nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: + + + + + Line 45:
Line 50: + + + Line 52:
Line 60: + + +
Various responses
:::::::Regarding your comments on radioactive dating, it may surprise you to learn than rocks are actually dated with a number of different decay types. If strata really were Carboniferous then it would be undeniable due if these different techniques gave a consensus time. Of course, this is academic, because there has been a complete failure to find such anachronisms.
:::::::Regarding your comments on radioactive dating, it may surprise you to learn than rocks are actually dated with a number of different decay types. If strata really were Carboniferous then it would be undeniable due if these different techniques gave a consensus time. Of course, this is academic, because there has been a complete failure to find such anachronisms.
:::::::That giants existed in early days is the mainstream YEC position, as taken by AiG and other such organisations. If you do not hold this view then my criticisms on this matter do not apply to your particular beliefs. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That giants existed in early days is the mainstream YEC position, as taken by AiG and other such organisations. If you do not hold this view then my criticisms on this matter do not apply to your particular beliefs. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I think you overstate the case about the "complete absence of any significant anachronisms", and what do you define as "significant"? Does a whale and a possum buried together count? My guess is that you wouldn't count that as "significant". And I also think that you overestimate the likelihood of such anachronisms with Flood Geology.
::::::::How often ''are'' given rock formations dated with different methods, with results that are the same? I've heard of so many cases where another scientist has used a different dating technique on a rock with the result that he has ''re-dated'' the rock. Mungo Man, for example, has been redated ''several times'' with different techniques giving different results.
::::::::You're wrong about the giants. Search for "giants" on [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2774 this page] on the CMI web-site. The same page on the AiG web-site is [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0311answerslive.asp here].
::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::The difference between scientists and creation "scientists" (I give respect where it is due, nowhere else) is that if there are no preserved examples, ''real'' scientists won't take it on faith that the species existed. Example. In Herodotus, the Greek historian notes a bunch of giant & cyclops species. Should we also assume that those were just a small sample size, explaining the lack of evidence, and classify it as scientific fact that these cyclops species existed, or should we take Herodotus for what he was: a guy who liked to invent myths?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::The difference between scientists and creation "scientists" (I give respect where it is due, nowhere else) is that if there are no preserved examples, ''real'' scientists won't take it on faith that the species existed. Example. In Herodotus, the Greek historian notes a bunch of giant & cyclops species. Should we also assume that those were just a small sample size, explaining the lack of evidence, and classify it as scientific fact that these cyclops species existed, or should we take Herodotus for what he was: a guy who liked to invent myths?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::No, they aren't scientists because they have abandoned the proceedures and logistics of scientific methodology.
:::::::No, they aren't scientists because they have abandoned the proceedures and logistics of scientific methodology.
:::::::Geologicaly speaking your "lions in Palestein" is a clear strawman. A brief period of existance in a small state could be easily missed by the fossil record. An entire order of large creatures would be unlikely to be missed from the entirity of the fossil record. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Geologicaly speaking your "lions in Palestein" is a clear strawman. A brief period of existance in a small state could be easily missed by the fossil record. An entire order of large creatures would be unlikely to be missed from the entirity of the fossil record. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::That have ''not'' abandoned the scientific method. That is your interpretation based on your belief that creationism cannot be scientific.
::::::::The lions example was not a strawman, because we were talking about giant humans, and there is ''no'' evidence, if they even existed, that they were "[a]n entire order", let alone were a large population.
::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The link follows, Philip. Remember to keep an open mind. Behold, for [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Creationism| the truth] shall set you free.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
: The link follows, Philip. Remember to keep an open mind. Behold, for [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Creationism| the truth] shall set you free.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::See, disagreeing with it doesn't make it bad.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::See, disagreeing with it doesn't make it bad.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The question of whether or not evolution is falsifiable would be a great debate for the evolution article (if we had an article of the scientific theory of evolution)but here it is simply a distraction. The question here is, "Is creation science falsifiable?"--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The question of whether or not evolution is falsifiable would be a great debate for the evolution article (if we had an article of the scientific theory of evolution)but here it is simply a distraction. The question here is, "Is creation science falsifiable?"--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::To be fair, the question should be applied to ''both'' ideas. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::My position on the matter is that is ''was'' when originally formulated in a scientific manner, and it has been falsified. The modern "theory of creationism" makes no significant predictions, in fact it goes out of its way to justify why the strata should be indistinguishable from gradulistic accounts, and so it isn't science, just an excercise in apologetics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::My position on the matter is that is ''was'' when originally formulated in a scientific manner, and it has been falsified. The modern "theory of creationism" makes no significant predictions, in fact it goes out of its way to justify why the strata should be indistinguishable from gradulistic accounts, and so it isn't science, just an excercise in apologetics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::On the contrary, it produces examples inconsistent with the gradualistic accounts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I think that rather depends on one's definition. Certainly, specific creationist ''models'', such as Humphreys' white hole cosmology, are falsifiable. And, indeed, false. More generally, though, no approach which allows for plugging gaps with 'and then a miracle occurred' is falsifiable, by definition. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I think that rather depends on one's definition. Certainly, specific creationist ''models'', such as Humphreys' white hole cosmology, are falsifiable. And, indeed, false. More generally, though, no approach which allows for plugging gaps with 'and then a miracle occurred' is falsifiable, by definition. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Creationism does ''not'' take the approach of plugging gaps with miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)