Creationists

[Lonestar_logic]

You can start here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs


I'm still hoping you will reveal how your kitten litter tale is a compelling refutation of evolution.

I've heard all the arguments FOR evolution. WHERE IS THE PROOF?

Stuck on the kitten analogy are ya?

Where is the observable random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?

You need to petition your creationist ministries to update their propaganda regarding new, functional gene complexes.


More on the origination of new protein-coding genes - The Panda's Thumb

Of course, we can assume all the above is a conspiracy theory. That will allow you to present your facts proving the gods.

I have no "creation ministries".

 

[newpolitics]

Thinking about tonight, I bet I am right about one thing: Hollie, Daws, Loki and NP are for four more years of handouts, entitlements, excessive spending, free money for failed alternative energy companies, DOJ gun running schemes, and wealth redistribution.

There is no god.

 

[Hollie]

I've heard all the arguments FOR evolution. WHERE IS THE PROOF?

Stuck on the kitten analogy are ya?

Where is the observable random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?

Not surprisingly, you never opened the link sent to you. The facts are there.

Let's look at this from the perspective of a conspiratorial mindset and we'll presume that all the facts and evidence supporting evolution are wrong.

How does that support your claims to the gods? As we see with consistency, the conspiracy theory addled fundie is utterly unable to present evidence for his gods, thus the entirety of the fundie argument in favor of the gods is reduced to attacks on science.

Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.

Gods? I made no claim about gods.

The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.

Evolutionary science is junk science.

They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life. They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides. And so on.

So what do they use for their "evidence?"

Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.

The scenario goes something like this:

1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?

The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition.

The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others.

Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.

 

[Hollie]

It was an assumption based on the fact that you had to ask what facts I presented in which there are a few.

There are facts you possess that prove your gods?

Super. Present them.

Why would I need proof of something I acknowledge exists?

If that were true, why do you so desperately need to thrash away at science and evolution?

It's a common these with fundies: evolution is a threat to their belief in supermagical gods just as evolution is a threat. Science strips away fear and ignorance. Just as we now understand that natural forces are not of any gods, knowledge has inevitably reduced your gods from being the eternal winders of the universe to mere paper-shuffling laggards and lay-abouts.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Not surprisingly, you never opened the link sent to you. The facts are there.

Let's look at this from the perspective of a conspiratorial mindset and we'll presume that all the facts and evidence supporting evolution are wrong.

How does that support your claims to the gods? As we see with consistency, the conspiracy theory addled fundie is utterly unable to present evidence for his gods, thus the entirety of the fundie argument in favor of the gods is reduced to attacks on science.

Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.

Gods? I made no claim about gods.

The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.

Evolutionary science is junk science.

They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life. They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides. And so on.

So what do they use for their "evidence?"

Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.

The scenario goes something like this:

1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?

The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition.

The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others.

Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.

If the "theory" of evolution doesn't involve the "origin of life" then at what point did evolution begin?

BTW peer review doesn't mean squat in this case. You have fellow evolutionary scientist agreeing with each other. Big deal. Proves nothing.

Evolutionist don't have an agenda?

I have no idea what the disco-tute is or why you keep referring to it.

Why is an unproven theory used as fact?

How did the "sexes" come to be?

Regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. If evolution is a fact how did that come about?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There are facts you possess that prove your gods?

Super. Present them.

Why would I need proof of something I acknowledge exists?

If that were true, why do you so desperately need to thrash away at science and evolution?

It's a common these with fundies: evolution is a threat to their belief in supermagical gods just as evolution is a threat. Science strips away fear and ignorance. Just as we now understand that natural forces are not of any gods, knowledge has inevitably reduced your gods from being the eternal winders of the universe to mere paper-shuffling laggards and lay-abouts.

Oh but it is true.

I'm trying to save your foolish ass from future embarrassment. It's my Christian nature to help the less fortunate.

Trust me, evolution is no threat to my beliefs in any way. I find it amusing to watch you people flop around like a fish out of water trying to prove the silliness you profess to be fact.

 

[Hollie]

Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.

Gods? I made no claim about gods.

The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.

Evolutionary science is junk science.

They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life. They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides. And so on.

So what do they use for their "evidence?"

Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.

The scenario goes something like this:

1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?

The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition.

The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others.

Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.

If the "theory" of evolution doesn't involve the "origin of life" then at what point did evolution begin?

BTW peer review doesn't mean squat in this case. You have fellow evolutionary scientist agreeing with each other. Big deal. Proves nothing.

Evolutionist don't have an agenda?

I have no idea what the disco-tute is or why you keep referring to it.

Why is an unproven theory used as fact?

How did the "sexes" come to be?

Regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. If evolution is a fact how did that come about?

Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered. Did you hear the news: thunder and lightning is not the result of angry gods.

BTW, peer review is a vital component of science discovery and exploration. I gave a brief description earlier. Here too, you really should spend some time and learn something of the discipline you hope to denigrate but understand so little of.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. Why are you arguing against an established field of science when you have no knowledge of even the most basic principles of that discipline? You stumble over your own arguments as they are meaningless regarding evolution. Shouldn't you have at least a middling understanding of evolutionary principles before you attempt to argue against it?

The scientific method does not operate in the manner you describe. It seems that you and the two other Christian fundies all cut and paste from the same websites that have made you accomplices to ignorance, fear and superstition.

The discipline of science has what us known as "peer review". That is a process wherein data, results of testing and claims to theories or observed test results are subject to ruthless re-testing and examination by others.

Thus is the most glaring exception for creationist charlatans who explicitly do not submit their anti-science efforts for peer review. The reasons are obvious: the Christian creationist charlatans have an explicit agenda of denigrating science as a perceived mechanism to vilify science. Those efforts have crashed and burned as the creationist ministries have been repeatedly exposed as frauds, such as the snake-oil salesmen at the Disco-tute'.

If the "theory" of evolution doesn't involve the "origin of life" then at what point did evolution begin?

BTW peer review doesn't mean squat in this case. You have fellow evolutionary scientist agreeing with each other. Big deal. Proves nothing.

Evolutionist don't have an agenda?

I have no idea what the disco-tute is or why you keep referring to it.

Why is an unproven theory used as fact?

How did the "sexes" come to be?

Regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. If evolution is a fact how did that come about?

Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered. Did you hear the news: thunder and lightning is not the result of angry gods.

BTW, peer review is a vital component of science discovery and exploration. I gave a brief description earlier. Here too, you really should spend some time and learn something of the discipline you hope to denigrate but understand so little of.

Why male and female?

 

[Hollie]

Why would I need proof of something I acknowledge exists?

If that were true, why do you so desperately need to thrash away at science and evolution?

It's a common these with fundies: evolution is a threat to their belief in supermagical gods just as evolution is a threat. Science strips away fear and ignorance. Just as we now understand that natural forces are not of any gods, knowledge has inevitably reduced your gods from being the eternal winders of the universe to mere paper-shuffling laggards and lay-abouts.

Oh but it is true.

I'm trying to save your foolish ass from future embarrassment. It's my Christian nature to help the less fortunate.

Trust me, evolution is no threat to my beliefs in any way. I find it amusing to watch you people flop around like a fish out of water trying to prove the silliness you profess to be fact.

floating conspiracy theories about global, subversive efforts to promote evilution are entertaining but get tiresome. You appear to mimic the two other Christian fundies in thus thread who similarly view the worldwide plague of education and learning as a real and imminent threat. I just find it curious that the most education loathing, science hating folks seem to be Christian. Is that also part of your Christian nature? Let's hope you... evolve... into a rational, thinking human.

Are you of the fundie persuasion that uses prayer instead of medicine to promote healing?

 

[Hollie]

If the "theory" of evolution doesn't involve the "origin of life" then at what point did evolution begin?

BTW peer review doesn't mean squat in this case. You have fellow evolutionary scientist agreeing with each other. Big deal. Proves nothing.

Evolutionist don't have an agenda?

I have no idea what the disco-tute is or why you keep referring to it.

Why is an unproven theory used as fact?

How did the "sexes" come to be?

Regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. If evolution is a fact how did that come about?

Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered. Did you hear the news: thunder and lightning is not the result of angry gods.

BTW, peer review is a vital component of science discovery and exploration. I gave a brief description earlier. Here too, you really should spend some time and learn something of the discipline you hope to denigrate but understand so little of.

Why male and female?

I suppose the gods have urges too. After all, we invented the gods in our image.

Haven't you noticed that the plastic hey-zoos on your dashboard has very "waspy" features.

How cool is that, an Anglo Hey-zoos.

 

[daws101]

Ficticious? Why because you say so?

Sorry if I don't take your word for it.

And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.

it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
your denial of dating methods is a dodge
it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...

The only requirement is faith.

Dating methods have been proven to be flawed. Not a dodge but simply the truth.

Using your logic that the dating methods are correct 50 percent of the time, then how can you be certain which result is correct and which result isn't? Flip a coin? It'd be about the same odds.

Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact.

Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy.

and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then 50% more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S

Bible Science Debunked



A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology

It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science. If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute). But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise? In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, �Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.� I chose Mr. Pyles� website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.

Before examining Mr. Pyles� claims for the Bible�s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe. According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary,

�The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."

Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome. The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya." Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament." In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).

The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV) In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent. And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."

A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here.

Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of �chaotic waters� confined above it. It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.



Examining the Claims



In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science. Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up. Be that as it may, in what follows, let�s see how Mr. Pyles� claims stand up to scrutiny. (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations. I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)

Claim 1.

Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."

My Response:

Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation. Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects. (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter). Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific.

According to an earlier understanding of �Big Bang� theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space. The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes). Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever. In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause. The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up. More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.

Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it. Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened. Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe.

Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell. One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories. Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:

In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).

I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above. Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu? I don�t think so. Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.

Bible Science Debunked


"Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy L.S."


How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009

Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record?

It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories — the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time — for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time.

Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present — apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion?

.Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?

One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on actual historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?

 

[Gadawg73]

I've heard all the arguments FOR evolution. WHERE IS THE PROOF?

Stuck on the kitten analogy are ya?

Where is the observable random creation of new genetic information, including at least one new functional gene complex?

Not surprisingly, you never opened the link sent to you. The facts are there.

Let's look at this from the perspective of a conspiratorial mindset and we'll presume that all the facts and evidence supporting evolution are wrong.

How does that support your claims to the gods? As we see with consistency, the conspiracy theory addled fundie is utterly unable to present evidence for his gods, thus the entirety of the fundie argument in favor of the gods is reduced to attacks on science.

Yes I opened it and found NO PROOF.

Gods? I made no claim about gods.

The thing is my faith needs no proof. Yours does.

Evolutionary science is junk science.

They have zero evidence that life can be created from non-life. They have zero evidence that any new information or intelligence has been created by random mutations of nucleotides. And so on.

So what do they use for their "evidence?"

Their primary evidence is to assume the theory of evolution is true and to claim that each new discovery in biology or genetic research is the result of evolution.

The scenario goes something like this:

1) Scientists assume the theory of evolution is true,
2) Then they look at the "data" and spin whatever kind of story they can come up with to "prove" the theory of evolution is true,
3) They then claim they have "evidence" for the theory of evolution.

So all scientists are frauds spinning all of their studies to purposely make fraudulent conclusions.
And since the entire world scientific community accepted evolution as fact in the 1870s this global fraud has been ongoing for 140 years.
And the tens of thousands of scientific studies on the theory of evolution, many conducted at The Beacon Center for the Study of evolution in action at Texas A & M as well as many at The University of Texas and most all top universities in The United States of America, are all bogus to the core and scientific frauds.
That is your argument. All the science is a fraud with the thousands of studies using the scientific method, which by reading your 1, 2, 3 Kaptain Kangaroo scientific method, is all there is.

Anyone that seriously believes Texas A & M, The University of Texas and all other scientists everywhere uses your above 1, 2, 3 scenario to conduct scientific testing in any way, shape or form is ignorant.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If someone's faith is so strong why worry about evolution?
If it is on such flimsy ground as some claim here why make a stink about it?
Because those that do have little to no faith in their own beliefs.

Those questions apply to your side as well.

Bull shit. You can believe and teach whatever you want in your religion classes.

I learned it in the classes you should have learned it,not to mention the lab.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have you been convinced by religious authorities that various dating methods accepted by scientists is one huge conspiracy theory? For that to be the case, your conspiracy would necessarily require conspirators from all of the leading teaching universities in all the developed nations.

I think looking foolish and desperate is a function of Christian creationists who selectively accept only the science which they feel is not a direct threat to their religious beliefs. You should also be aware that aside from christianity and islam, there really does not exist an anti-science / anti-evolution movement.

No. No religious authority was needed to convince me that dating methods are flawed.

Your foolishly veiled insult is noted.

Why do think dating methods are flawed? Do you believe there is a vast conspiracy among leading universities and scientists across the globe? Have you been convinced of a 6,000 year old earth when experimentation, physical data and evidence depicts a very ancient universe?

Was your earlier insult to be ignored? I've come to expect insults from religious people when challenges to their beliefs are presented. Do you enter a public discussion board and expect others to accept "because I say so claims"?

Please explain how diamonds that were dated to a couple of million years old were found to contain carbon ?

 

[Gadawg73]

it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
your denial of dating methods is a dodge
it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...

The only requirement is faith.

Dating methods have been proven to be flawed. Not a dodge but simply the truth.

Using your logic that the dating methods are correct 50 percent of the time, then how can you be certain which result is correct and which result isn't? Flip a coin? It'd be about the same odds.

Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact.

Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy.

and using your "logic" you missed the "IF" the fact is dating methods are far more accurate then 50% more like 97or 98 % percent depending on the method,unlike the claims in the bible that are not supported by evidence,the following claims are erroneous in the extreme : "Actually there are statements in the Bible which are consistent with scientific fact." L.S

Bible Science Debunked



A Brief Introduction To Biblical Cosmology

It is not uncommon for biblical apologists to make the claim that the Bible miraculously revealed advanced scientific principles long before they were discovered by modern science. If true, this would lend credibility to the notion that the Bible is divinely inspired (or that the Bible authors were incredibly astute). But can these claims really be substantiated through an objective analysis of the biblical citations that are presented to support this premise? In order to find out, I searched the Internet for Christian apologetic websites that tout the Bible as a source of revelatory scientific insight and settled on one developed by a Mr. David Pyles entitled, �Scientific Facts and Accuracy in the Bible.� I chose Mr. Pyles� website because it contained more citations than most and included claims that routinely appear on other such websites.

Before examining Mr. Pyles� claims for the Bible�s amazing scientific accuracy, it is helpful to first set the stage by providing an overview of the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe. According to the Harper's Bible Dictionary,

�The ancient Hebrews imagined the world as flat and round [disk], covered by the great solid dome of the firmament which was held up by mountain pillars, (Job 26:11; 37:18). The blue color of the sky was attributed to the chaotic waters that the firmament separated from the earth (Gen. 1:7). The earth was thus surrounded by waters above and below (Gen. 1:6,7; cf. Psalms 24:2; 148:4, Deut. 5:8). The firmament was thought to be substantial; it had pillars (Job 26:11) and foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). When the windows of it were opened, rain fell (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). The sun, moon, and stars moved across or were fixed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14-19; Ps. 19:4,6). It was also the abode of the birds (Gen. 1:20; Deut. 4:17). Within the earth lay Sheol, the realm of the dead (Num. 16:30-33; Isa. 14:9,15)."

Yes, those Bronze Age science wizards whose creation folktales were collected in the Old Testament really did believe that the earth was covered by a solid dome. The Hebrew word translated as firmament in Genesis is "raqiya." Strong's Lexicon (searchable at the Blue Letter Bible website) translates the word as "extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament." In keeping with the notion of solidity, the dome was thought to be impervious to water, i.e., it separated the waters above it from the waters below, to contain windows that regulated precipitation, to serve as a surface across which the sun, moon, and stars traveled, and to serve as a sub-floor for the mythical reservoirs of snow and hail (Job 38:22).

The concept of a solid dome in the sky is also exemplified by Job 37:18 which describes God as spreading out the heavens and making them "as strong as a cast metal mirror." (NKJV) In Isa. 40:22, the heavens are likened to the fabric of a curtain or tent. And in a footnote to "raqiya," Strong's Lexicon states, "...considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting "waters above."

A depiction of this archaic concept of a dome-covered universe and further discussion on the subject can found here.

Incidentally, the sky is not blue because a make-believe firmament partially transmits the color of �chaotic waters� confined above it. It is blue because of a phenomenon known as Rayleigh scattering.



Examining the Claims



In consideration of the foregoing, it is difficult to identify anything that might come close to qualifying as cutting-edge science. Truth be told, the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe is manifestly unscientific and something that any Typical Scientifically-Ignorant Bronze Age Goat Herder (TSIBAGH) might be expected to have dreamed up. Be that as it may, in what follows, let�s see how Mr. Pyles� claims stand up to scrutiny. (It appears Mr. Pyles has used the KJV Bible for most of his biblical citations. I have done likewise, unless otherwise specified.)

Claim 1.

Genesis 1:1,3 (written 3,450 years ago): "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion. "In the beginning (time) God created (power) the Heaven (space) and the earth (matter) . . . And the Spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters."

My Response:

Genesis gets off to a rather dubious start in the science department because it violates one of the principal tenets of the scientific method, i.e., it invokes supernatural causation. Science deals exclusively with natural causes and effects. (See here.) God, a supernatural entity, cannot be invoked as a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe (or anything else for that matter). Scientific theories dealing with the origin of the universe do not include reference to any creator gods because to do so would render them utterly unscientific.

According to an earlier understanding of �Big Bang� theory of the origin of the universe (based on general relativity factors), time started when matter/energy originated and was set in motion through space. The thinking was that the process began with a so-called singularity in which matter/energy was compressed to an incredibly high density (similar to the condition that is thought to exist at the center of black holes). Now, taking into account additional factors relating to quantum mechanics, it is the consensus of cosmologists that there was no singularity at the start of the Big Bang. This means that time did not necessarily begin with the Big Bang and that the universe could extend back in time with no limit, i.e., it may have existed in one form or another forever. In other words, and in contradiction to Genesis, there may well not have been a beginning of the universe for anyone or any thing to cause. The Genesis creation story provides none of this insight and consists of nothing that a TSIBAGH could not have dreamed up. More to the point, it is precisely the type of mythical folktale a TSIBAGH would be expected to dream up.

Although Genesis 1:1-3 makes general statements about what God supposedly did, it provides no information regarding how He did it. Scientific explanations include information not only about what happened, but also about how (using only naturalistic mechanisms) it happened. Not only does Genesis get virtually everything wrong, it also leaves out far too many details to qualify as a source of useful scientific information on the origin of the universe.

Arbitrarily assigning scientific meanings to words in ancient documents does not automatically lend any scientific credibility to the stories they tell. One can play the same word game with a number of ancient creation stories. Consider the following from a part of a Chinese creation story:

In the beginning (time), the heavens and earth were still one and all was chaos. The universe was like a big black egg, carrying Pan Gu inside itself. After 18 thousand years Pan Gu woke from a long sleep. He felt suffocated, so he took up a broadax and wielded it with all his might (power) to crack open the egg. The light, clear part of it floated up (motion) and formed the heavens (space), the cold, turbid matter stayed below to form earth (matter).

I have inserted the words "time," "power," "motion," "space," and "matter" using the same logic (or lack thereof) that Mr. Pyles used in his example above. Does this lend any scientific credibility to the creation story of Pan Gu? I don�t think so. Neither do I think it does so when Mr. Pyles uses the same specious approach with the Bible.

Bible Science Debunked


"Archaeologist continue to find evidence that supports the Bible's historic accuracy L.S."


How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?By Austin Cline, About.com GuideJuly 30, 2009

Quite a few Christians believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in every detail - not a single error or contradiction can be found in the text. Other Christians believe that many allegedly historical passages are only metaphorical and that the authors, being fallible, made mistakes from time to time. Which end of this spectrum do you think is most reasonable and, more importantly, why? What sorts of evidence or reasoning can be presented to more literalist Christians to explain why the Bible is not a perfect historical record?

It's obvious that some parts of the Bible were only ever intended to be metaphorical or allegorical stories — the Bible is, after all, a collection of texts written over a long period of time and they represent many different genres of writing. Even those intended to relate actual events, though, were not written from the perspective of purely factual, objective history because that genre didn't exist at the time — for most of history, writing "history" meant pursuing a political, ideological, or religious agenda at the same time.

Even if we ignore that, however, distinguishing between the portions that are allegories or metaphors and the portions which are meant to be historical isn't always easy. Sometimes there are markers, but so often religious believers insist that some stories are allegories even though no such markers are present — apparently, anything that obviously couldn't be true must have been intended to be allegory all along while anything that might be true must be true. Where doe such an attitude come from and why is it only applied to one's own religion?

.Weekly Poll: How Historically Accurate Is The Bible?

One more thing ..why is it when searching those statements do you only find conformation on Christian bias sites?
you would think that if those fables were fact you find them on actual historical and scientific sites not pseudoscience or pseudohistoric ones?

What really sticks in my ribs are these claims because on so many other things we encounter in life The Bible is a great map and course for many things.
That is what it is and is supposed to be.
A person follow Biblical principles in so many areas, they will make it work.
Nothing about science, it is not a science book and was never intended to be one.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Run and hide if you wish. You seem confused that your homespun stories and tales of kitten litters somehow represents an argument worth reading or responding to.

Your cut and paste about the wistar symposium is a lot of flaming about creationist propaganda that was ridiculed for being silly creationists flailing their pom poms with no allowance for peer reviewed refutation.

I see no creationist "facts" supporting a compelling case for your gods, only the typical science hating fundie bluster.

I don't run nor do I hide.

You have presented NOTHING but dismissals of facts.

Prove evolution is a FACT.


I'll wait.

You can start here: The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs


I'm still hoping you will reveal how your kitten litter tale is a compelling refutation of evolution.

I have been familliar with that site for several years. Give us a summary of what you read there clearly you do not understand the theory well enough to speak for yourself.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If that were true, why do you so desperately need to thrash away at science and evolution?

It's a common these with fundies: evolution is a threat to their belief in supermagical gods just as evolution is a threat. Science strips away fear and ignorance. Just as we now understand that natural forces are not of any gods, knowledge has inevitably reduced your gods from being the eternal winders of the universe to mere paper-shuffling laggards and lay-abouts.

Oh but it is true.

I'm trying to save your foolish ass from future embarrassment. It's my Christian nature to help the less fortunate.

Trust me, evolution is no threat to my beliefs in any way. I find it amusing to watch you people flop around like a fish out of water trying to prove the silliness you profess to be fact.

floating conspiracy theories about global, subversive efforts to promote evilution are entertaining but get tiresome. You appear to mimic the two other Christian fundies in thus thread who similarly view the worldwide plague of education and learning as a real and imminent threat. I just find it curious that the most education loathing, science hating folks seem to be Christian. Is that also part of your Christian nature? Let's hope you... evolve... into a rational, thinking human.

Are you of the fundie persuasion that uses prayer instead of medicine to promote healing?

I have no idea what a fundie is other than that's your description of those that have an opposing view.

 

[Youwerecreated]

not the old "if you read the bible" bullshit. I have read it many times and the tower of bable is a parable ( a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious )
and is no actual proof of a tower or a god or that god was responsible.
"faith" ( firm belief in something for which there is no proof )
on the other hand there is actual proof of the drawings mentioned earlier ...
1. the drawings, glyphs and paintings in and of themselves are evidence .
there is absolutly zero for the tower of bable.
2 before you go on about how dating methods are wrong and all the other denial of fact you'd like to throw in ,even if the dating methods were off by several thousand years they would still be thousands of years older then your creation fantasy allows...

Spanish Cave Paintings Shown as Oldest in World

By SETH BORENSTEIN | Associated Press – Thu, Jun 14, 2012
Spanish cave paintings shown as oldest in world | 2012: What's the 'real' truth?

WASHINGTON (AP) — New tests show that crude Spanish cavepaintings of a red sphere and handprints are the oldest in the world, so ancient they may not have been by modern man.Some scientists say they might have even been made by the much maligned Neanderthals, but others disagree.Testing the coating of paintings in 11 Spanish caves, researchers found that one is at least 40,800 years old, which is at least 15,000 years older than previously thought. That makes them older than the more famous French cave paintings by thousands of years.

Scientists dated the Spanish cave paintings by measuring the decay of uranium atoms, instead of traditional carbon-dating, according to a report released Thursday by the journal Science. The paintings were first discovered in the 1870s.

The oldest of the paintings is a red sphere from a cave called El Castillo. About 25 outlined handprints in another cave are at least 37,300 years old. Slightly younger paintings include horses.

Cave paintings are “one of the most exquisite examples of human symbolic behavior,” said study co-author Joao Zilhao, an anthropologist at the University of Barcelona. “And that, that’s what makes us human.

”There is older sculpture and other portable art. Before the latest test, the oldest known cave paintings were those France’s Chauvet cave, considered between 32,000 and 37,000 years old.

What makes the dating of the Spanish cave paintings important is that it’s around the time whenmodern humans first came into Europe from Africa.

Study authors say they could have been from modern man decorating their new digs or they could have been the working of the long-time former tenant of Europe: the Neanderthal. Scientists said Neanderthals were in Europe from about 250,000 years ago until about 35,000 years ago. Modern humans arrived in Europe about 41,000 to 45,000 years ago — with some claims they moved in even earlier — and replaced Neanderthals.

“There is a strong chance that these results imply Neanderthal authorship,” Zilhao said. “But I will not say we have proven it because we haven’t.

”In a telephone press conference, Zilhao said Neanderthals recently have gotten “bad press” over their abilities. They decorated their tools and bodies. So, he said, they could have painted caves.But there’s a debate in the scientific community about Neanderthals. Other anthropologists say Zilhao is in a minority of researchers who believe in more complex abilities of Neanderthals.

Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and John Shea at Long Island’s Stony Brook University said the dating work in the Science paper is compelling and important, but they didn’t quite buy the theory that Neanderthals could have been the artists.

“There is no clear evidence of paintings associated with Neanderthal tools or fossils, so any such evidence would be surprising,” Delson said. He said around 41,000 years ago Neanderthals were already moving south in Europe, away from modern man and these caves.

Shea said it is more likely that modern humans were making such paintings in Africa even earlier, but the works didn’t survive because of the different geology on the continent.“The people who came in to Europe were very much like us. They used art, they used symbols,” Shea said.

“They were not like Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble.”

http://consciouslyconnecting.blog.com/2012/06/15/spanish-cave-paintings-shown-as-oldest-in-world/

Ficticious? Why because you say so?

Sorry if I don't take your word for it.

And as I've said dating methods are flawed and since that is a fact, then all presumptions about how old something is, is just that a presumption.

it's fictious because there's no evidence to support it .
your denial of dating methods is a dodge
it is true that they are flawed but even if they were only right 50% of the time it would still make them far more accurate then the no proof answers you provide.
BTW the bible is the most flawed and inaccurate book ever written....but you still use it...

You are in denial of the evidence that shows dating methods are not reliable.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Regarding the science of evolution, you really should take some time and acquaint yourself with what science has discovered. Did you hear the news: thunder and lightning is not the result of angry gods.

BTW, peer review is a vital component of science discovery and exploration. I gave a brief description earlier. Here too, you really should spend some time and learn something of the discipline you hope to denigrate but understand so little of.

Why male and female?

I suppose the gods have urges too. After all, we invented the gods in our image.

Haven't you noticed that the plastic hey-zoos on your dashboard has very "waspy" features.

How cool is that, an Anglo Hey-zoos.

Funny.... now answer the question.

I have no idea what a hey-zoos is but I'm certain there's not one on my dashboard. Unless you call a radar detecter a hey-zoos.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thinking about tonight, I bet I am right about one thing: Hollie, Daws, Loki and NP are for four more years of handouts, entitlements, excessive spending, free money for failed alternative energy companies, DOJ gun running schemes, and wealth redistribution.

There is no god.

Prove it.