[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:25:15 +0000 (GMT)
J A
Well you know the ropes I'll give you that. I'll just insert a few short
comments but on the subject of creationist 'science' I'll refer you to an
interesting site which gives the answer which I cannot manage and even if I
could, I simply do not have the time, Besides, the author is much more capable
than am I.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 29 September, 2007 2:44:08 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution
Paul
A few comments in red
JA
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
J A
I used the term 'sad' because it is gentle, non inflammatory. I acknowledged
that the data were accurate -- but part of the formula is to leave out the
complicated bits, the bits which would show that the problem is not simple and
that a simple explanation often misses the point So what are the complicated
bits? What are the missed points?. See reference at foot. But the really sad
part is embodied in the quote -
Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science,
or an interpretation of past events (historical science)? Cast doubt -- it may
not be based on eye witness account therefore it's unreliable! There is nothing
wrong with casting doubt on something you are trying to refute - thats part of
arguing against something. Separating observation from interpretation is a
realistic goal in that pursuit. In the reference site, doubt is not cast --
explanation is given.
Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method? Assumptions are bad!
No, assumptions are just that, assumptions. If all your assumptions are
unprovable or questionable, then so to are your conclusions. Well in
creationist attacks, assumptions are invariably portrayed as bad.
Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe? Where is
there any possibility of observing -- say -- 15000 year passage of time?
Therefore it's unreliable! Thats not what they mean. Are the results always
accurate with known samples? No. I don't believe you. Do objects that are
considered to old to have c14 still have it, yes. While my reference does not
address this, many other sites do. Does this mean c14 dating is consistant with
what we observe, no. It matches extremely with tree ring dating, and with
ancient Egyptian artifacts of known age etc etc.
Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate? This
could be attacked on just so many fronts. What is a scientist? Does a degree in
Political Science qualify? How about Theology? But presumably their opinions
would have weight equal to those of a graduate in nuclear physics. What is the
standard of accuracy needed? What does reliable mean in this context? For
someone who finds the concensus of the people he believes in to be of
determining value, I don't see why you should fault someone for questioning the
solidarity of those people. My view is that the view of the overwhelming
majority of informed people is likely to be correct.
It's all about doubt. (standard practice for trying to show something is not
true, or at least not as rock solid as others would have you believe)There is
nothing of the point by point engagement one might hope for. (the article is
well-written, with sound arguements that are carefully explained in a point by
point refutation of C14 dating. What did you read??? I conceded that the facts
presented were accurate. I was expecting you to take the points raised and show
me why they were wrong-headed, or illogical or something, not just dismiss the
entire thing. Again, look at my reference to see what I mean. I could take
those same questions (with a word here and there changed to meet the new
subject) and pose them as being asked of the reliability and truth of the
Bible. They would be just as unanswerable in that context as they are in the
14C context. And just as dishonest! (there is no dishonesty in this piece, if
you can point out the specific lies, No
outright lies. or even shading of the truth, then go ahead! This is another
matter. Casting doubt and encouraging it to fester in the mind of the reader is
my objection. The case is won by snake oil promotional methods. I think you
call it that because it promotes what you assume to be unscientific, blinded by
faith, anti-evolutionism. Creationists think evolutionists tend to be
unscientific & blinded by faith. Short answer -- yes. But responding like your
opinion of the other is true, and they are therefore beneath responce is not
engaging in debate. Look at the arguements, comment on the logic and
observation. I've attempted to do that here.
However it all goes pear-shaped for me when we read -
When a scientist?s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of
the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. You can easily
ignore this since you find it offensive and still comment on the actual logic
and observation contained in the article. JA, I don't find it offencive, it is
simply wrong -- most emphatically it is not scientific.
The corollary to this is that we must instead deny the evidence, or concoct
some artifact to explain it away. Like decay rates might have been faster in
the past or some other bunch of horse feathers (evidence that decay rates were
faster in the past has some good scientific evidence. I was just guessing and
proposed something I thought ridiculous. Do you mean that some people actually
suggest this? That you dismiss it out of hand makes your viewpoint
unscientific). My view here is that if there is a creator God who made the
universe, in whatever manner He chose -- what He did and how it works is best
discovered by examining His handiwork and not by attempting to unravel the
comments of those who claim to know what was meant by those who recorded what
they said that God said. Creation scientists use logic and observation to
answer the evidence of evolution, but evolutionists do not answer creationists
charges with anything (it would seem) other than
derision and righteous indignation. Oh come now. I've found many sites which
have collected together the most common attacks mounted by creationists and
systematically rebutted every point. The reference below for instance has a
pointer to 'Oysters and trilobites' which addresses one favourite of the latter
group. Who's the one using science to knock the other and who's using religious
superiority? One could also wonder why there is so much acrimonious debate over
just what the Bible's 'clear meaning' is (perhaps it is the same reason
evolutionists are always disagreeing, [Here is a common point of
misunderstanding. Creationists presume the possession of knowledge which is
total, perfect, and eternal. Science readily admits that knowledge is a work in
progress and that perfection will never be achieved. Creationists presume from
this that the science position is therefore flawed] or the same reason everyone
finds to disagree about everything under the
sun). In passing, I note that the Bible has already been 'interpreted' but we
should not check that it was done correctly. (why not? why shouldn't anyone
who's interested, investigate the meaning of the most important and influential
book in the history of the world) See the quote above '... we should never
reinterpret the Bible.'
Lastly, evidence which is difficult to deny is never mentioned eg at
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crebuttal1.html Earth's magnetic field would have
stopped C14 dating no more than 1500 years ago. (A small rebuttal article).
(the "rebuttal" consists of saying that any problem with the current
evolutionary cosmology, no matter how great, will be answered in the future. No
-- you must be reading the wrong part. Scroll down til you find 'Earth's
magnetic field ...' (as stated above) and look again. It is quite specific.
This is one of those areas which addresses a number of those common points
which I referred to above actually. That's one heck of a rebuttal. Nice
fallback position for any foolishness one wants to believe in. I think ducks
created the earth, I know there are some problems with this theory but all my
peers accept this and future discoveries will vindicate me, so my current
position is correct and scientific and how dare you question me you
backward religious myth follower, I don't have to answer your actual
arguments, you are beneath me!!!!
Paul D
JA
The reference is http://www.island.net/~rjbw/CreationScience.html and it also
has many extended links, many of which point to creationist sites. This latter
is a service which is rarely reciprocated by creationist sites. You'd think
they had something to hide!
Paul D
PS I think I detected a couple of instances above where you might be attempting
to ascribe religious overtones to my comments. I've strongly denounced this
previously and I ask you to please bear this in mind.
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
