didn't create or design nature this way, but a different way, without providing an alternative.

I am curious as to why you think I am disissing the entirety of the ToE.....or are you suggesting that the ToE is an 'all-or-nothing' proposition?

Quote
Microevolution and macroevolution are terms coined by scientists. All macroevolution is is microevolution at the level of speciation and there are many observed cases of speciation. I suggest you research it. You must accept that your god is behind this mechanism if you believe god designed and created nature.

There are no confirmed cases of a 'snakes-from-lizards' type transition. The examples of speciation that you are likely referring to are unconvincing in terms of demonstrating that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
BibleStudent,

Do you advocate that schools teach Flat Earth Theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php  < An excellent forum going over a number of details of the theory (check out the FAQ sections)
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2339
  • Darwins +434/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
I am curious as to why you think I am disissing the entirety of the ToE.....or are you suggesting that the ToE is an 'all-or-nothing' proposition?

Admittedly, a lack of acceptance of an old Earth is pretty close to a tacit rejection of the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life.  There is no way to simultaneously hold that any substantial aspect of the theory of evolution is correct and not acknowledge that the age of the Earth is, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of years old.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Darwins +86/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
You are perfectly at liberty to personally find the ToE to be wanting in certain aspects. However, that's never been my point of contention (even though I think you're wrong to). What I am trying my best to do is explain to you that every time you dismiss the ToE, or any other theory or hypothesis in fact, you are inadvertently claiming that your god didn't create or design nature this way, but a different way, without providing an alternative.

I am curious as to why you think I am disissing the entirety of the ToE.....or are you suggesting that the ToE is an 'all-or-nothing' proposition?

Wow. Way to ignore the actual meat of my post and run with a non-issue based on vagueness. You know what, if you can't be bothered or have the courtesy to actually acknowledge other parts of my post that are of significance, then we're done.

Quote
Quote
Microevolution and macroevolution are terms coined by scientists. All macroevolution is is microevolution at the level of speciation and there are many observed cases of speciation. I suggest you research it. You must accept that your god is behind this mechanism if you believe god designed and created nature.

There are no confirmed cases of a 'snakes-from-lizards' type transition. The examples of speciation that you are likely referring to are unconvincing in terms of demonstrating that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Who gives a shit? It takes only one observation of speciation for macroevolution to be demonstrated.... and it has.

None of this even matters. Why are you still running around this circle? I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether the entirety of the ToE is true or not, you have to believe that if it is true, then god used it as a mechanism. If you don't believe it in entirety, then propose a different mechanism your god used. I really do hope, for your sake, that you don't bypass this issue again.
If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Wow. Way to ignore the actual meat of my post and run with a non-issue based on vagueness. You know what, if you can't be bothered or have the courtesy to actually acknowledge other parts of my post that are of significance, then we're done.

Yeah, maybe we should be done. You're a little too delicate and sensitive to be engaging in a civil confronational discussion about complex subjects. You seem to have a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude.

I was simply asking for some clarification before I dove into the rest of your post and, frankly, that is because you are so demanding of absolute accuracy. I was trying to be respectful of that and not create any additional "frustration" for you.

Quote
Quote
There are no confirmed cases of a 'snakes-from-lizards' type transition. The examples of speciation that you are likely referring to are unconvincing in terms of demonstrating that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Who gives a shit? It takes only one observation of speciation for macroevolution to be demonstrated.... and it has.med

Taking your demonstration of speciation and projecting it onto other unique forms of assumed speciation is fallacious. You should know that.

Quote
None of this even matters. Why are you still running around this circle? I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether the entirety of the ToE is true or not, you have to believe that if it is true, then god used it as a mechanism. If you don't believe it in entirety, then propose a different mechanism your god used. I really do hope, for your sake, that you don't bypass this issue again.

I have already proposed the mechanism that created the mechanism which allows for microevolutionary changes to occur --> God. He possesses the power and authority to command His creation into any form He chooses. Why you are having difficulty comprehending such a simple assertion is beyond me.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™

If evolution adequately explained soup-to-humans, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.


I think we would, actually.

No matter how compelling the evidence is for something, there is always some zealot who is capable of arguing against it. Whether the evidence falls into your lap and convinces YOU, is the question. You are saying it doesn't convince YOU - nothing else. Then, (like all Christian Creationists) you go and admit that you haven't really bothered looking at the evidence. Why would that be, exactly? Are you too busy reading books by Behe, and reading up on bogus attacks on Evolution? I can see how that would all take up one's time.

I said above, that it's a bit strange that a God would leave life languishing in the bacterial phase for 2 billion years. You've actually admitted that this would be a bit strange, too, by (a) dodging, and (b) stating that you can't be bothered reading any real scientific research on whether the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old. Therefore, you do actually have something to follow up on, to fault ID, but choose not to.

The reason you choose not to, is, well, there's always another reason to attack Evolution, so why bother with the finer details? Why not leave everything hanging? Who cares if the fine tuned argument can be solved by having infinity sequential universes, or evolving universes? It's probably all bollocks, because you have faith that some kind of BibleGod is true, in some way, which you can't spell out, or prove (even in a non-rigorous way). You are the pioneer in your own hypothesis, which you have no evidence for, and have not properly researched. But, you draw heavily on suppositions from other creationists whom you do not agree with, anyway.

It's all a sort of vague mush, that you keep hanging in the air, like a juggler.

To come down to your standards, scientists would have to invent the entire fossil record, and predict that they would further find fossils to fill in the gaps of their invention.

You state that argument to the future is a fallacy. It certainly is, if you've got NOTHING. If scientists were arguing that one day, they would find a fossil and prove that all life had evolved sequentially, then it would be a fallacy. But, as it happens, all scientific theories have an assumption that the theory will be validated by further evidence. Inherently, it's not a fallacy, because any correct theory can likely be validated by future evidence. It's a guess that a theory cannot be validated. The guess gets more ridiculous, as the theory gets stronger, and the information the guesser has is just self delusion.

What leaks through your sieve, is that Bible creation story can be refuted, just by looking at the text. The sun was not created on the 4th day. If you can't spot that, then you are the type of person that will keep arguing, to hold up his faith.
 
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I am curious as to why you think I am disissing the entirety of the ToE.....or are you suggesting that the ToE is an 'all-or-nothing' proposition?

Admittedly, a lack of acceptance of an old Earth is pretty close to a tacit rejection of the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life.  There is no way to simultaneously hold that any substantial aspect of the theory of evolution is correct and not acknowledge that the age of the Earth is, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of years old.

I am very hesitant to dive into this topic for the reasons I have already stated. However, as an attempt to pacify you and others who have made similar comments/suggestions, one (not all) of the problems I run into is the prevalence of claims about the inaccuracy and unreliability of the various dating methods. I just bumped into an article recently that had to do with paleomagnetism and how it was using false asuumptions about magnetic polar shift...blah blah blah....I can't remember the details because I was looking for something else and just skimmed the article.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
I have already proposed the mechanism that created the mechanism which allows for microevolutionary changes to occur --> God. He possesses the power and authority to command His creation into any form He chooses.

I don't think you stated which God you were talking about.

Hindu? Zoroastrian? Druid? Buddhist? Islamic?   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2763
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
I just bumped into an article recently that had to do with paleomagnetism and how it was using false asuumptions about magnetic polar shift...blah blah blah.

No prizes for guessing where you just bumped into this article. Hmm, was it on a pro-Islamic site? Was it on Stormfront?
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I think we would, actually.

No matter how compelling the evidence is for something, there is always some zealot who is capable of arguing against it.

This is true. I stand corrected.

Quote
You've actually admitted that this would be a bit strange, too, by (a) dodging, and (b) stating that you can't be bothered reading any real scientific research on whether the Earth is actually 4.5 billion years old. Therefore, you do actually have something to follow up on, to fault ID, but choose not to.

I am not quite certain what leads you this conclusion. I do not recall stating that I "can't be bothered" to read "any real scientific research. What I said is that I have not designated the time to do it. I have a job and a family and other obligations so I choose to use the time I do have to study topics that I feel have a greater impact. Frankly, I don't see the issue of the Earth's age having any significant impact on my beliefs. I may have to re-shape them but not in any radical sense.

Quote
The reason you choose not to, is, well, the'sre's always another reason to attack Evolution, so why bother with the finer details? Why not leave everything hanging? Who cares if the fine tuned argument can be solved by having infinity sequential universes, or evolving universes? It's probably all bollocks, because you have faith that some kind of BibleGod is true, in some way, which you can't spell out, or prove (even in a non-rigorous way). You are the pioneer in your own hypothesis, which you have no evidence for, and have not properly researched. But, you draw heavily on suppositions from other creationists whom you do not agree with, anyway.

It's all a sort of vague mush, that you keep hanging in the air, like a juggler.

Nothing to say here. Lot's of ad hominen.

Quote
To come down to your standards, scientists would have to invent the entire fossil record, and predict that they would further find fossils to fill in the gaps of their invention.

Rubbish. That is a complete corruption and exaggeration of the expectations many of us have....and rightly so.

Quote
You state that argument to the future is a fallacy. It certainly is, if you've got NOTHING. If scientists were arguing that one day, they would find a fossil and prove that all life had evolved sequentially, then it would be a fallacy. But, as it happens, all scientific theories have an assumption that the theory will be validated by further evidence. Inherently, it's not a fallacy, because any correct theory can likely be validated by future evidence. It's a guess that a theory cannot be validated. The guess gets more ridiculous, as the theory gets stronger, and the information the guesser has is just self delusion.

Can you please guide me to the source you used for determining what criteria must be met to qualify as an "argument to the future?"

Quote
What leaks through your sieve, is that Bible creation story can be refuted, just by looking at the text. The sun was not created on the 4th day. If you can't spot that, then you are the type of that will keep arguing, to hold up his faith.

I could return a similar accusation but instead we will just let your little rant have its place.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I have already proposed the mechanism that created the mechanism which allows for microevolutionary changes to occur --> God. He possesses the power and authority to command His creation into any form He chooses.

I don't think you stated which God you were talking about.

Hindu? Zoroastrian? Druid? Buddhist? Islamic?   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

Then you clearly have not been paying attention.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
BibleStudent,

Do you advocate that schools teach Flat Earth Theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php  < An excellent forum going over a number of details of the theory (check out the FAQ sections)

No.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I just bumped into an article recently that had to do with paleomagnetism and how it was using false asuumptions about magnetic polar shift...blah blah blah.

No prizes for guessing where you just bumped into this article. Hmm, was it on a pro-Islamic site? Was it on Stormfront?

Generally speaking, how accurate would you say the dating methods are? 70% ? 80% 90% 100%?

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5236
  • Darwins +598/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I am very hesitant to dive into this topic for the reasons I have already stated. However, as an attempt to pacify you and others who have made similar comments/suggestions, one (not all) of the problems I run into is the prevalence of claims about the inaccuracy and unreliability of the various dating methods. I just bumped into an article recently that had to do with paleomagnetism and how it was using false asuumptions about magnetic polar shift...blah blah blah....I can't remember the details because I was looking for something else and just skimmed the article.
Do you realize that one of the biggest reasons that Christian creationists go after the various dating methods is because they state, using the Bible as their sole source of evidence, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?  They read the Bible literally and assume that it is true, and thus, anything that contradicts it (such as the various dating methods) must be false.  One of their favorite tactics for doing that is to claim that the 'assumptions' that scientists made are false, and then to provide their own assumptions which just so happen to prove (at least to them) that the Earth really isn't very old at all.

The main thing they're interested in is proving that they were right all along.  Now, that isn't to say that all Christian scientists are like that, cause they're not.  But those people are religious believers first and foremost, and making sure (by hook or by crook) that what they already believe is correct is their top priority.  If they were actually interested in science, they would be willing to honestly look at the evidence and seriously consider the conclusions that scientists came to, instead of deciding before they ever look at anything that they must be right, assuming the thought ever crosses their mind that they might just possibly be wrong in the first place.

The thing is, unless a person is sufficiently knowledgeable about a subject, it's incredibly easy to dazzle them with BS that sounds convincing.  That, I think, is the position you're in.  You don't have enough knowledge to tell whether they're wrong or not, but because they cater to your religious belief and scientists in general don't, it's much easier for you to gravitate towards their position.  That's what they're counting on.  They want people to simply accept what they say without really thinking about it, because the evidence doesn't back up their arguments and they know it going in.  They don't care about that, either, because they know they're right, they don't care what anyone else thinks, and that's the end of it as far as they're concerned.

The only defense against that is to become knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to recognize their BS for what it actually is.  That means reading up on paleomagnetism, not relying on an article posted on a Christian website that attempts to debunk it.

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effectWiki?  The gist of it is that people who are not skilled at something consistently overrate their ability, usually quite severely.  I think the same holds true for knowledge on a subject; someone not knowledgeable on a subject will often think that they know more than they actually do and is often unable to distinguish between people who are genuinely knowledgeable and people who are making stuff up to fool them.  That's the kind of person that the people who write those pseudoscientific articles are aiming at - people who don't know enough to recognize the lack of real science (not to mention evidence) in them, and thus are more willing to accept the conclusions despite not understanding them well enough to explain to others.

In short, they're trying to take advantage of you and people like you, who aren't particularly knowledgeable about biology and geology and chemistry and other fields of science, who won't recognize the wool being pulled over their eyes, and who are willing to support their conclusions without understanding them.  Their goal is religious, not scientific.  They don't want to expand scientific knowledge; their only interest is in spreading their religious belief for the "greater good" of Christianity.

But all it really does is make a mockery of Christians and Christianity.  It creates the appearance of connivance, that Christians only care about spreading their beliefs and are willing to embrace any tactic in order to do so.  For your own good, you need to stop buying into the pseudoscientific BS that these people come up with.  If nothing else, at least recognize that you don't know enough about the subject and stop trying to push a 'theory' that's been crafted solely to attempt to clothe creationism in a lab coat.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
^^^^^

@jaimehlers-

How do you know all of this and why couldn't the same be said for those who are opposed to religious beliefs?

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
BibleStudent,

Do you advocate that schools teach Flat Earth Theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php  < An excellent forum going over a number of details of the theory (check out the FAQ sections)

No.

Why not?  FET is not religious and it can't be ruled out as a possibility with 100% certainty.  Shouldn't we teach alternative theories to RET? 
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
BibleStudent,

Do you advocate that schools teach Flat Earth Theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php  < An excellent forum going over a number of details of the theory (check out the FAQ sections)

No.

Why not?  FET is not religious and it can't be ruled out as a possibility with 100% certainty.  Shouldn't we teach alternative theories to RET?

It does not appear that an adequate amount of testing has been done. Do you disagree? Do you feel their claim is accurate?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
I just bumped into an article recently that had to do with paleomagnetism and how it was using false asuumptions about magnetic polar shift...blah blah blah.

No prizes for guessing where you just bumped into this article. Hmm, was it on a pro-Islamic site? Was it on Stormfront?

Generally speaking, how accurate would you say the dating methods are? 70% ? 80% 90% 100%?

The appear to be over 90% accurate. Of course, if you want to disprove them, all you need to do is show that they aren't. Which should be easy if they are so obviously wrong. If the planet is indeed 6-10,000 years old, and people are claiming that we have rocks over three billion years old and fossils of living things almost as old, it should be a cinch to prove those numbers wrong. If science is off by many orders of magnitude, it should be kids stuff for right minded people who know the planet is far younger to prove it a thousand different ways.

Sadly, the planet isn't cooperating. For instance, science has identified dinosaurs of different ages, some being 70 millions years  old, others 150 million years old. And sadly, we always find the 70 million year old dinosaurs buried shallower in the ground than the ones identified as 150 million years old, and if they were all just 4-5000 years old, there should be less consistency in such things. And the lack of human remains along side dinosaurs is a real hard one to explain too.

So while you guys keep things simple by making claims like "Science uses dinosaurs to date rocks and then uses the age of the rocks to date the dinosaurs" (not true, but often claimed by creationists), you are making no progress. Such a large scale lie, if that is what it is, should be so easy to refute that discussions would not be needed.

Hence we get the scenario being played on in this discussion, over and over and over, ad naseum. The people with information and evidence and a detailed reconstruction of the past that we have uncovered, arguing with people like you, who can't afford to have the past we have found be true, so you have to claim over and over that it must not be. And that is all you have. Your hopes. That we're wrong. That is absolutely all you have. Well, you have a few lies to go along with your hopes, but they are about as useful as male nipples, but less logical.

Science can explain male nipples too, by the way. But don't look it up. You won't like that one either.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Even if it were true, what does it prove?....that because 99% of the ID proponents are religious, ID is somehow invalid?
If the only people who accept ID as valid are ones who already believed that a god created the universe and everything in it, then it contradicts the whole idea of ID not being religious.  On top of that, it begs the question of exactly why only the people who would benefit from a 'scientific' basis of their religious beliefs buy into ID.

One of the key strengths of science is that it doesn't matter whether you agree with a particular conclusion or not.  If you don't agree, you're free to do experiments of your own to try to disprove it, because it's falsifiable - and whether it is or isn't falsified, the result benefits science as a whole.  But ID doesn't allow for that at all.  When ID hasn't been shown to be workable through the scientific method (and so far, it hasn't been), just exactly how is someone supposed to point out flaws in it or falsify it?  When the people who buy into it insist that it must be true because it caters to what they already believe, and they just don't pay attention to anyone saying otherwise, how is that any different from groupthink?

I will give this some thought and do some surveying to see if I can determine whether your observations have some merit. I won't pretend to know whether or not you have something here because, honestly, I've never made the connection....if there is one.

Returning to this topic.....

I could not locate any poll data or survey information that provides the percentage of religious people who support ID. I located some brief comments here and there but nothing that referenced the representative population of ID supporters.

To say that ID advocates, scientists and non-scientists alike, include many who hold religious beliefs of some kind is also true. But again, most people hold such beliefs. Why should we in the ID community be any different, or more inclined against theism than the rest of the world? As Hitchens points out, and this is obvious, ID has implications that, among other things, allow space for theistic commitment. So wouldn't it be counterintuitive -- in fact, upside-down and crazy -- if most people who sympathize with ID turned out also to reject its theism-friendly significance? "Peter Hitchens on Intelligent Design" - http://www.evolutionnews.org - March 5, 2013 (Author: David Klinghoffer)

Offline Willie

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
  • Darwins +78/-1
  • Gender: Male
Generally speaking, how accurate would you say the dating methods are? 70% ? 80% 90% 100%?

Just as a thought experiment, let's imagine that the methods used to estimate the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years are wildly inaccurate, let's say +/- 99%. A factor of 100 in either direction. That would mean that the age of the universe could be anywhere from 138 million years, to 1.38 trillion years. Notice that the lesser of those two numbers is still 23,000 times larger than the young earther's claimed 6000 years. Still an enormous discrepancy. For the error to be large enough to allow for the possibility of a 6000 year old universe, the dating methods would have to be in error by a factor of 2,300,000. Even if we're generous and compare only the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, rather than the 13.8 billion years of the universe, you're still off by a factor of 750,000. And the thing is, it isn't just one dating method that would have to be so wildly erroneous, but ALL of them, and all erring in the SAME direction.

[edit] I see that I have made a rather glaring mathematical error in the above. A +/-99% error would be a factor of 100 in only one direction, and a factor of 1/1.99 in the other, and therefore the range of possible ages would be 138 million to roughly 27.5 billion years.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 01:20:38 AM by Willie »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I just bumped into an article recently that had to do with paleomagnetism and how it was using false asuumptions about magnetic polar shift...blah blah blah.

No prizes for guessing where you just bumped into this article. Hmm, was it on a pro-Islamic site? Was it on Stormfront?

Generally speaking, how accurate would you say the dating methods are? 70% ? 80% 90% 100%?

The appear to be over 90% accurate. Of course, if you want to disprove them, all you need to do is show that they aren't. Which should be easy if they are so obviously wrong. If the planet is indeed 6-10,000 years old, and people are claiming that we have rocks over three billion years old and fossils of living things almost as old, it should be a cinch to prove those numbers wrong. If science is off by many orders of magnitude, it should be kids stuff for right minded people who know the planet is far younger to prove it a thousand different ways.

Sadly, the planet isn't cooperating. For instance, science has identified dinosaurs of different ages, some being 70 millions years  old, others 150 million years old. And sadly, we always find the 70 million year old dinosaurs buried shallower in the ground than the ones identified as 150 million years old, and if they were all just 4-5000 years old, there should be less consistency in such things. And the lack of human remains along side dinosaurs is a real hard one to explain too.

So while you guys keep things simple by making claims like "Science uses dinosaurs to date rocks and then uses the age of the rocks to date the dinosaurs" (not true, but often claimed by creationists), you are making no progress. Such a large scale lie, if that is what it is, should be so easy to refute that discussions would not be needed.

Hence we get the scenario being played on in this discussion, over and over and over, ad naseum. The people with information and evidence and a detailed reconstruction of the past that we have uncovered, arguing with people like you, who can't afford to have the past we have found be true, so you have to claim over and over that it must not be. And that is all you have. Your hopes. That we're wrong. That is absolutely all you have. Well, you have a few lies to go along with your hopes, but they are about as useful as male nipples, but less logical.

Science can explain male nipples too, by the way. But don't look it up. You won't like that one either.

I did some Google searching and there is a literal mountain of articles, papers, arguments, counter arguments, examples of dating, dozens of different dating methods, etc etc. Should I just believe that you are correct and be done with it?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Generally speaking, how accurate would you say the dating methods are? 70% ? 80% 90% 100%?

Just as a thought experiment, let's imagine that the methods used to estimate the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years are wildly inaccurate, let's say +/- 99%. A factor of 100 in either direction. That would mean that the age of the universe could be anywhere from 138 million years, to 1.38 trillion years. Notice that the lesser of those two numbers is still 23,000 times larger than the young earther's claimed 6000 years. Still an enormous discrepancy. For the error to be large enough to allow for the possibility of a 6000 year old universe, the dating methods would have to be in error by a factor of 2,300,000. Even if we're generous and compare only the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, rather than the 13.8 billion years of the universe, you're still off by a factor of 750,000. And the thing is, it isn't just one dating method that would have to be so wildly erroneous, but ALL of them, and all erring in the SAME direction.

To repeat the reply I just made to Parking Places:

I did some Google searching and there is a literal mountain of articles, papers, arguments, counter arguments, examples of dating, dozens of different dating methods, etc etc. Should I just believe that you are correct and be done with it?

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
I did some Google searching and there is a literal mountain of articles, papers, arguments, counter arguments, examples of dating, dozens of different dating methods, etc etc. Should I just believe that you are correct and be done with it?

What are the sources? Intellectual or stifled? Educated or wistful? Open-minded or empty-minded?

And of course you should believe me.

Just kidding. You need to find out for yourself. Just make sure your standards are high enough to justify the effort. Because if you'll settle for the simple shit that we are telling you is wrong, and if you avoid our side of the story out of fear, then you're wasting your time.

Do you have any idea how big a conspiracy science would have to be to be as wrong as you're hoping it is? How many millions of hours of research would have to be deliberately wrong in order for the story of our past to be as fake as you are saying it is. Can you imagine how many researchers, working in laboratories, out in the field, at the bottom of the ocean, in the guts of ostriches and aardvarks, with test tubes in hand, hooking up meters and instruments and studying radiation and tiny little genes, each and every one faking it just to discredit that minority of christians who are saying the earth is young? Can you actually imagine that many human being either deliberately lying, or being lied too so effectively that their own research cannot disprove that which you think is a lie?

Of course the Internet can provide you with alternatives. All of which we can give detailed responses to. All of which we can tell you are wrong if they say the planet is young, the dinosaurs recent, the flood real or life instantly created. In the United States, 25% of the population doesn't know that the earth is in orbit around the sun. The think that the sun goes around the earth. That is the level of ignorance we are up against. And when melded with a literal interpretation of the bible, the stupid gets so bad it makes the world stink.

If you're going to believe in god, fine. Do it. I can't argue against that belief because nobody religious will give us enough to argue against. But if you are going to make claims about a young earth and your whole life depends on it, then you are in trouble. Because to do that, you have to ignore knowledge and find, hidden the the crevices of fear, those shards of hope that you so desperately need. That is your only source for evidence, because nothing real can be included. So here you sit, proclaiming that you have found crap but that it isn't crap, but in fact something worth considering. When it isn't. Because the sources stink.

I wish you could at least go all catholic on your own ass. Say that yes, evolution has occurred, but god did it. Then we can get back to having trivial arguments about god himself rather than spending years fending off your thousands of posts to the contrary.

But you'll never do that, and of course we'll never reach you. You are holding yourself out at arms length, adhering to the petty while rejecting the solid, prancing around in the wasteland of your limited and religious POV, proud thinking that you've got it right and puzzled as to why others can't see that which is so obvious to you.

So now you have a bunch of people caught up with you in the trite little argument, spending hours and hours is an alleged discussion, when each and every one of us actually has better things to do. But hey, that's the Internet for you. And it requires fools, otherwise the rest of us wouldn't look very smart. So thanks for your service.

Insert snarky one line response here: ___________________________________________________
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 573
  • Darwins +86/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Wow. Way to ignore the actual meat of my post and run with a non-issue based on vagueness. You know what, if you can't be bothered or have the courtesy to actually acknowledge other parts of my post that are of significance, then we're done.

Yeah, maybe we should be done. You're a little too delicate and sensitive to be engaging in a civil confronational discussion about complex subjects. You seem to have a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude.

Please engage with the content of my posts and not me. You are getting personal.

Quote
I was simply asking for some clarification before I dove into the rest of your post and, frankly, that is because you are so demanding of absolute accuracy. I was trying to be respectful of that and not create any additional "frustration" for you.

There was nothing stopping you engaging with the rest of my post. I am no more demanding of accuracy than the average Joe on the street. Please stop pinning attributes on me and deal with the content. Now, let's get back on track instead of taking a diversion down this cul-de-sac of irrelevancy.

Quote
Quote
There are no confirmed cases of a 'snakes-from-lizards' type transition. The examples of speciation that you are likely referring to are unconvincing in terms of demonstrating that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Quote
Who gives a shit? It takes only one observation of speciation for macroevolution to be demonstrated.... and it has.med

Taking your demonstration of speciation and projecting it onto other unique forms of assumed speciation is fallacious. You should know that.

That's not what I was doing. I was merely stating that speciation has been observed and this demonstrates macroevolution. You inserted this 'snake-to-lizard' and 'dinosaur-to-bird' stuff. I have not made any comment on it, so please, do not project on to me something that you have instigated.

Quote
Quote
None of this even matters. Why are you still running around this circle? I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether the entirety of the ToE is true or not, you have to believe that if it is true, then god used it as a mechanism. If you don't believe it in entirety, then propose a different mechanism your god used. I really do hope, for your sake, that you don't bypass this issue again.

I have already proposed the mechanism that created the mechanism which allows for microevolutionary changes to occur --> God. He possesses the power and authority to command His creation into any form He chooses. Why you are having difficulty comprehending such a simple assertion is beyond me.

Ugh, this is like pulling teeth. For the sake of argument, I am now a theist. I can still propose that god created the mechanism which allows microevolutionary and macroevolutionary changes to occur. He possesses the power and authority to command his creation into any form he chooses. If you believe this god didn't use the mechanism of macroevolution, then you need to propose a different mechanism to macroevolution. You can't just say that it's god. What did god do? How did he go about creating different species? God isn't the mechanism, he's the entity using the mechanism. An electrician doesn't wire up a distribution board by simply being an electrician - he has a mechanism. Until you get to grips with this simple concept, then we're at a loss.
If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11193
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
I do not deny microevolutionary changes…

*sigh*



Any more questions about "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"?[1]
 1. I wrote both terms between quotes because they were made up by theists who had no idea what the fuck they were talking about.

BibleStudent, I take it you missed my post. Here it is again. If you have any more questions, speak up. Otherwise, I'll be compelled to think you're deliberately ignoring something that you know disproves your wrong view.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1906
  • Darwins +198/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Do we have a sticky set up with credible, basic, scientific information about what the Theory of Evolution actually says?

Maybe this is simply an enjoyable exercise in futility, and no one particularly cares. If not, it might be more effective to start from a place of at least minimal common understanding of the topic under discussion. Based on BS's post in this thread, he appears to be armed with the standard theist arguments against evolution, but I haven't gotten the impression that he knows enough about the actual explanation that IS the ToE to really understand the arguments being presented back to him. If he doesn't know what the ToE actually says, there's no way for him to actually understand the arguments against his position, even when he thinks he does.

The lizard-to-snake remarks alone indicate that he is badly misinformed. If he doesn't understand how fossilization occurs, how can he be expected to understand any evidence that comes from the fossil record?

This is hardly unique to BS though, this happens with pretty much every theist who wants to argue about evolution - we're not even talking about the same thing. I'm the last person to say not to argue over nonsense  :P but without a reason to believe that any particular theist is familiar with the ToE, instead of only familiar with what they have been told are the arguments against it, each side is talking right past the other. A sophisticated response to a person who is missing the basic information doesn'twork.

Is it worth the time to make a sticky? I know most of them still won't read it, but it might be nice to have something to point them to right here on the site, and for non-participants to have access to CREDIBLE information on the basics.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I do not deny microevolutionary changes…

*sigh*



Any more questions about "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"?[1]
 1. I wrote both terms between quotes because they were made up by theists who had no idea what the fuck they were talking about.

BibleStudent, I take it you missed my post. Here it is again. If you have any more questions, speak up. Otherwise, I'll be compelled to think you're deliberately ignoring something that you know disproves your wrong view.

I find little to no substance in this demonstration. The letters are still letters.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11193
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
I find little to no substance in this demonstration. The letters are still letters.

The point is not letters becoming something else, but rather their color becoming something else. Regardless, letters become words if you assemble enough of them in specific forms. Anything else to say?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1906
  • Darwins +198/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
I find little to no substance in this demonstration. The letters are still letters.

Which demonstrates that you don't grasp what you are arguing against.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."