Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[orogenicman]

Are you paying ?

What do you hope to convince me of ? and why can't you provide this evidence here ?

Am I paying for you to go on a field trip with me? Erm, no, that would mean that you are a cheap bastard who believes that education is free and teachers should not get paid for their considerable efforts. You aren't a cheap bastard, are you? Look, I've offered to lend my considerable knowledge and experience to show you in the field how geology actually works, and I've offered this free of charge. How many other Earth scientists have made you this offer? You cannot get hands on experience from a book or a web site. You have to go into the field and see it, touch it, smell it, do the field work. There is no other way.

I was joking, I can afford my own way there.

Great. When?

 

[orogenicman]

Why do you waste your time daws ? you are not willing to learn.

comedy is never a waste of time.
learn what? you've nothing to teach.

How do humans have 41 completely new genes in the Y chromosome if we are apes ? apes have no mechanism to completely build a new gene.

The number of genes in a Y chromosome does not an ape make. In other words, it matters not how many genes are in a Y chromosome. That is not what determines whether a species is or is not an ape. And why are you repeating the same answered question over and over again? Do you know what Einstein said about people who do that?

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC, how geologic strata are dated using the radiometric method, and what those age/dates can tell us aside from the age of strata:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~earthsci/People/meyerNEGSA05.pdf

It has been shown that Radioisotope Dating is not a reliable method. It has also been shown strata can be formed over a short time span does not need the assumption it takes millions of years. It also has been shown that fossils can also form in a short time span.

No, YWC it is has not been shown to be unreliable at all. Again, thousands of scientists and hundreds of laboratories across the entire planet (in nearly every country) use these methods with great success, and have for decades. The only ones who don't believe they work are YECs, and they aren't scientists, and no one actually cares what they think on the matter. For you to believe that the world's scientists would use these methods on a daily basis despite them allegedly being unreliable tells me that you think that scientists are stupid whereas you people with no scientific training and experience whatsoever are not. And I find that to be incredulous, to say the least. Particularly since you refuse to get off your ass and get into the field to see what the facts actually are.

Listen, let's get something straight. The dating methods have been tested with objects with known ages. Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested. It is an assumption they are accurate that is all it is. No one was there to know so you're assuming they are accurate. Ignoring evidence that contradicts the methods used.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Am I paying for you to go on a field trip with me? Erm, no, that would mean that you are a cheap bastard who believes that education is free and teachers should not get paid for their considerable efforts. You aren't a cheap bastard, are you? Look, I've offered to lend my considerable knowledge and experience to show you in the field how geology actually works, and I've offered this free of charge. How many other Earth scientists have made you this offer? You cannot get hands on experience from a book or a web site. You have to go into the field and see it, touch it, smell it, do the field work. There is no other way.

I was joking, I can afford my own way there.

Great. When?

You would be wasting both of our time because I have laid out the reasons I don't and won't trust them. I have empirical evidence I would have to ignore for an assumption. Seriously,the age of the earth does not really matter even though I believe the earth is not as old as claimed. No one can prove the age of the earth or the universe, once again these views are based on presuppositions and assumptions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

comedy is never a waste of time.
learn what? you've nothing to teach.

How do humans have 41 completely new genes in the Y chromosome if we are apes ? apes have no mechanism to completely build a new gene.

The number of genes in a Y chromosome does not an ape make. In other words, it matters not how many genes are in a Y chromosome. That is not what determines whether a species is or is not an ape. And why are you repeating the same answered question over and over again? Do you know what Einstein said about people who do that?

You do not understand the importance of the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome helps determine ancestry. You say it doesn't make an ape in a way it does, mostly the Y chromosome determines ancestry. You still need to show how a completely new gene can be added to the Y chromosome.

"Why is the Y chromosome important?

Because the Y chromosome cannot easily swap information with the X chromosome, the Y chromosome in a man's sperm will be an almost exact copy of the Y chromosome in his body's cells. Therefore, any sons the man fathers will also carry this same Y chromosome.

Polymorphisms in a man's Y chromosome are also passed directly on to his sons, and then on to their sons and so on. These polymorphisms mark a man's Y chromosome and distinguish it from those of other men. As scientists know approximately how often certain kinds of mutations occur they can look for these and determine how closely related any two men are. The more Y chromosome polymorphisms two men share, the more recently they had a common ancestor. Y chromosomes in men living today thus retain a record of the chromosome's passage through time. They can reveal paternal ancestry and show relationships between different groups of men.

Genetics and Identity

But there is more on this myth of 2% difference in Dna similarity between chimps and humans that is a lie.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fool, educate thyself.

You are one to speak.

Yes, when I see your poor understanding of physics, I am one to speak.

So is the earth considered orderly or chaotic and experiencing an increase in disorder ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has been shown that Radioisotope Dating is not a reliable method. It has also been shown strata can be formed over a short time span does not need the assumption it takes millions of years. It also has been shown that fossils can also form in a short time span.

No, YWC it is has not been shown to be unreliable at all. Again, thousands of scientists and hundreds of laboratories across the entire planet (in nearly every country) use these methods with great success, and have for decades. The only ones who don't believe they work are YECs, and they aren't scientists, and no one actually cares what they think on the matter. For you to believe that the world's scientists would use these methods on a daily basis despite them allegedly being unreliable tells me that you think that scientists are stupid whereas you people with no scientific training and experience whatsoever are not. And I find that to be incredulous, to say the least. Particularly since you refuse to get off your ass and get into the field to see what the facts actually are.

Listen, let's get something straight. The dating methods have been tested by objects known age. Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested. It is an assumption they are accurate that is all it is. No one was there to know so you're assuming they are accurate. Ignoring evidence that contradicts the methods used.

Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested.

Sounds like a fairy tale.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are one to speak.

Yes, when I see your poor understanding of physics, I am one to speak.

So is the earth considered orderly or chaotic and experiencing an increase in disorder ?

If you understood physics, you should understand that you can have areas of decreasing entropy, even though the entropy of the Universe is increasing.

But you don't, obviously.

 

[orogenicman]

It has been shown that Radioisotope Dating is not a reliable method. It has also been shown strata can be formed over a short time span does not need the assumption it takes millions of years. It also has been shown that fossils can also form in a short time span.

No, YWC it is has not been shown to be unreliable at all. Again, thousands of scientists and hundreds of laboratories across the entire planet (in nearly every country) use these methods with great success, and have for decades. The only ones who don't believe they work are YECs, and they aren't scientists, and no one actually cares what they think on the matter. For you to believe that the world's scientists would use these methods on a daily basis despite them allegedly being unreliable tells me that you think that scientists are stupid whereas you people with no scientific training and experience whatsoever are not. And I find that to be incredulous, to say the least. Particularly since you refuse to get off your ass and get into the field to see what the facts actually are.

Listen, let's get something straight. The dating methods have been tested by objects known age. Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested. It is an assumption they are accurate that is all it is. No one was there to know so you're assuming they are accurate. Ignoring evidence that contradicts the methods used.

Let's be clear and completely frank about this. The eleven different radiometric and radiation dating methods have been used by thousands of scientists in hundreds of labs all over the world for over 50 years with great success, and high precision. There is nothing unambiguous about the science, which is based on the exact same physics as the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. You'd have to be a complete idiot to argue against the precision of these methods. Your "no one was there" argument is the dumbest one you people ever make. You really need a new line, because, damn!

Field trip? Yes or no?

 

[Hollie]

It has been shown that Radioisotope Dating is not a reliable method. It has also been shown strata can be formed over a short time span does not need the assumption it takes millions of years. It also has been shown that fossils can also form in a short time span.

No, YWC it is has not been shown to be unreliable at all. Again, thousands of scientists and hundreds of laboratories across the entire planet (in nearly every country) use these methods with great success, and have for decades. The only ones who don't believe they work are YECs, and they aren't scientists, and no one actually cares what they think on the matter. For you to believe that the world's scientists would use these methods on a daily basis despite them allegedly being unreliable tells me that you think that scientists are stupid whereas you people with no scientific training and experience whatsoever are not. And I find that to be incredulous, to say the least. Particularly since you refuse to get off your ass and get into the field to see what the facts actually are.

Listen, let's get something straight. The dating methods have been tested by objects known age. Example MT st helens was tested,trees were tested and you have animals that were tested. It is an assumption they are accurate that is all it is. No one was there to know so you're assuming they are accurate. Ignoring evidence that contradicts the methods used.

You offer no source for your claims. That's not surprising as your earlier refutation of dating methods amounted to a cut and paste article from the ICR.

 

[orogenicman]

I was joking, I can afford my own way there.

Great. When?

You would be wasting both of our time because I have laid out the reasons I don't and won't trust them. I have empirical evidence I would have to ignore for an assumption. Seriously,the age of the earth does not really matter even though I believe the earth is not as old as claimed. No one can prove the age of the earth or the universe, once again these views are based on presuppositions and assumptions.

And this is why you have no credibility whatsoever. You don't have the education, nor the experience, and yet make claims which you not only cannot support, you ignore all efforts to enlighten you; and when someone freely offers you the requisite field experience (which you absolutely must have if you are to have any understanding of geology - I would bet good money that I could hand you 10 common rocks, and you would only be able to identify, at most, three of them, and even fewer of the minerals that they contain), you turn it down purely out of ignorance and fear. You might as well keep your head stuck in the sand because coming up for air isn't doing you any good. You have my sympathy.

 

[orogenicman]

How do humans have 41 completely new genes in the Y chromosome if we are apes ? apes have no mechanism to completely build a new gene.

The number of genes in a Y chromosome does not an ape make. In other words, it matters not how many genes are in a Y chromosome. That is not what determines whether a species is or is not an ape. And why are you repeating the same answered question over and over again? Do you know what Einstein said about people who do that?

You do not understand the importance of the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome helps determine ancestry. You say it doesn't make an ape in a way it does, mostly the Y chromosome determines ancestry. You still need to show how a completely new gene can be added to the Y chromosome.

"Why is the Y chromosome important?

Because the Y chromosome cannot easily swap information with the X chromosome, the Y chromosome in a man's sperm will be an almost exact copy of the Y chromosome in his body's cells. Therefore, any sons the man fathers will also carry this same Y chromosome.

Polymorphisms in a man's Y chromosome are also passed directly on to his sons, and then on to their sons and so on. These polymorphisms mark a man's Y chromosome and distinguish it from those of other men. As scientists know approximately how often certain kinds of mutations occur they can look for these and determine how closely related any two men are. The more Y chromosome polymorphisms two men share, the more recently they had a common ancestor. Y chromosomes in men living today thus retain a record of the chromosome's passage through time. They can reveal paternal ancestry and show relationships between different groups of men.

Genetics and Identity

But there is more on this myth of 2% difference in Dna similarity between chimps and humans that is a lie.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion

Dr. Jay? Really? OMG! Did you know that, by his own admission, he is an Arminianist?

Arminianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I read his PhD dissertation, and I must say that I am completely unimpressed. What's more, the man hasn't published any original peer reviewed work since, but has instead written creationist homeschool text books because that is apparently the only work he can get.

Here is what one parent has said about his textbooks:

Homeschooling and evolution « Why Evolution Is True

Homeschooling and evolution


One of the best things about having written WEIT is that I hear from various people with whom I’d normally not have any contact. I’m not referring to creationists, but to thoughtful people who write with their concerns about evolution. One of them emailed me about her difficulties teaching evolution to a homeschooled child:

Dear Dr. Coyne,

I am writing in light of your recent book, “Why Evolution is True” which my daughter and I are preparing to read. I have homeschooled my very science oriented daughter, who is now xxxx, since she was very young because the schools could not deal with or understand her dual exceptionality of profound giftedness and dyslexia. The greatest challenges we have faced in homeschooling is that all of the truly parent friendly materials for teaching science for homeschoolers take a Creationist stance. I thought you should be made aware of a growing problem in homeschooling, if you are not already.

There is a serious problem in homeschooling right now in that most homeschooling families find themselves using the Apologia series (which includes Dr. Jay's books) for teaching science because it is so parent friendly. However, this series was written with one purpose in mind and that was to debunk evolution in favor of Intelligent Design. While our family is religious, we are not Creationists and I have serious problems with the Apologia series. I find it dangerous because so many homeschoolers are using it. The author and owner of the company, Jay Wile, is so convincing he is turning many homeschooling families away from the real science of evolutionary biology to the pseudo science of Creationism even if they started out as evolutionists. These parents are turning to Apologia in good faith because there is nothing else out there that is parent friendly. We even used it ourselves at one point, but supplemented it with evolution videos and materials, but I refuse to contribute money to the company. Sadly, I have seen people that I know are intelligent and well educated fall victim to Dr. Wile’s very convincing arguments. I almost did myself, but was saved by more extensive research and my daughter’s level head.

I have written to various publishers of good scientific textbooks, urging them to come up with a homeschooling package that would be as parent friendly as the Apologia series. No one to whom I have spoken seems to think there is a viable market. This saddens me because Apologia continues to grow in popularity just as homeschooling continues to grow in popularity.

We have found various solutions because my daughter has had the opportunity to audit college classes and to work with mentors in science. However, most homeschooling families do not have that option.


I intend to promote your book within our local homeschooling circle, once we have finished reading it. However, I was wondering if you had any other ideas about how my daughter and I can fight what we see as a major problem within the homeschooling community. This seems to me to be a cause that might interest you.

I have looked over the Apologia website, and I am absolutely appalled. First of all, the organization’s formal name is “Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.”, with the motto “Live, Learn, and Defend the Faith.” Of course that sets off alarm bells. The alarms get louder when you look at what they offer.

First, check out the store, with its suggested science curriculum. Here are the “supplementary readings” for “science oriented students”. Note that they are all about either evolution or Christianity:


These OPTIONAL supplemental readings for science-oriented students do not replace the main courses listed. They merely give your student additional science material to learn if your student is interested. Here are some suggestions:
Supplement I
◾ Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, Dr. Duane T. Gish, Master Books paperback ISBN 0890511128
◾ Reasonable Faith: The Scientific Case for Christianity, Dr. Jay L. Wile, Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc., Paperback ISBN 0965629406

Supplement II
◾ What is Creation Science, Dr. Henry M. Morris and Dr. Gary E. Parker, Master Books, Paperback ISBN 0890510814

Supplement III
◾ Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, Michael Denton, Adler & Adler, Paperback ISBN 091756152X
◾ Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe, Touchstone Books, Hardcover ISBN 0684827549, Paperback ISBN 0684834936

• Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense? Dixy Lee Ray, Regnery Gateway, Hardcover ISBN 0895265125, Paperback ISBN 0060975

The table of contents of the “Evolution Module” tells you that the kids are not in for good instruction in evolutionary biology:


MODULE #9: Evolution: Part Scientific Theory, Part Unconfirmed Hypothesis …. 261
Introduction …………………………………….261
Charles Darwin……………………………………262
Darwin’s Theory ………………………….264
Microevolution and Macroevolution……………………………..267
Inconclusive Evidence: The Geological Column……………………………………270
The Details of the Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macroevolution……..273
The Cambrian Explosion………………………………….280
Structural Homology: Formerly Evidence for Macroevolution, Now Evidence against It..282
Molecular Biology: The Nail in Macroevolution’s Coffin……..285
Macroevolution Today …………………………………….289
Why Do So Many Scientists Believe in Macroevolution?……..293

This could easily have been taken straight out of Jon Well’s attacks on evolution. Finally, if you look at some sample pages of their book, you see them reverting to the insane pastime of baraminology, in which creationists desperately (and fruitlessly) try to figure out which animals and plants correpond to the created “kinds” of Genesis. At least they recognize that this “field” is going nowhere:


As you will learn when we study the hypothesis of evolution in depth, there is precious little evidence for such an idea and quite a bit of evidence against it. As a result, it does not make sense to us to base a classification system on such a tenuous hypothesis. Instead, it makes more sense to base our classification system on the observable similarities among organisms. This is the essence of what Carrolus Linnaeus developed in the 1700s, and it has served biology well since that time. Since we have touched on a classification system that has been inspired by the hypothesis of evolution, we should at least mention a classification system that has been proposed by those who believe that the earth and the life on it were specially created out of nothing by God. This classification system, usually called baraminology (bear’ uh min ol’ uh jee), attempts to determine the kinds of creatures that God specifically created on earth. Indeed, the word “baraminology” comes from two Hebrew words used in Genesis: bara, which means “create,” and min, which means “kind.” Thus, baraminology is the study of created kinds.

Those who work with baraminology think that God created specific kinds of creatures and that He created them with the ability to adapt to their changing environment. As time went on, then, these created kinds did change within strict limits that we will discuss later on in the course. This led to a greater diversity of life on the planet than what existed right after creation. As a result, baraminologists think that all organisms we see on the planet today came from one of the many kinds of creatures that God created during the creation period discussed in the first chapter of Genesis. Baraminologists, then, try to define groupings called “baramins.” Any organisms that exist within a baramin came from the same originally-created organism. For example, some baraminologists place domesticated dogs, wild dogs, and wolves into the same baramin because they believe that God created a basic kind of creature called a “dog,” and the various forms of dogs and wolves that we see today are simply the result of that basic kind of creature adapting to a changing environment. Although we think that there is a lot of evidence in favor of this new classification scheme, we still do not think that it should be used in this course. It is still relatively new and not fully developed. We doubt that it will be fully developed for many, many years to come. As a result, we think that the five-kingdom system still provides the best overall means by which to classify the organisms of God’s creation, and we will limit ourselves to that system. Nevertheless, we will mention the other systems (the three-domain system and baraminology) from time to time, so it is important that you understand the basics of each.

It is ineffably sad that children, eager to learn, are having this nonsense stuffed down their throats, and that there seem to be few viable alternatives if you want to homeschool your child. I’ve given my correspondent some hints about what materials might be useful, but if any of you know of other ways to do this, or have experience homeschooling your children in genuine evolutionary biology, let me know.

 

[itfitzme]

You would be wasting both of our time because I have laid out the reasons I don't and won't trust them. I have empirical evidence I would have to ignore for an assumption. Seriously,the age of the earth does not really matter even though I believe the earth is not as old as claimed. No one can prove the age of the earth or the universe, once again these views are based on presuppositions and assumptions.

Yeah... your lack on knowledge doesn't equate to others lacking knowledge.

 

[daws101]

Yes I have 8 children ,and have been successful financially, and I don't lie. That is why I live on a mountain top overlooking beautiful Prescott Az.

It's also why I have so much time to try and educate some fools.

you lie constantly they may not be your own lies, but they are lies just the same..
which make you worse than a liar...

Look you are a bitter mental midget, move along.

awwww did the truth bruise your ego!?

 

[daws101]

How do humans have 41 completely new genes in the Y chromosome if we are apes ? apes have no mechanism to completely build a new gene.

The number of genes in a Y chromosome does not an ape make. In other words, it matters not how many genes are in a Y chromosome. That is not what determines whether a species is or is not an ape. And why are you repeating the same answered question over and over again? Do you know what Einstein said about people who do that?

You do not understand the importance of the Y chromosome. The Y chromosome helps determine ancestry. You say it doesn't make an ape in a way it does, mostly the Y chromosome determines ancestry. You still need to show how a completely new gene can be added to the Y chromosome.

"Why is the Y chromosome important?

Because the Y chromosome cannot easily swap information with the X chromosome, the Y chromosome in a man's sperm will be an almost exact copy of the Y chromosome in his body's cells. Therefore, any sons the man fathers will also carry this same Y chromosome.

Polymorphisms in a man's Y chromosome are also passed directly on to his sons, and then on to their sons and so on. These polymorphisms mark a man's Y chromosome and distinguish it from those of other men. As scientists know approximately how often certain kinds of mutations occur they can look for these and determine how closely related any two men are. The more Y chromosome polymorphisms two men share, the more recently they had a common ancestor. Y chromosomes in men living today thus retain a record of the chromosome's passage through time. They can reveal paternal ancestry and show relationships between different groups of men.

Genetics and Identity

But there is more on this myth of 2% difference in Dna similarity between chimps and humans that is a lie.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion

The few reviews of books and films that I've posted here have been generally raves, largely because I tend to know in advance what I'm likely to enjoy, and secondly because the stuff I that bores me usually isn't worth a comment.

This time it's different.

Exploring Creation with General Science by Dr. Jay L. Wile is execrable, but requires more than a few comments. Part of a whole "Exploring Creation" series of Creationist home-schooling "science" textbooks by Jay Wile, this text displays a mixture of (apparent) ignorance of many scientific fields, along with the usual Creationist mix of crooked rhetorical fallacies, open-pit quote-mining, demonization of scientists, pious fraud apologetics, and dirty filthy damned lies. What I personally find most infuriating about this book is that it's supposed to be an introduction to science for kids.

There ought to be an specially hot circle of Hell for people like Wile who lie to children to keep them faithfully ignorant.

I have this book because my daughter deals in used books, buying cheap and reselling on eBay. One horrible book she couldn't bear to see going to some poor Christian homeschooler, so she gave it as a curiosity to her atheist daddy, instead. I brought Exploring Creation with General Science with me when I moved to the Philippines last year, along with most of my personal library, and finally ran out of good books and got around to reading it. My edition is the seventh printing, copyright 2006.

It's only fair to state up front that I am not in any serious manner a scientist. My comments are those of a fairly informed layman who has followed science for more than fifty years. I have read many popular science books and quite a few textbooks in my time. Exploring Creation with General Science should not be confused with either of those kinds of books. It's intellectual child abuse.

Please permit me first to go ad hom on Dr. Jay L. Wile. Well, this isn't really ad hominem, because sometimes it really is important to point out the habitual dishonesty of someone as one reason his statements should be viewed with special skepticism.

Wile holds a PhD in Nuclear Chemistry, but does no scientific research. Instead, he "writes home school curriculum and Christian apologetics material." He's a Global Warming denier (PDF file). Wile appears to be the owner of Apologia Online Ministries, Inc. Wile is also Andy Schlafly's go-to psuedoscientist for Conservapedia. Per Wikipedia:
In an analysis in early 2007, science writer Carl Zimmer found evidence that much of what appeared to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory could be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Dr. Jay L. Wile.
Simply put, Wile has a penchant for lies and distortion, and seems to make good money doing it.

Wile's biases in writing are Young Earth Creationism, anti-Big Bang, Catastrophism (featuring the Noah's Flood myth) over Uniformitarianism, distrust of scientists ("... because the majority of scientists today are not Christian), and dismissal of radiometric dating ("... usually very unreliable"). His Index has 28 references to "God" and two to "Darwin" (one to "Charles Darwin" and the other to "Charles R. Darwin"). You will probably have noted that Wiles' denigration of radiometric dating is an odd thing to come from someone with a doctorate in nuclear chemistry. It is odd, unless that nuclear chemist is more interested in serving his god through pious fraud and/or selling Bronze Age mythology posing as modern "science" texts for kids, than in telling the truth as he knows it.

Here are some of Wile's statements:

On pages 17 and 18, Wile alleges that not only were all the scientific figures of the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance Christians, but he boldly states that it was their very Christianity that made them great scientists.
Notice that each of the great scientists of this era were devout Christians. In fact, they were all clergy (priests, bishops, etc.) of the Roman Catholic church. As you read through the rest of this module, you will notice that, with a few notable exceptions, most of the great scientists from the Dark Ages to modern times were devoted Christians. One again, that is because the Christian worldview is a perfect fit with science. Science is based upon the notion that the world works according to rational laws that do not change. Since Christians believe in a rational Creator whose laws do not change, science and Christianity work very well together.

That last statement surprises some people. Some people actually believe that science and Christianity are at odds with one another. Unfortunately, that myth has developed recently, mostly because the majority of scientists today are not Christian. However, even a quick look at science history tells us that without Christianity, science would never have gotten out of the Dark Ages. The Christian worldview was essential in turning trial-and-error observations into real science. The more you learn about the history of science, the more you will see that this is the case!
Many, many pages of this "science textbook" are devoted to direct Biblical quotations and discussions of those by Wile that try to paint the Bible as an ultimate "scientific" authority.

Wile often pretends to be equitably presenting rival "scientific theories," as when he compares Creationism to evolution, Catastrophism to Uniformitarianism, "let there be light" to the Big Bang. But he always takes care to set up straw-man versions of accepted scientific theories. He unjustifiably promotes his favored conjectures to "theory" status while vastly exaggerating the number of scientists who subscribe to these myths and pseudoscience concoctions.

Haughtily wrapping himself in a false flag of scientific skepticism, Wile warns his students (page 32) against reliance on authorities with this example of a student exercise, along with the "right" answer:
ON YOUR OWN

1.4 Dr. Steven Hawking is one of the most brilliant scientists of the decade. He believes in a theory called "the big bang." This theory tries to describe how the universe was formed. If your friend tells you that you should believe in the big bang because Dr. Hawking is so smart and he believes in it, what famous example from the history of science should you tell your friend?

. . .

1.4 Despite the fact that Dr. Hawking is brilliant, he can be wrong, just like many brilliant scientists. The story of spontaneous generation tells how Aristotle was wrong, despite the fact that he was the greatest thinker of his time. The story of the Ptolemaic system also tells how a great thinker turned out wrong. Either story should illustrate that we should not make scientific decisions based on people. Instead, we should make them based on data.
All quite true, but somehow less convincing when stated by a religious apologist who consistently ignores scientific data in favor of the unquestionable authority of the ancient myths of people.

Page 176:
3. Many of the fossils we find are of plants and animals which are still alive today. Some of the fossils we find are of plants and animals which are now extinct.

[Emphasis added.]
Notice Wile's sly use of the words, "many" and "some." In point of fact, living species represented in the fossil record are far better described as "few," while extinct species found there are "many." Wikipedia states:
Most extinctions occur naturally, without human intervention: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.
Surely, Wile knew better than to write what he did.

Page 197:
Of course, you have to remember that the geological column itself is simply a theoretical construct. It doesn't actually exist anywhere. It is based on certain assumptions and a particular way of looking at the geological record. If the assumptions upon which it is based are not true, then the Theory of Evolution is not true, either.

[Emphasis added.]
False dichotomy, or in stage magic, a "forced card." If the concept of a geological column were false, then the geological column itself would not support (or contradict) evolution. Evolution would have to stand upon the hundreds of other pillars of knowledge that help make it such a firm scientific theory. (And, of course, if evolution itself were falsified, that would hardly prove that Yahweh magically poofed life into existence a few thousand years ago!)

Page 212:
Look at the sketch of what Archeopteryx may have looked like. If you saw something like that today, what would you call it? You'd call it a bird. That's what Archeopteryx seems to be. It seems to be a bird with certain special features that no living bird today has.
That's pretty much in line with the Old Testament's listing of bats as birds. They also seem to be birds.

Page 231:
Overall, reproduction is God's way of ensuring that a type of living organism will not die out.
Page 356:
Dr. Michael Behe, one of the most respected scientists in the world. . .
Enough!

If all this crap weren't being force-fed to trusting and credulous children, I'd be laughing my ass off. As things stand, I'd rather be kicking Wile's lying ass.
“I belive in the Separation of Church and Planet.” —Eric Idle

Skeptic Friends Network: A Creationist's "science" brainwashing textbook

 

[LittleNipper]

The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact?

Posted on March 23, 2013

Geologic TimescaleWritten by: Paul Taylor


It is a fact that the geologic column shows all the layers of rock, in the order that they were formed over millions of years, thus proving the Bible to be wrong. Isn’t it?

No, it isn’t. In fact, the geologic column is a construct—a composite picture compiled from data from lots of different places. If you examine rock structures found anywhere in the world, you will not find all the layers mentioned in the geologic column anywhere. There are a handful of places in the world where there seem to be representative portions from all the systems mentioned in the traditional geologic column, but even in these places, many actual layers are completely missing from the picture. In that sense, it is correct to say that the only place in the world where the complete geologic column can actually be found is in geology textbooks.


Well, it’s a fact that the rocks in the geologic column are arranged in order of age, so the composite picture must be true. Isn’t it?

No, it isn’t. If you look at an individual rocky outcrop, it is certainly usually the case that the higher-up rock is likely to be younger than the lower rock. However, this says nothing about the supposed timescale of the geologic column. For example, it is quite common to find fault lines where lots of layers of rock are bent and curved together. Yet these layers supposedly represent millions of years. But, in order for the folding and curving to occur across these layers, they must all have been still plastic when the folding occurred. Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old, and the age difference between higher and lower rocks in these structures can only be days, rather than millions of years

Read more at The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact? - Creation RevolutionCreation Revolution

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact?

Posted on March 23, 2013

Geologic TimescaleWritten by: Paul Taylor


It is a fact that the geologic column shows all the layers of rock, in the order that they were formed over millions of years, thus proving the Bible to be wrong. Isn’t it?

No, it isn’t. In fact, the geologic column is a construct—a composite picture compiled from data from lots of different places. If you examine rock structures found anywhere in the world, you will not find all the layers mentioned in the geologic column anywhere. There are a handful of places in the world where there seem to be representative portions from all the systems mentioned in the traditional geologic column, but even in these places, many actual layers are completely missing from the picture. In that sense, it is correct to say that the only place in the world where the complete geologic column can actually be found is in geology textbooks.


Well, it’s a fact that the rocks in the geologic column are arranged in order of age, so the composite picture must be true. Isn’t it?

No, it isn’t. If you look at an individual rocky outcrop, it is certainly usually the case that the higher-up rock is likely to be younger than the lower rock. However, this says nothing about the supposed timescale of the geologic column. For example, it is quite common to find fault lines where lots of layers of rock are bent and curved together. Yet these layers supposedly represent millions of years. But, in order for the folding and curving to occur across these layers, they must all have been still plastic when the folding occurred. Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old, and the age difference between higher and lower rocks in these structures can only be days, rather than millions of years

Read more at The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact? - Creation RevolutionCreation Revolution

many actual layers are completely missing from the picture

Yes, erosion can do that.

 

[daws101]

The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact?

Posted on March 23, 2013

Geologic TimescaleWritten by: Paul Taylor


It is a fact that the geologic column shows all the layers of rock, in the order that they were formed over millions of years, thus proving the Bible to be wrong. Isn’t it?

No, it isn’t. In fact, the geologic column is a construct—a composite picture compiled from data from lots of different places. If you examine rock structures found anywhere in the world, you will not find all the layers mentioned in the geologic column anywhere. There are a handful of places in the world where there seem to be representative portions from all the systems mentioned in the traditional geologic column, but even in these places, many actual layers are completely missing from the picture. In that sense, it is correct to say that the only place in the world where the complete geologic column can actually be found is in geology textbooks.


Well, it’s a fact that the rocks in the geologic column are arranged in order of age, so the composite picture must be true. Isn’t it?

No, it isn’t. If you look at an individual rocky outcrop, it is certainly usually the case that the higher-up rock is likely to be younger than the lower rock. However, this says nothing about the supposed timescale of the geologic column. For example, it is quite common to find fault lines where lots of layers of rock are bent and curved together. Yet these layers supposedly represent millions of years. But, in order for the folding and curving to occur across these layers, they must all have been still plastic when the folding occurred. Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old, and the age difference between higher and lower rocks in these structures can only be days, rather than millions of years

Read more at The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact? - Creation RevolutionCreation Revolution

STATEMENT OF FAITH
The Scriptures
We believe that the 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout, in that holy men of God were moved by the Holy Spirit to write the very words of Scripture. It is without error (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself, and that Scripture is our final authority. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture.
The Trinity
We believe in the one true and living God: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. He is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable.
God the Father: God, as Father, reigns over all of His universe with providential care and is all powerful, all loving, all knowing, and all wise. (Gen 1:1; 1 Chr 29:10; Jer 10:10; Matt 6:9; Acts 1:7; Rom 8:14-15; 1 Cor 8:6; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 4:6)
God the Son: We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, became man without ceasing to be God, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, in order that He might reveal God and redeem sinful man. He accomplished this redemption by voluntarily giving Himself as a sinless, substitutionary sacrifice on the cross, thereby satisfying God’s righteous judgment against sin. After substantiating the accomplishment of that redemption and justification by His bodily resurrection from the grave, He ascended to the right hand of His Father, where He intercedes on behalf of those who trust Him. (Luke 1:34-35; John 1:1, 2, 14, 18; Rom 3:24-26; 8:3)
God the Holy Spirit: We believe that the Holy Spirit is the Divine Person who convicts the world of sin; that He alone brings new life to those who are spiritually dead; that He baptizes, indwells, seals, bestows spiritual gifts, and fills those who are yielding to Him. Every believer is called to live in the power of the Holy Spirit so that he will not fulfill the lust of the flesh but will bear fruit to the glory of God. (John 3:3-8; 14:16-17; 16:7-11; 2 Cor 12:7-11, 13; Eph 4:30; 5:18)
Creation
We believe that man was created directly by God and in His image. We believe that God created the heavens and the earth, including all life, by direct act in six literal 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago (Gen 1:1; John 1:3; Col 1:16-17).
The simple but factual account of origins as presented in Genesis provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential with the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The Flood
We believe that the great Flood in the days of Noah was a literal worldwide flood exactly as recorded in Genesis 6-8.
Man
Although the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve, were created in the image of God, their fall into sin is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind. Death, both physical and spiritual, entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin. This is true of all men; and all men are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually by choice and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation. Except a man be born again by the Holy Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (Gen 1:26-27; John 3:3; Rom 3:10, 23)
The Devil – Satan
We believe that Satan is a person, the author of sin, a liar and the father of lies, and the reason for the fall of man, and is destined to the judgment of an eternal punishment in the lake of fire. He is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man. (Matt 4:1-3; Acts 5:3; 2 Cor 4:4; John 8:44; Rev 20:10)
Atonement for Sin
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures as a substitutionary sacrifice and that all who believe in Him are redeemed by His shed blood. We believe in the resurrection of the crucified body of our Lord Jesus Christ and in His ascension into heaven; He is our High Priest and Advocate. (John 1:1-3, 14; 3:1-7; Heb 10:4-14; 1 John 2:2)
Salvation
We believe that salvation is the gift of God’s grace alone and is expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of Christ’s death as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as as Savior. Salvation cannot be gained or made more secure by meritorious works, but is freely bestowed upon all who put their faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary. All who so trust the Savior are forgiven of their sins and born into the family of God by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through Christ’s sacrificial death, His shed blood, and His complete and bodily resurrection from the dead. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting punishment. Believers enjoy eternal life with God. (John 1:12; Acts 16:30-33; Rom 10:9-10; Eph 1:7; 2:8-9)
The Christian Walk
We believe that we have a holy calling to walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit, and so to live in the power of the Spirit in order that we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. The flesh is never eradicated in this life. Individuals must choose to keep the flesh in subjection to Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, or the flesh will surely manifest its presence in life and dishonor our Lord. (Rom 6:11-13; 8:2, 4, 12-13; Gal 5:16-23; Eph 4:22-24; Col 2:1-10; 1 Pet 1:14-16; 1 John 1:4-7; 3:5-9)
The Great Commission
Until the return of Christ, it is the Christian’s duty and privilege to seek the fulfillment of Christ’s Great Commission and to minister in His name to a needy world. We are to be instruments of Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit ministers redemption and reconciliation in the world. (Matt 25:31-46; 28:18-20)
Secondary Doctrinal Issues
As parachurch ministry, we realize that we cannot take a stand on every issue. We also recognize that there are secondary doctrinal issues, on which a parachurch ministry like ours cannot take a position. The reason for this is that there are Bible-believing Christians, whose authority on the subject of creation comes only from the Bible, who, nevertheless, differ on some of these secondary doctrinal issues. View our full statement.
Creation Today
Policies
Contact Us

the above self refutes any claim of scientific validity...

 

[orogenicman]

The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact?

Posted on March 23, 2013

Geologic TimescaleWritten by: Paul Taylor


It is a fact that the geologic column shows all the layers of rock, in the order that they were formed over millions of years, thus proving the Bible to be wrong. Isn’t it?

No, it isn’t. In fact, the geologic column is a construct—a composite picture compiled from data from lots of different places. If you examine rock structures found anywhere in the world, you will not find all the layers mentioned in the geologic column anywhere. There are a handful of places in the world where there seem to be representative portions from all the systems mentioned in the traditional geologic column, but even in these places, many actual layers are completely missing from the picture. In that sense, it is correct to say that the only place in the world where the complete geologic column can actually be found is in geology textbooks.


Well, it’s a fact that the rocks in the geologic column are arranged in order of age, so the composite picture must be true. Isn’t it?

No, it isn’t. If you look at an individual rocky outcrop, it is certainly usually the case that the higher-up rock is likely to be younger than the lower rock. However, this says nothing about the supposed timescale of the geologic column. For example, it is quite common to find fault lines where lots of layers of rock are bent and curved together. Yet these layers supposedly represent millions of years. But, in order for the folding and curving to occur across these layers, they must all have been still plastic when the folding occurred. Therefore, they cannot be millions of years old, and the age difference between higher and lower rocks in these structures can only be days, rather than millions of years

Read more at The Geologic Column: Is That A Fact? - Creation RevolutionCreation Revolution

That was apparently written by a guy who flunked rocks for jocks (geology 101), except that there is no evidence that he ever took a geology class. Paul Taylor is the Director of Ministry Development with Creation Today. He is not a geologist, nor a scientist, and apparently never took a geology class in his life. If he had, he would have discovered that no one has ever said that the geologic column is anything other than a reconstruction of geologic time BASED ON OVER 200 YEARS 0F GEOLOGIC FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND LABORATORY ANALYSES. As I have repeatedly said, if you want to criticize the work, you have to do the work. If you aren't willing to go into the field and see how it is done, or even take a geology class, then I'm sorry but your credibility is non-existent. I might also add that if you look at ANY geologic map of any location on Earth, you won't find a single one that was drawn up by or else has original data collected, analyzed, and published by a creationist. Gee, I wonder why that is?

 

[orogenicman]

Hey, did any of you creationists ever find that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian?

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters