PDA

View Full Version : More "non-existent" YEC evidence



Jorge
06-07-2014, 03:06 PM
As most of you know, a never-ending, tiresome claim is that "there is no evidence for a young Earth". I've repeatedly stated that such a claim demonstrates one of two things: (1) ignorance or (2) dishonesty - there can be no third alternative. But discussing this again is not the goal here.

This thread is primarily to present some more of this "non-existent" evidence, not to start a debate on the matter. It is most worthwhile - as an indicator of intellectually honesty - to note the ending of the article. Here's that ending with my highlights:

"As Creationists, we do not have all the answers. In fact, there are many unanswered questions when it comes to the formation of the Grand Canyon. For example, exactly when the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted during the formation of the Grand Canyon is uncertain. Another question relates to the erosional evidence associated with the breaching of the natural dams. It is unclear as to why the waters would have eroded the course they appear to have taken, and why the remaining landscape has some of the features shown today. Also, unknown is what effect the increased rainfall in the region had on carving the canyon.

Some Creationists attribute the formation of the canyon almost solely to the breaching of the dams, while others see the receding of the Flood waters to be the main carving mechanism. It is suggested here that combining the strengths of both models best explains the evidence and what we see in the Grand Canyon today.

These issues, however, do not weaken the evidence for the catastrophic carving of the Grand Canyon and its relationship to the Flood. It only shows there is still research to be done in order to better understand the canyon’s formation.

Conclusion

Although we cannot be certain of the sequence and timing of these events, the evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly, as were the layers into which it is carved. Thus, rather than slow and gradual erosion by the Colorado River over eons of time, the Grand Canyon was carved rapidly by a lot of water in a little bit of time! The reason the Colorado River exists today is because the Grand Canyon was eroded first, soon after the end of the Genesis Flood."

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/when-and-how-did-the-grand-canyon-form/

Lots of evidence contained in the article ... more of that nasty "non-existent" evidence. :hehe:

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
06-07-2014, 03:54 PM
As most of you know, a never-ending, tiresome claim is that "there is no evidence for a young Earth". I've repeatedly stated that such a claim demonstrates one of two things: (1) ignorance or (2) dishonesty - there can be no third alternative. But discussing this again is not the goal here.

This thread is primarily to present some more of this "non-existent" evidence, not to start a debate on the matter. It is most worthwhile - as an indicator of intellectually honesty - to note the ending of the article. Here's that ending with my highlights:

"As Creationists, we do not have all the answers. In fact, there are many unanswered questions when it comes to the formation of the Grand Canyon. For example, exactly when the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted during the formation of the Grand Canyon is uncertain. Another question relates to the erosional evidence associated with the breaching of the natural dams. It is unclear as to why the waters would have eroded the course they appear to have taken, and why the remaining landscape has some of the features shown today. Also, unknown is what effect the increased rainfall in the region had on carving the canyon.

Some Creationists attribute the formation of the canyon almost solely to the breaching of the dams, while others see the receding of the Flood waters to be the main carving mechanism. It is suggested here that combining the strengths of both models best explains the evidence and what we see in the Grand Canyon today.

These issues, however, do not weaken the evidence for the catastrophic carving of the Grand Canyon and its relationship to the Flood. It only shows there is still research to be done in order to better understand the canyon’s formation.

Conclusion

Although we cannot be certain of the sequence and timing of these events, the evidence shows the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly, as were the layers into which it is carved. Thus, rather than slow and gradual erosion by the Colorado River over eons of time, the Grand Canyon was carved rapidly by a lot of water in a little bit of time! The reason the Colorado River exists today is because the Grand Canyon was eroded first, soon after the end of the Genesis Flood."

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/when-and-how-did-the-grand-canyon-form/

Lots of evidence contained in the article ... more of that nasty "non-existent" evidence. :hehe:

Jorge

Jorge, according to Campus Decorum rules argument via weblink is not allowed. Most of that link is just the same recycled crap / unsupported assertions Snelling and AIG have been pushing for decades anyway.

If you have some evidence that establishes an age of the Earth that you're willing to defend then present it. Otherwise go cluck us a river.

I'll remind you too since you're so scientifically inept that the age of the Grand Canyon does not establish the age of the Earth itself. That's as stupid as the time you tried to use the "the oldest writing is only 5000 year old" to show the Earth was young. :lol::lol::lol:

klaus54
06-07-2014, 04:31 PM
It boggles my mind how YECs can use the Grand Canyon as evidence to support their view.

There are two huge issues that Ye Greate Fludde can't explain -- these are generalities that become even more inexplicable with details.

1) There are many, many EPISODES involved in the formation of the GC. Each rock formation (as well as individual bedding planes) need time to lithify before the next formation could be laid down. Also, the Great Unconformity is inexplicable by YE Fludde.

2) The canyon is an incised meander. Meanders form in the mature floodplain with slow flowing stream. Incising a meander into hard rock requires a SLOW uplift else the stream will be "rejuvenated" a resume a straighter shape.

A third obvious issue is where the heck did over a one mile thickness of sediment come from? Related to this, as any freshman geology student knows, clastic sediment first has to be WEATHERED out of parent rock before it can be ERODED. A flood, no matter how tumultuous will NOT erode that much sediment off of solid rock! And limestone, a chemical sediment forms SLOWLY in shallow marine facies. Limestone is NOT a flood deposit!!!

The whole idea of the GC forming in a few years is risible. But it won't stop the YEC "science" charlatans from pushing it to ignorant credulous laymen.

K54

Omniskeptical
06-07-2014, 04:34 PM
I think when looking at geological pictures, excluding meaningless varves; it rules out slow tectonics, and a lot YEC don't take the flood tectonics seriously; believing tectonics got started during the flood. But what does Jorge think?

klaus54
06-07-2014, 04:41 PM
I think when looking at geological pictures, excluding meaningless varves; it rules out slow tectonics, and a lot YEC don't take the flood tectonics seriously; believing tectonics got started during the flood. But what does Jorge think?

Huh? Flood tectonics? Slow tectonics?

What on "Earth" are you babbling about?

K54

P.S. Meaningless varves??? Who mentioned varves?

Omniskeptical
06-07-2014, 04:43 PM
Tectonics is concerned with the processes which control the structure and properties of the Earth's crust, and its evolution through time.

TimelessTheist
06-07-2014, 06:01 PM
It boggles my mind how YECs can use the Grand Canyon as evidence to support their view.

There are two huge issues that Ye Greate Fludde can't explain -- these are generalities that become even more inexplicable with details.

1) There are many, many EPISODES involved in the formation of the GC. Each rock formation (as well as individual bedding planes) need time to lithify before the next formation could be laid down. Also, the Great Unconformity is inexplicable by YE Fludde.

2) The canyon is an incised meander. Meanders form in the mature floodplain with slow flowing stream. Incising a meander into hard rock requires a SLOW uplift else the stream will be "rejuvenated" a resume a straighter shape.

A third obvious issue is where the heck did over a one mile thickness of sediment come from? Related to this, as any freshman geology student knows, clastic sediment first has to be WEATHERED out of parent rock before it can be ERODED. A flood, no matter how tumultuous will NOT erode that much sediment off of solid rock! And limestone, a chemical sediment forms SLOWLY in shallow marine facies. Limestone is NOT a flood deposit!!!

The whole idea of the GC forming in a few years is risible. But it won't stop the YEC "science" charlatans from pushing it to ignorant credulous laymen.

K54

I agree the young earth model of the worldwide flood doesn't work, however, the old earth model of the worldwide flood has nothing disproving it so far.

klaus54
06-07-2014, 06:55 PM
Tectonics is concerned with the processes which control the structure and properties of the Earth's crust, and its evolution through time.

Yeah, I know. My Bachelors degree is in geology.

K54

HMS_Beagle
06-07-2014, 07:25 PM
I agree the young earth model of the worldwide flood doesn't work, however, the old earth model of the worldwide flood has nothing disproving it so far.

What is the old earth flood model?

klaus54
06-07-2014, 07:37 PM
I agree the young earth model of the worldwide flood doesn't work, however, the old earth model of the worldwide flood has nothing disproving it so far.

Not sure what you mean by "old earth model of the worldwide flood". If you need to interpret the Flood story as history, then it could refer to a regional flood. The Old Testament Hebrew had no word or even concept of a planet. Eretz (ארץ) was what was flooded in the Noah story. That's the same word used for "land" or "nation" in the story of Abram.

I don't think God meant for Abram to build a spaceship. :wink:

K54

klaus54
06-07-2014, 10:17 PM
Here's a diagram showing a cross-section of the Grand Canyon showing the stratigraphy and the position of the Colorado River. Note that the river has cut into "hard" rock (igneous and metamorphic -- not sedimentary). Also note the various types of sedimentary rock in the successive formations and keep in the mind the law of superposition and the various environments where different types of sedimentary rocks form. Limestone formations occur in several places up the column. Limestone is NOT a flood deposit.

(Not seen here) but the shale strata are eroded and slumped more than the sandstone. Clay has a steeper angle of repose than sand, ergo if these were laid down by the Fludde, one would expect the opposite situation (slumped sandstone and conglomerate, more vertical shale.)

How dare these charlatans at AiG pass this off to the naive as evidence of an Earth < 10Ka???!!

K54

607

http://www.siskiyous.edu/class/geol14/LessonGraphics/grandcynstrat.gif

HMS_Beagle
06-07-2014, 11:29 PM
Here's something interesting. According to Jorge's AIG source, all the strata from the Tapeats sandstone and above were laid by Da FLUD

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/nab3/grand-canyon-strata.gif

That means all the strata in the entire 'grand staircase' of the Colorado Plateau must be FLUD laid

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Grand_Staircase-big.jpg/1024px-Grand_Staircase-big.jpg

That means all the canyons in the Colodaro Plateau must be post-FLUD, including Bryce Canyon, Zion Canyon, and my favorite Goosenecks State Park in Utah.

http://www.mariusztravel.com/zdjecia/usa/53_usa_utah_goosenecks.JPG

The Goosenecks, where the San Juan river has carved a series of 1000' deep 180 deg. switchbacks. The river flows through more than 6 miles of curves over only 1.5 miles of straight line distance.

Couldn't have been carved when the material was soft mud because the walls would slump. Couldn't have been carved by fast flowing water because then we'd see straight channels like the Scablands, not switchback meanders.

Jorge won't touch this with a 10' pole. I'll bet he's too cowardly to even acknowledged it.

rogue06
06-08-2014, 12:13 AM
Here's something interesting. According to Jorge's AIG source, all the strata from the Tapeats sandstone and above were laid by Da FLUD

https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/nab3/grand-canyon-strata.gif

That means all the strata in the entire 'grand staircase' of the Colorado Plateau must be FLUD laid

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Grand_Staircase-big.jpg/1024px-Grand_Staircase-big.jpg

That means all the canyons in the Colodaro Plateau must be post-FLUD, including Bryce Canyon, Zion Canyon, and my favorite Goosenecks State Park in Utah.

http://www.mariusztravel.com/zdjecia/usa/53_usa_utah_goosenecks.JPG

The Goosenecks, where the San Juan river has carved a series of 1000' deep 180 deg. switchbacks. The river flows through more than 6 miles of curves over only 1.5 miles of straight line distance.

Couldn't have been carved when the material was soft mud because the walls would slump. Couldn't have been carved by fast flowing water because then we'd see straight channels like the Scablands, not switchback meanders.

Jorge won't touch this with a 10' pole. I'll bet he's too cowardly to even acknowledged it.
I mentioned some of that on another thread...



An invalid comparison to the Grand Canyon for numerous reasons, principally the sediments that the water carved through on Mt. St. Helen's was nothing but unconsolidated volcanic ash which is nothing even remotely similar to having to carve through solid rock including granite and basalt. If you don't believe it dump a large pile of ash onto the ground and spray a stream of water from a hose at it and see how fast you can cut through it. Next place a slab of granite (or even the much softer limestone or sandstone) on the ground and spray a stream of water at it from the same hose. Get back to me when you've carved through it :teeth:

Some YEC "flood geologists" claim that the Grand Canyon formations were originally mud and not rock when the flood carved through it, but the ridiculousness of this argument is exposed by the fact that carving through mud or other soft material will cause the walls to slope (like those seen at the Mt. St. Helen's canyon which slope 45 degrees) rather than leave the near vertical walls seen along the Grand Canyon. Such vertical walls can only be accomplished when you cut through solid stone not soft unconsolidated mud.

The geology of the region clearly reveals that what would later become the Grand Canyon formations were originally deposited near a flat coastal marine environment periodically inundated by tropical seas over a space of many millions of years. Then, this region, later known as the Colorado Plateau, began to be uplifted (and slightly tilted) at the end of the Paleozoic era (roughly 250 mya). During this period the already existing meandering river systems[1] slowly started to cut down into the rock, keeping pace with the uplift over the ensuing millions of years.





1. And a raging flood spreading over a level plain will also not create rivers with multiple tributaries and form meanders with numerous U turns like those seen below.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/2009-08-20-01800_USA_Utah_316_Goosenecks_SP.jpg

Instead of carving canyons that are a mile deep such a raging flood will actually create formations like those seen in the Channeled Scablands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_Scablands) that cover much of the state of Washington (http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/geology/publications/inf/72-2/images/fig2.jpg)

...and received the patented Jorgian response -- I must be either "ignorant or dishonest."



I won't spend my time on something that scientists in the field have already spent tens of thousands of manhours answering. If you go to the ICR, AiG and CMI websites you will find many hundreds of articles responding to the points you bring up above. That's why I always write that for people to say some of the things that they do, they must be (1) ignorant (of what has been investigated and reported on the matter) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., they know about these findings but either pretend that it does not exist or flat-out lie about it) -- no third option exists. So which is it for you, R06 - ignorant or dishonest?

Jorge

TimelessTheist
06-08-2014, 11:56 AM
Not sure what you mean by "old earth model of the worldwide flood". If you need to interpret the Flood story as history, then it could refer to a regional flood. The Old Testament Hebrew had no word or even concept of a planet. Eretz (ארץ) was what was flooded in the Noah story. That's the same word used for "land" or "nation" in the story of Abram.

I don't think God meant for Abram to build a spaceship. :wink:

K54

The Old Earth model is that God 'did' flood the world at one point in ancient history, only the world wasn't created ten thousand years ago. I thought that would have been obvious. :shrug:

HMS_Beagle
06-08-2014, 01:08 PM
The Old Earth model is that God 'did' flood the world at one point in ancient history, only the world wasn't created ten thousand years ago. I thought that would have been obvious. :shrug:

When did this supposedly happen? We were hoping for some details.

Jorge
06-08-2014, 02:08 PM
I think when looking at geological pictures, excluding meaningless varves; it rules out slow tectonics, and a lot YEC don't take the flood tectonics seriously; believing tectonics got started during the flood. But what does Jorge think?

Even though I clearly stated that this thread was NOT to open up a debate, I'll answer your question with a few lines: essentially what I think is summed up by the article and its conclusions. There are volumes of ignorance on topics such as these from every position. This is why I do not use these topics in my apologetics - there's far too much ignorance thus allowing far too much "wiggle-room" - I prefer certainty to the extent possible. That stated, the articles clearly presents empirical, verifiable evidence and arguments that DO NOT correlate with the belief in "hundreds of millions of years".

You can try to debunk those data and arguments if you like but there they are. My only point here is that THERE IS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THOUSANDS, NOT MILLIONS. Therefore, the claim "no evidence exists for a young Earth" is, as I had stated, either ignorance or dishonesty - no 3rd alternative. Work continues and shall continue.

Jorge

klaus54
06-08-2014, 02:40 PM
The Old Earth model is that God 'did' flood the world at one point in ancient history, only the world wasn't created ten thousand years ago. I thought that would have been obvious. :shrug:

I thought I knew what you meant, but do mean the WHOLE Earth as flooded? I believed how I carefully explained that the Noah story could be read as a large regional flood, given the pretty clear notion the ancient Hebrew had no knowledge of Earth (eretz) as a planet. And the LORD God didn't command Abram to build a space ship.

Do you have an approximate age for this "old Earth flood"?

K54

klaus54
06-08-2014, 02:44 PM
Even though I clearly stated that this thread was NOT to open up a debate, I'll answer your question with a few lines: essentially what I think is summed up by the article and its conclusions. There are volumes of ignorance on topics such as these from every position. This is why I do not use these topics in my apologetics - there's far too much ignorance thus allowing far too much "wiggle-room" - I prefer certainty to the extent possible. That stated, the articles clearly presents empirical, verifiable evidence and arguments that DO NOT correlate with the belief in "hundreds of millions of years".

You can try to debunk those data and arguments if you like but there they are. My only point here is that THERE IS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THOUSANDS, NOT MILLIONS. Therefore, the claim "no evidence exists for a young Earth" is, as I had stated, either ignorance or dishonesty - no 3rd alternative. Work continues and shall continue.

Jorge

Jorge is up to his weaselly tricks again!

Why no need to debate the "evidence"? Isn't that what this forum is all about???

Ooh, ooh -- I know! it's 'cus Jorge says so.

K54

HMS_Beagle
06-08-2014, 02:53 PM
Even though I clearly stated that this thread was NOT to open up a debate,

None of your threads ever are. That's because you're far too big a coward to ever defend the YEC horsecrap you post.


There are volumes of ignorance on topics such as these from every position.

The ignorance is all yours Captain Clucky.


My only point here is that THERE IS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THOUSANDS, NOT MILLIONS.

Therefore, the claim "no evidence exists for a young Earth" is, as I had stated, either ignorance or dishonesty

Even if by some miracle the GC was only a few thousand years old that wouldn't be evidence the Earth was only a few thousand years old. Just like finding a 1964 penny in your back yard doesn't make the Earth only 50 years old. :ahem:


no 3rd alternative.

The 3rd alternatime is the certain one - you're just a scientifically illiterate idiot. :yes:

klaus54
06-08-2014, 03:07 PM
But, HMS_B -- They've found a SPARK PLUG embedded in SOLID ROCK!

So, Earth can't be older than 120 years!!

K54

614

http://s8int.com/images2/sparkplug.jpg

oxmixmudd
06-09-2014, 06:30 AM
I mentioned some of that on another thread...




...and received the patented Jorgian response -- I must be either "ignorant or dishonest."




Those meanders I find truly amazing.

But I think the bar needs to be raised a bit. What Jorge won't admit (or perhaps doesn't know) is that NONE of the links he has posted is truly convincing to any scientist competent in the field of study for which the 'evidence' is targeted. Christian or not. YEC or not. And I'll raise the ante a bit more. Those YEC scientists that are active researchers in their field for the specific evidences are for the most part simply 'holding their tongue' as to their associated problems. Their belief that the Young Earth Interpretation as the only possibility which allows them to believe in the inspiration of the Bible causes them to be willfully silent on the matter. But the know these things can't pass scientific muster. And not because the majority of scientists are biased. Because they simply don't really work. They at best only address a very small subset of data, and are contradicted by the majority they do not address.

For any of these to rise above poorly devised conjecture, they must provide a framework that is not contradicted by almost every piece of extant evidence outside the very special case which they try to address.

This is the criteria which the main stream theories live up to, or strive to live up to. The YEC side can do no less if it is to be considered legitimate. And until its does (or at least comes close) it is wrong to say "Science supports YEC".


Jim

rogue06
06-09-2014, 06:36 AM
Those meanders I find truly amazing.

But I think the bar needs to be raised a bit. What Jorge won't admit (or perhaps doesn't know) is that NONE of the links he has posted is truly convincing to any scientist competent in the field of study for which the 'evidence' is targeted. Christian or not. YEC or not. And I'll raise the ante a bit more. Those YEC scientists that are active researchers in their field for the specific evidences are for the most part simply 'holding their tongue' as to their associated problems. Their belief that the Young Earth Interpretation as the only possibility which allows them to believe in the inspiration of the Bible causes them to be willfully silent on the matter. But the know these things can't pass scientific muster. And not because the majority of scientists are biased. Because they simply don't really work. They at best only address a very small subset of data, and are contradicted by the majority they do not address.

For any of these to rise above poorly devised conjecture, they must provide a framework that is not contradicted by almost every piece of extant evidence outside the very special case which they try to address.

This is the criteria which the main stream theories live up to, or strive to live up to. The YEC side can do no less if it is to be considered legitimate. And until its does (or at least comes close) it is wrong to say "Science supports YEC".


Jim
Worse for them is the few instances that they can actually cherry pick this or that data point and exclaim "Ah ha! The YEC model can explain this bit" those explanations are so ad hoc that they more often than not contradict each other.

HMS_Beagle
06-09-2014, 07:43 AM
Then again you also have rivers like the Grand Ronde in the Columbia Basalt fields where the river has carved incised meanders over 1000' deep into the basalt i.e. solidified lava flows.

http://www.country-magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Wallowa_1.jpg

I'd love to hear our new YEC Flud Geologist explain how a meandering river gets incised into molten lava. :lol:

Jorge
06-09-2014, 08:45 AM
Those meanders I find truly amazing.

But I think the bar needs to be raised a bit. What Jorge won't admit (or perhaps doesn't know) is that NONE of the links he has posted is truly convincing to any scientist competent in the field of study for which the 'evidence' is targeted. Christian or not. YEC or not. And I'll raise the ante a bit more. Those YEC scientists that are active researchers in their field for the specific evidences are for the most part simply 'holding their tongue' as to their associated problems. Their belief that the Young Earth Interpretation as the only possibility which allows them to believe in the inspiration of the Bible causes them to be willfully silent on the matter. But the know these things can't pass scientific muster. And not because the majority of scientists are biased. Because they simply don't really work. They at best only address a very small subset of data, and are contradicted by the majority they do not address.

For any of these to rise above poorly devised conjecture, they must provide a framework that is not contradicted by almost every piece of extant evidence outside the very special case which they try to address.

This is the criteria which the main stream theories live up to, or strive to live up to. The YEC side can do no less if it is to be considered legitimate. And until its does (or at least comes close) it is wrong to say "Science supports YEC".


Jim

Would you please, Please, PLEASE, PLEASE acquire some integrity and stop speaking of things that you must know in your heart of hearts are not true?

The "Grand Canyon" article that I linked to listed a number of observations that are every bit as unexplainable to the promoter of millions of years as some things are to us Biblical Creationists. We openly admit our ignorance on these matters without resorting to 'poisoning the well' as you do above. Show some integrity and admit yours as well.

Jorge

Jorge
06-09-2014, 08:47 AM
Worse for them is the few instances that they can actually cherry pick this or that data point and exclaim "Ah ha! The YEC model can explain this bit" those explanations are so ad hoc that they more often than not contradict each other.

Equally apply my last post (directed at O-Mudd) to yourself. :whip:

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
06-09-2014, 08:50 AM
The "Grand Canyon" article that I linked to listed a number of observations that are every bit as unexplainable to the promoter of millions of years as some things are to us Biblical Creationists. We openly admit our ignorance on these matters without resorting to 'poisoning the well' as you do above. Show some integrity and admit yours as well.

Jorge

Sorry Clucky but just because YECs like you are as ignorant as mud about geology doesn't mean professional geologists are.

I bet you're still dumb enough to think a 500 year old canyon means the Earth is only 500 years old too. :lol:

rogue06
06-09-2014, 09:22 AM
I bet you're still dumb enough to think a 500 year old canyon means the Earth is only 500 years old too. :lol:
That is exactly the logical misstep that Federal Prisoner 06452-017, er, Kent Hovind, fell face first into when he would cite the fact that Niagara Falls is roughly 10,000 years old that this is evidence that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

No. It only means that a specific geologic feature of the earth is 10,000 years old. Just like the emergence of the island of Surtsey off the southern coast of Iceland in 1963 is not evidence that the earth is just over 50 years old.

klaus54
06-09-2014, 10:32 AM
Those meanders I find truly amazing.

But I think the bar needs to be raised a bit. What Jorge won't admit (or perhaps doesn't know) is that NONE of the links he has posted is truly convincing to any scientist competent in the field of study for which the 'evidence' is targeted. Christian or not. YEC or not. And I'll raise the ante a bit more. Those YEC scientists that are active researchers in their field for the specific evidences are for the most part simply 'holding their tongue' as to their associated problems. Their belief that the Young Earth Interpretation as the only possibility which allows them to believe in the inspiration of the Bible causes them to be willfully silent on the matter. But the know these things can't pass scientific muster. And not because the majority of scientists are biased. Because they simply don't really work. They at best only address a very small subset of data, and are contradicted by the majority they do not address.

For any of these to rise above poorly devised conjecture, they must provide a framework that is not contradicted by almost every piece of extant evidence outside the very special case which they try to address.

This is the criteria which the main stream theories live up to, or strive to live up to. The YEC side can do no less if it is to be considered legitimate. And until its does (or at least comes close) it is wrong to say "Science supports YEC".


Jim

Jim,

Here's a good link describing the formation and mechanics of meandering streams.

K54

http://www.indiana.edu/~g105lab/images/gaia_chapter_12/meander_formation.htm

oxmixmudd
06-09-2014, 12:20 PM
Would you please, Please, PLEASE, PLEASE acquire some integrity and stop speaking of things that you must know in your heart of hearts are not true?

The "Grand Canyon" article that I linked to listed a number of observations that are every bit as unexplainable to the promoter of millions of years as some things are to us Biblical Creationists. We openly admit our ignorance on these matters without resorting to 'poisoning the well' as you do above. Show some integrity and admit yours as well.

Jorge

Jorge, this just isn't true. As I said earlier, and you ignored, the arguments for YEC and the arguments for great age ARE NOT SYMMETRIC. A very old tree can have parts of it that are very, very young. But a very young tree can't have ANY part of it that is very very old. And that is where your arguments fall flat. You can't just say that because OE has 3 unexplained data points and YE has 3 unexplained data points everything is equal. It's not.


As has been shown over and over - these incised meanders CAN'T BE FORMED WITHOUT A LOT OF TIME. PERIOD. The are formed by SLOW moving water eroding VERY HARD rock. Give it 10,000,000 years and its a piece of cake. Try to get it done in 1000 years (or 1 year if you think it's the result of the flood) and it is IMPOSSIBLE (excepting God made it that way by fiat). THEY CAN"T FORM NATURALLY IN THE YEC TIMEFRAME. Even if there is a supernatually caused physical event (e.g. the Flood) that is driving its formation.

The issues YOU raise CAN be dealt with in an old timeframe. And that is where it sits. The YE explanation sits without any possibility of explaining the majority of the data except with the 'created with appearance of age/history' fallback. And that is NOT a scientific explanation.

ERGO: Science can't and doesn't back YEC.


Jim

TimelessTheist
06-09-2014, 05:55 PM
When did this supposedly happen? We were hoping for some details.

Just like the creation account of the Garden of Eden, it can't actually be narrowed down to a specific date.

HMS_Beagle
06-09-2014, 06:00 PM
Just like the creation account of the Garden of Eden, it can't actually be narrowed down to a specific date.

Give us a range then.

Bill the Cat
06-09-2014, 06:09 PM
Give us a range then.

http://www.whirlpool.com/digitalassets/WGI925C0BS/Standalone_1175X1290.jpg

There ya go. A range! :wink:

HMS_Beagle
06-09-2014, 06:19 PM
There ya go. A range! :wink:

Thanks but that's an electric range. I meant a Creationist range, one that operates on nothing but gas. :wink:

TimelessTheist
06-10-2014, 06:26 PM
Thanks but that's an electric range. I meant a Creationist range, one that operates on nothing but gas. :wink:

Don't know, don't care. Just know that it happened a long time time ago.

klaus54
06-10-2014, 07:17 PM
Don't know, don't care. Just know that it happened a long time time ago.

Ah, the epitome of scientific curiosity.

K54

TimelessTheist
06-11-2014, 11:04 AM
Ah, the epitome of scientific curiosity.

K54

Why would I be curious about something I don't really care about?

klaus54
06-11-2014, 04:18 PM
Why would I be curious about something I don't really care about?

Well, then why are you posting in this thread?

K54

shunyadragon
06-11-2014, 04:51 PM
Don't know, don't care. Just know that it happened a long time time ago.

Three Stooges Duck, Bob and Weave. Plase explain how any possible form of the Fall of Adam and Eve fit in the nature of the scientific evidence of the history of humanity.

TimelessTheist
06-11-2014, 06:09 PM
Three Stooges Duck, Bob and Weave.

This is the most ironic statement you've ever made.

Omniskeptical
06-11-2014, 09:29 PM
This is the most ironic statement you've ever made.Do you like me sig? Do ya? Do ya?

klaus54
06-12-2014, 05:05 AM
Do you like me sig? Do ya? Do ya?

Well TT does have "Timeless" in his handle, so it follows that he doesn't care about the timing of the Garden in Eden other than it was "long ago".

K54

Omniskeptical
06-12-2014, 02:54 PM
Well TT does have "Timeless" in his handle, so it follows that he doesn't care about the timing of the Garden in Eden other than it was "long ago".

K54That is not what you said though.

klaus54
06-12-2014, 06:58 PM
That is not what you said though.

I loathe to ask but what did I say?

K54

Omniskeptical
06-13-2014, 09:05 AM
I loathe to ask but what did I say?Ah, the epitome of scientific curiosity.

klaus54
06-13-2014, 11:23 AM
Ah, the epitome of scientific curiosity.

???

I thought you were banned for trolling and posting PMs?

K54

TimelessTheist
06-14-2014, 12:15 AM
Well TT does have "Timeless" in his handle, so it follows that he doesn't care about the timing of the Garden in Eden other than it was "long ago".

K54

How would I determine such a thing in the first place?

klaus54
06-14-2014, 06:16 AM
How would I determine such a thing in the first place?

But what's your surmise on the date? 5,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago? You must have some idea. If the Garden story is real history is has to have a date and one that is concordant with the rest of your Biblical origins interpretation.

If you want to say it's a mystery and "no one knows", that's fine. That's a reasonable view. But if you are a Young-Earther (I don't know if you are) then you should have a time range.

K54

Kristian Joensen
06-14-2014, 06:54 AM
But what's your surmise on the date? 5,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago? You must have some idea. If the Garden story is real history is has to have a date and one that is concordant with the rest of your Biblical origins interpretation.

If you want to say it's a mystery and "no one knows", that's fine. That's a reasonable view. But if you are a Young-Earther (I don't know if you are) then you should have a time range.

K54

Didn't this whole thing start out with TimelessTheist mentioning the OLD EARTH global flood? By that I would assume he is NOT a young earther.

klaus54
06-14-2014, 07:02 AM
Didn't this whole thing start out with TimelessTheist mentioning the OLD EARTH global flood? By that I would assume he is NOT a young earther.

Fair enough. But I'm also interested in OE viewpoints on the timing of the Garden.

K54

Omniskeptical
06-14-2014, 05:47 PM
???

I thought you were banned for trolling and posting PMs?

K54Are you trying to intimidate me?

klaus54
06-14-2014, 05:54 PM
Are you trying to intimidate me?

Yeah, sure.

Now why weren't you banned?

Doesn't matter anyhow. Go back to playing with your Barbie dolls.

K54

Cerebrum123
06-15-2014, 04:34 AM
Yeah, sure.

Now why weren't you banned?

Doesn't matter anyhow. Go back to playing with your Barbie dolls.

K54

It's very hard to be permanently banned on TWeb(unless you are a spambot). Most of the time it's about 2 weeks "in the matrix", which basically just a suspension.

Jorge
06-15-2014, 10:12 AM
It's very hard to be permanently banned on TWeb(unless you are a spambot). Most of the time it's about 2 weeks "in the matrix", which basically just a suspension.

With any 'luck' Santa Klaus will prove to be the exception. :whistle:

Jorge

klaus54
06-15-2014, 11:44 AM
It's very hard to be permanently banned on TWeb(unless you are a spambot). Most of the time it's about 2 weeks "in the matrix", which basically just a suspension.

Okey dokey!

Thanks for the clarification.

K54

klaus54
06-15-2014, 11:50 AM
With any 'luck' Santa Klaus will prove to be the exception. :whistle:

Jorge

That WOULD be convenient for you. Heehee...

You know, this brings to mind a question as to why you even post here. You clearly don't have a scientific case. When you do bring up physical evidence for YEC, you don't want to debate it. You spend all your time disparaging other Christians' faith, comparing them ideologically to atheists, and pooping out insults.

So why, Why, WHY do you persist in the same-old-same-old?

K54

TimelessTheist
06-16-2014, 02:30 PM
But what's your surmise on the date? 5,000 years ago, 50,000 years ago? You must have some idea. If the Garden story is real history is has to have a date and one that is concordant with the rest of your Biblical origins interpretation.

If you want to say it's a mystery and "no one knows", that's fine. That's a reasonable view. But if you are a Young-Earther (I don't know if you are) then you should have a time range.

K54

Around 200,000 years ago. That's when modern man is first estimated to have appeared, after all.

Jorge
06-16-2014, 02:50 PM
You know, this brings to mind a question as to why you even post here.

K54

Now THAT'S a good question - one that I often ask myself.

Alas, I always come to the same answer - the truthful answer.

I'll gladly converse about science - TRUE science - all day long. I love science. However ...

A great deal that today is passed off as "science" is actually metaphysical ideology. I learned long ago to recognize this charade and have made it my mission to point it out and fight it every time I see it.

Enter Evolution and Gigayear chronology - both of which are part of a religious ideology that has been grafted into society as "science". THAT is why I post here.

A while back I had a delightful, constructive exchange with a chap about the possibility of travel to other stars - something that I consider to be impossible barring something out of science fiction. Not once did I bring up his (or my) theological status or anything of that sort.

Perhaps if you were a intellectually honest, you'd get to know the real me.
But then, the real me is something that you and your kind cannot handle. :hehe:

Jorge

klaus54
06-16-2014, 05:37 PM
Now THAT'S a good question - one that I often ask myself.

Alas, I always come to the same answer - the truthful answer.

I'll gladly converse about science - TRUE science - all day long. I love science. However ...

A great deal that today is passed off as "science" is actually metaphysical ideology. I learned long ago to recognize this charade and have made it my mission to point it out and fight it every time I see it.

Enter Evolution and Gigayear chronology - both of which are part of a religious ideology that has been grafted into society as "science". THAT is why I post here.

A while back I had a delightful, constructive exchange with a chap about the possibility of travel to other stars - something that I consider to be impossible barring something out of science fiction. Not once did I bring up his (or my) theological status or anything of that sort.

Perhaps if you were a intellectually honest, you'd get to know the real me.
But then, the real me is something that you and your kind cannot handle. :hehe:

Jorge

There's some real science on my "Fresh Granite" thread regarding igneous petrology, age, and history.

Wanna have a go at it?

K54

Jorge
06-17-2014, 11:30 AM
There's some real science on my "Fresh Granite" thread regarding igneous petrology, age, and history.

Wanna have a go at it?

K54

What, no apology? My, how odd.

More of the real me:

A great many topics in the Creation-Evolution debate are what I recognize as either "tangential" issues or topics for which the knowledge base is chock-filled with holes. I avoid those areas. Why? Because the substance is flimsy enough so that nothing constructive can be gained, that's why. I once watched two opposing nerds go at it for quiet some time about the color of dinosaur skin (T-Rex, I recall). What a TOTAL waste of time!!!

Give me things of substance - so that the intellectually dishonest have no holes to crawl through. There are very few such topics. Information is one. Thermodynamics is another. Certain aspects of genetics (a la John Sanford's Genetic Entropy) might be a third. But granite? I haven't even looked but I'll wager before going there that I wouldn't waste more than a moment on it ... I'll go there right now and see ...

BRB .....

Yup, just as I expected. You just need to do some real research -- the kind that is objective & open-minded -- before merely regurgitating the garbage that you pick up from Infidels, Panda's Thumb or TalkOrigins.

A great deal of material on 'granites and age' appears on the sites of ICR, AiG, CMI, CRS and others. I would encourage you to spend ONE-TENTH (that's 1/10) of the total time that you spend attacking Biblical Creationism doing real research - you may actually learn something.

My personal feeling is that this is one of those areas that leaves too many escape hatches for people like you and so I try to avoid it. Enjoy your 'granite' thread.

Jorge

klaus54
06-17-2014, 11:45 AM
What, no apology? My, how odd.

More of the real me:

A great many topics in the Creation-Evolution debate are what I recognize as either "tangential" issues or topics for which the knowledge base is chock-filled with holes. I avoid those areas. Why? Because the substance is flimsy enough so that nothing constructive can be gained, that's why. I once watched two opposing nerds go at it for quiet some time about the color of dinosaur skin (T-Rex, I recall). What a TOTAL waste of time!!!

Give me things of substance - so that the intellectually dishonest have no holes to crawl through. There are very few such topics. Information is one. Thermodynamics is another. Certain aspects of genetics (a la John Sanford's Genetic Entropy) might be a third. But granite? I haven't even looked but I'll wager before going there that I wouldn't waste more than a moment on it ... I'll go there right now and see ...

BRB .....

Jorge

Apologize for what???

Am I reading you correctly that you consider the granite/igneous rock issue "tangential" to the age and geologic history of Earth?

Bzzzzzzt!!!

Lock and load and try again!

K54

P.S. Oh, I see you're going to have a look. Anyone what to bet on Jorge's response?

HMS_Beagle
06-17-2014, 12:55 PM
Give me things of substance - so that the intellectually dishonest have no holes to crawl through.

Jorge

Here's one. In this OP you posted "evidence" for your young Earth views by claiming the Grand Canyon is really very young, <10,000 years old.

Please explain how having a geological feature like the GC be young establishes that the entire Earth is just as young.

Go ahead, with no intellectual dishonesty and no holes to squirm through.

Roy
06-17-2014, 01:53 PM
Yup, just as I expected. You just need to do some real research -- the kind that is objective & open-minded -- before merely regurgitating the garbage that you pick up from Infidels, Panda's Thumb or TalkOrigins.Huh?

The reference in that thread is to an article at California State, not to any of the sites Jorge mentions.

Roy

rogue06
06-17-2014, 02:06 PM
Yup, just as I expected. You just need to do some real research -- the kind that is objective & open-minded -- before merely regurgitating the garbage that you pick up from Infidels, Panda's Thumb or TalkOrigins.

A great deal of material on 'granites and age' appears on the sites of ICR, AiG, CMI, CRS and others. I would encourage you to spend ONE-TENTH (that's 1/10) of the total time that you spend attacking Biblical Creationism doing real research - you may actually learn something.
"do some real research -- the kind that is objective & open-minded -- before merely regurgitating the garbage" go to "the sites of ICR, AiG, CMI, CRS and others"

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q377/StockersPics/image_zpse0167835.jpg

Jorge
06-17-2014, 02:18 PM
Here's one. In this OP you posted "evidence" for your young Earth views by claiming the Grand Canyon is really very young, <10,000 years old.

Please explain how having a geological feature like the GC be young establishes that the entire Earth is just as young.

Go ahead, with no intellectual dishonesty and no holes to squirm through.

Why would you ask me to explain a logical non sequitur?

Oops, I forgot, that was Beagle Boy making such a request. Never mind. :blush:
Jorge

Jorge
06-17-2014, 02:20 PM
"do some real research -- the kind that is objective & open-minded -- before merely regurgitating the garbage" go to "the sites of ICR, AiG, CMI, CRS and others"

More of your $%^#%#&? :dizzy: Is there no end? :no:

Jorge

rogue06
06-17-2014, 03:45 PM
More of your $%^#%#&? :dizzy: Is there no end? :no:

Jorge
Poor Jorge.

You're the one telling others to "do some real research -- the kind that is objective & open-minded -- before merely regurgitating the garbage" and then turning around and directing them to garbage sites like "the sites of ICR, AiG, CMI, CRS and others"

Without exception every single person who writes, or does work for the most prominent YEC groups like the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are required to agree beforehand that no matter what they uncover it must not, cannot, in any way, demonstrate that evolution takes place or that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. No I’m not making this stuff up AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) require the same thing.[1]

These groups oblige all those who work for them to sign documents that compel them to ignore evidence that goes against the organization’s particular reading of various Bible verses. IOW, they can only accept what they had already assumed. Here is the statement of faith (http://creation.com/what-we-believe) required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith) that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath (http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/icr-oath.htm) ICR forces their people to sign.

When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.


http://zerobs.net/media/science_vs_creationism-2.png

In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."[2]

But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderland "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards."

So in the end they're very selective about just what evidence they will examine and after they’re done cherry-picking they usually end up offering explanations that are mere ad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

There is nothing even remotely similar to this in conventional science. In fact, this is pure anti-science. Agreeing to ignore or hand-wave away contradictory evidence in advance isn't even remotely scientific but is a perversion of science.





1. And their material filters its way down to the lesser YEC groups where it is often copied and repeated verbatim

2. This idea has been expressed many times by others including but not limited to


Michael Faraday: "I keep my theories on the tips of my fingers so that the merest breath of fact can blow them away."

Douglas Futuyma: "The hallmark of science is not the question ‘Do I wish to believe this?’ but the question ‘What is the evidence?’ It is this demand for evidence, this habit of cultivated skepticism, that is most characteristic of the scientific way of thought.”

Mark Norell: "Any real systematist (or scientist in general) has to be ready to heave all that he or she believes in, consider it crap, and move on, in the face of new evidence."

HMS_Beagle
06-17-2014, 03:52 PM
Why would you ask me to explain a logical non sequitur?



So you admit you screwed up the "logic" in your OP big time and can't explain it. Got it. :lol:

Jorge
06-17-2014, 04:09 PM
Poor Jorge.

You're the one telling others to "do some real research -- the kind that is objective & open-minded -- before merely regurgitating the garbage" and then turning around and directing them to garbage sites like "the sites of ICR, AiG, CMI, CRS and others"

Without exception every single person who writes, or does work for the most prominent YEC groups like the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are required to agree beforehand that no matter what they uncover it must not, cannot, in any way, demonstrate that evolution takes place or that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. No I’m not making this stuff up AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) require the same thing.[1]

These groups oblige all those who work for them to sign documents that compel them to ignore evidence that goes against the organization’s particular reading of various Bible verses. IOW, they can only accept what they had already assumed. Here is the statement of faith (http://creation.com/what-we-believe) required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith) that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath (http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/icr-oath.htm) ICR forces their people to sign.

When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.


http://zerobs.net/media/science_vs_creationism-2.png

In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."[2]

But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderland "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards."

So in the end they're very selective about just what evidence they will examine and after they’re done cherry-picking they usually end up offering explanations that are mere ad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

There is nothing even remotely similar to this in conventional science. In fact, this is pure anti-science. Agreeing to ignore or hand-wave away contradictory evidence in advance isn't even remotely scientific but is a perversion of science.





1. And their material filters its way down to the lesser YEC groups where it is often copied and repeated verbatim

2. This idea has been expressed many times by others including but not limited to


Michael Faraday: "I keep my theories on the tips of my fingers so that the merest breath of fact can blow them away."

Douglas Futuyma: "The hallmark of science is not the question ‘Do I wish to believe this?’ but the question ‘What is the evidence?’ It is this demand for evidence, this habit of cultivated skepticism, that is most characteristic of the scientific way of thought.”

Mark Norell: "Any real systematist (or scientist in general) has to be ready to heave all that he or she believes in, consider it crap, and move on, in the face of new evidence."

Speaking gently and kindly, reading post after post from individuals like yourself produces in me a feeling of nauseating disgust - as if I realized that the egg I just finished eating was rotten or something like that. As years go by I am less and less able (or willing or both) to tolerate intellectual dishonesty such as that displayed so often by your ilk. It happens so often that many times I don't even bother pointing it out and just let it slide (as I'm doing here now). Lucky for you.

Jorge

rogue06
06-17-2014, 04:32 PM
Speaking gently and kindly, reading post after post from individuals like yourself produces in me a feeling of nauseating disgust - as if I realized that the egg I just finished eating was rotten or something like that. As years go by I am less and less able (or willing or both) to tolerate intellectual dishonesty such as that displayed so often by your ilk. It happens so often that many times I don't even bother pointing it out and just let it slide (as I'm doing here now). Lucky for you.

Jorge
Translation: Drat. I know what he said is true and I can't refute any of it but I can pretend I could but am just to darn gracious to do so.

Jorge
06-18-2014, 03:27 AM
Translation: Drat. I know what he said is true and I can't refute any of it but I can pretend I could but am just to darn gracious to do so.

You know better than that but you can't stand being shown up as an intellectually dishonest person (said dishonesty, of course, boils over into all aspects of life). So let me support my claim, lest you use your 'powers' to ban me: that cartoon that you post - "The Scientific Method v. The Creationist Method" - is right up there amongst the most lying, fact-free, libelous myths. Not to mention the fact that notable, secular philosophers of science generally agree that most scientists often begin with a set of beliefs and then go out to support them. The extreme example of this is when "scientists" fabricate (false) data in order to support their beliefs, gain fame and keep the money rolling in - something that is done quite often by NON-Creationists.

Thus, anyone with a microgram of integrity would never use that cartoon against Creationists. Has this stopped you? Nope, of course not. Why? Because that "microgram of integrity" isn't there, that's why.

I trust that my meaning is clear as fine crystal. Oh, and don't take this personally. The same may be said of most of those belonging to your 'clan'. They know who they are.

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
06-18-2014, 05:01 AM
You know better than that but you can't stand being shown up as an intellectually dishonest person (said dishonesty, of course, boils over into all aspects of life). So let me support my claim, lest you use your 'powers' to ban me: that cartoon that you post - "The Scientific Method v. The Creationist Method" - is right up there amongst the most lying, fact-free, libelous myths. Not to mention the fact that notable, secular philosophers of science generally agree that most scientists often begin with a set of beliefs and then go out to support them. The extreme example of this is when "scientists" fabricate (false) data in order to support their beliefs, gain fame and keep the money rolling in - something that is done quite often by NON-Creationists.

Thus, anyone with a microgram of integrity would never use that cartoon against Creationists. Has this stopped you? Nope, of course not. Why? Because that "microgram of integrity" isn't there, that's why.

I trust that my meaning is clear as fine crystal. Oh, and don't take this personally. The same may be said of most of those belonging to your 'clan'. They know who they are.

Jorge

Do you ever do anything besides duck questions and run that big mouth? Just curious.

klaus54
06-18-2014, 10:35 AM
Jorge,

Do have an example in the past 50 years where scientists have:


...
The extreme example of this is when "scientists" fabricate (false) data in order to support their beliefs, gain fame and keep the money rolling in - something that is done quite often by NON-Creationists. ...


Note that the usage "fabricate (false) data" is redundant.

And your vomit about the "Scientific Method vs. the Creationist Method" is a total lie -- and you know it.

If by some chance you don't know it, then you know NOTHING about Scientific Method.

K54

JonF
06-18-2014, 11:19 AM
And of course there's absolutely no evidence that any of that is done "quite often". Just the opposite.

rogue06
06-18-2014, 12:02 PM
Jorge,

Do have an example in the past 50 years where scientists have:



Note that the usage "fabricate (false) data" is redundant.

And your vomit about the "Scientific Method vs. the Creationist Method" is a total lie -- and you know it.

If by some chance you don't know it, then you know NOTHING about Scientific Method.

K54
Can't speak to their motives but Haruko Obokata faking stem cell data comes to mind. Woo-Suk Hwang concerning cloning. John Darsee on DNA research. Dipak K. Das falsifying research on the effect of red wine on the heart. Andrew Wakefield for his claims about vaccines and autism.


Still, such cases are thankfully very rare.

klaus54
06-18-2014, 12:12 PM
Can't speak to their motives but Haruko Obokata faking stem cell data comes to mind. Woo-Suk Hwang concerning cloning. John Darsee on DNA research. Dipak K. Das falsifying research on the effect of red wine on the heart. Andrew Wakefield for his claims about vaccines and autism.


Still, such cases are thankfully very rare.

OK, so the "very often" is incorrect. And the Unnamed One ignores the fact that these falsehoods were corrected by scientific method. (YECs love the Haeckel and Piltdown examples! LOL)

K54

Wally
06-18-2014, 12:12 PM
Can't speak to their motives but Haruko Obokata faking stem cell data comes to mind. Woo-Suk Hwang concerning cloning. John Darsee on DNA research. Dipak K. Das falsifying research on the effect of red wine on the heart. Andrew Wakefield for his claims about vaccines and autism.


Still, such cases are thankfully very rare.

And, most importantly, they are uncovered and corrected by the "evil atheist, baby-eating, scientific community" themselves.

Jorge
06-18-2014, 03:09 PM
Do you ever do anything besides duck questions and run that big mouth? Just curious.

I made a claim and I supported it. How is that "ducking", you Dodo?

Oh, wait ... for a second I forgot that Beagle Boy made that accusation.

As we all know, he uses the Double-Standard New Age Dictionary (DSNAD).

BTW, didn't you just ban me from another thread for allegedly doing EXACTLY what you
are doing here? Oops, I forgot again :blush: ... the ol' DSNAD is used by Beagle Boy.

Jorge

klaus54
06-18-2014, 03:15 PM
I made a claim and I supported it. How is that "ducking", you Dodo?

Oh, wait ... for a second I forgot that Beagle Boy made that accusation.

As we all know, he uses the Double-Standard New Age Dictionary (DSNAD).

BTW, didn't you just ban me from another thread for allegedly doing EXACTLY what you
are doing here? Oops, I forgot again :blush: ... the ol' DSNAD is used by Beagle Boy.

Jorge

What supported claim was that?

K54

Jorge
06-18-2014, 03:26 PM
Can't speak to their motives but Haruko Obokata faking stem cell data comes to mind. Woo-Suk Hwang concerning cloning. John Darsee on DNA research. Dipak K. Das falsifying research on the effect of red wine on the heart. Andrew Wakefield for his claims about vaccines and autism.

Still, such cases are thankfully very rare.

"Thankfully very rare"? Waaaaat? :stunned:

May I ask, what planet have you been on for the last 20 years?
Even the cases that make it into the mainstream media are too many to count.
Most, I am betting, never make it out beyond the walls of the institutions.
Why? Because they would taint the image and the funding of those institutions.
And so the culprits are very quietly hushed out the back door.

No, I'm not going to do the work for you. Just do a computer search for
things like "Peer Review crisis"; scientific data falsification; ethics crisis in science;
and stuff like that.

BTW: who can ever forget the intercepted emails in which the "Global
Warming" fiasco / smoking gun came to light? Notice how it all just "went away".

Another one: until recently, there were scores of products representing billions
of dollars a year for "Testosterone treatment". It seems that the laboratory data
(investigation is currently ongoing) was "not all there" and so the FDA approved
the products. Result? Men started dropping like flies. The products were
removed (but too late - the damage has been done) and now the lawyers are
having a field day (as they always do).

At times where if results aren't produced the funding - gigadollars - goes away,
there is way too much incentive to cut corners and give em' what they want to see.

On and on and on and on and on ... the list is endless.

What planet was that?

Jorge

Jorge
06-18-2014, 03:30 PM
What supported claim was that?

K54

Post # 70 - claim and support right there in one small paragraph.
Somehow, Beagle Boy misses it and then accuses ME of "ducking".

Of course, I know what he's referring to but I am so sick-and-tired
of explaining myself.

Jorge

klaus54
06-18-2014, 03:34 PM
"Thankfully very rare"? Waaaaat? :stunned:

May I ask, what planet have you been on for the last 20 years?
Even the cases that make it into the mainstream media are too many to count.
Most, I am betting, never make it out beyond the walls of the institutions.
Why? Because they would taint the image and the funding of those institutions.
And so the culprits are very quietly hushed out the back door.

No, I'm not going to do the work for you. Just do a computer search for
things like "Peer Review crisis"; scientific data falsification; ethics crisis in science;
and stuff like that.

BTW: who can ever forget the intercepted emails in which the "Global
Warming" fiasco / smoking gun came to light? Notice how it all just "went away".

Another one: until recently, there were scores of products representing billions
of dollars a year for "Testosterone treatment". It seems that the laboratory data
(investigation is currently ongoing) was "not all there" and so the FDA approved
the products. Result? Men started dropping like flies. The products were
removed (but too late - the damage has been done) and now the lawyers are
having a field day (as they always do).

At times where if results aren't produced the funding - gigadollars - goes away,
there is way too much incentive to cut corners and give em' what they want to see.

On and on and on and on and on ... the list is endless.

What planet was that?

Jorge

So how would YEC biochemists do pharmaceutical research any differently than "evolutionists"? Were any of the researchers YECs? And this was more a business issue than a scientific one.

I love the "dropping like flies" hyperbole. Cute.

Your testosterone treatment example is irrelevant to the discussion.

K54

klaus54
06-18-2014, 04:04 PM
Post # 70 - claim and support right there in one small paragraph.
Somehow, Beagle Boy misses it and then accuses ME of "ducking".

Of course, I know what he's referring to but I am so sick-and-tired
of explaining myself.

Jorge

Your "Claim-and-Support" was an ipse dixit.

The Truth: Physical data and induction drive Scientific Method to tentative conclusions that are malleable to further discover. A particular Bible interpretation is the CONCLUSIVE and the body of evidence is cherry-picked to fit the conclusion.

And that's a fact, Fact, FACT!

It was demonstrated that the red highlighted claim is simply nonsense. Testosterone treatment? Really?



You know better than that but you can't stand being shown up as an intellectually dishonest person (said dishonesty, of course, boils over into all aspects of life). So let me support my claim, lest you use your 'powers' to ban me: that cartoon that you post - "The Scientific Method v. The Creationist Method" - is right up there amongst the most lying, fact-free, libelous myths. Not to mention the fact that notable, secular philosophers of science generally agree that most scientists often begin with a set of beliefs and then go out to support them. The extreme example of this is when "scientists" fabricate (false) data in order to support their beliefs, gain fame and keep the money rolling in - something that is done quite often by NON-Creationists.

Thus, anyone with a microgram of integrity would never use that cartoon against Creationists. Has this stopped you? Nope, of course not. Why? Because that "microgram of integrity" isn't there, that's why.

I trust that my meaning is clear as fine crystal. Oh, and don't take this personally. The same may be said of most of those belonging to your 'clan'. They know who they are.

Jorge