Any other childfree people here?

[braveheart101]

Heh. Irreducible Complexity. Haven't seen THAT one pulled out of the bag 'o Creationist talking points in ages.

~Bravey

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by White Knight

@Ranior,

I think you're dismissing the radiocarbon evidence too easily. When the lab in question tested their test samples with no carbon 14, they got back a result of zero carbon 14 in the sample.

If a fossil sample is really millions of years old, the reading should also be zero. Millions of years is way, way past the half life of carbon 14. It should not even be measurable. It should have the same results as when they test their calibrating standards. But the fossils don't come back zero--they come back with measurable amounts of c-14.

Besides, how do you know that you can't use radiocarbon dating past 40,000 years? 50,000 years is well within the measurement capability of the labs. I would suggest that the reason people say it's invalid past 40,000 years is because fossils show trace amounts (when they believe those fossils are older). So they scrap the evidence because it doesn't fit with their fossil timeline.

I've tried to find the exact lab findings and links to what lab was used, but it is difficult. Depending on where they did their tests, and where the testing was done determines how accurate the results are. In the current world our testing machines and techniques have gotten better and better and return more accurate results. In addition we have to know how well the samples were taken and if any contamination has occurred. I'm not sure either way, and would need to see more. As is, I can't seem to find any concrete evidence on that part of it though.

As for ignoring the evidence too quickly...well sorry that I don't take Ken Ham's word for stuff very well. He doesn't know science and consistently misconstrues it. The Mt. St. Helens example is clearly hogwash, taking samples that are known to be young, giving them to the lab where they will surely find that they are quite a few thousand years old is just trying to trick them. You don't potassium-argon date stuff like that, and if you do, we know what the results would be--they'd be around what was observed. As I have done and shown in this thread repeeadetly as well, most of the stuff written by the creation institutes is not science and either 1) Ignores/misinterprets/misstates what the current science says 2) assumes god/creation/young earth is true and then goes on to prove it is so 3) finds evidence that seems to go in contradiction on evolution and claim it is evidence for creation

Finally, thank you for sharing the reasons why you believe what you do. I don't want to go through every single one, plus some of them I must look into more as I'm not aware of the things you are talking about, but there are two major points I feel the need to point out.

1. Every single one of your examples is NOT proof or evidence for creation as scientists would need. Every single piece is simply evidence against evolution. Evidence against evolution does not mean that creation is correct, it could be some other as of yet unknown theory or something. It's a false dichotomy to suggest either creation or evolution must be the correct model of reality.

2. Almost all of your evidence contradicts creation anyhow. Even though the years you cite are all much much younger than the billions of years that scientists believe in, almost all of the items you cite still have at least twice the timeline that you are suggesting of 6,000 years. None of the evidence you brought up gives you a date of 6,000 years like you are claiming. Again, you aren't showing any evidence FOR creation, merely against evolution.

So with that in mind, can we admit that creation isn't a science? That it never has been, and is instead merely a different attempt to produce an accurate model of reality, but is based on faith that requires nothing more than the bible, and that while we're quibbling over the evidence, it doesn't actually matter what the evidence is. I am genuinely curious as to what you think on this, but do you think that creation is a science? Because to me it seems you just laid out the best case you could for a young earth but provided almost no actual evidence for the 6000 year figure you claim.

[Aldin]

Is evolution a science, Ranior?

~Aldin, briefly

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Is evolution a science, Ranior?

~Aldin, briefly

Yes.

~Ranior, briefer

[Crixus33]

@WhiteKnight, I like a lot of your points and they are intriguing. I personally can see science in your conclusions. However the folded rock layers seemed a little weak. I mention this one because you seemed to leave out the fact, according to modern plate tectonic theories, that mountains form from the colliding of two plates. Molten rock in the mantle which is pliable would be forced up as well as the solid rock above it. The folded rock layers I saw seemed to be deeper down the rock formations suggesting rock being pushed up deeper from the earth and this rock may have been molten and therefore able to bend into its current shapes today. I think probably your most interesting piece of evidence were the fossilized trees. That is a curious anomaly.

~Crixus33, intrigued, but not convinced evolution is wrong.

[braveheart101]

I'm personally rather bemused by how devoted to Creationism White Knight is. It's bemusing because of this: Christianity is, first and foremost, about following the teachings of Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. The cause of our religion is in its name. Frankly, how we got here, whether in 6,000 years or 6 billion, whether through direct creation or years of evolution, really doesn't matter*.

~Bravey

*Unless we're speaking scientifically.

(As an aside, I also think Creationism is fatally flawed as it is based totally on a belief in a "God of the Gaps" - but that's another discussion)

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Ranior

Yes.

~Ranior, briefer

Funny, I can't find degree in evolution. I can find some specialties in other branches of science, but nothing that seems to indicate evolution itself is a science.

~Aldin, unbriefer

[braveheart101]

You're being a bit disingenuous here, Aldin. Actually, quite disingenuous. Going by your logic, gravity isn't a science either, since AFAIK, there are no degrees in gravity.*

Are you trying to prove that evolution isn't a science due to the fact that there are no degrees in it?*

~Bravey

*By the way, I'm researching that claim right now.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by braveheart101

You're being a bit disingenuous here, Aldin. Actually, quite disingenuous. Going by your logic, gravity isn't a science either...

Uhhh... right, that's exactly what I'm saying. Gravity is not a science. Not being disingenuous at all. Light is also not a science. Time... not a science.

~Aldin, wondering what definition of science everyone is using

[MegaSilver]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Uhhh... right, that's exactly what I'm saying. Gravity is not a science. Not being disingenuous at all. Light is also not a science. Time... not a science.

~Aldin, wondering what definition of science everyone is using

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe.[6] In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. And over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought other types of knowledge.[7]

However, "science" has also continued to be used in a broad sense to denote reliable and teachable knowledge about a topic, as reflected in modern terms like library science or computer science. This is also reflected in the names of some areas of academic study such as "social science" or "political science".

[caps]

I could see someone using "Gravitational Science" (Science of Gravity) or "Temporal Science" (Science of Time) in a sentence.

~caps, unsure what Aldin is getting at

[Aldin]

What a strange rabbit hole. When we talk about evolution, the scientists involved tend to be biologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, geologists, etc. They have scientific disciplines in which they have degrees. The sciences of biology, archaeology, paleontology, geology, etc. If someone is an accountant and an evolutionist, we don't call them a scientist because they are an evolutionist. We call them an accountant. Evolution is not a science.

~Aldin, definingly