40% of Americans belive the world was created 6000-years ago

[LittleNipper]

RATE Research? You mean the 'Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth' committee that combs the scientific literature and designs laboratory "experiments" that will somehow verify what they have already concluded, namely that Genesis is "The Truth" and geochronology is "wrong".
These so called "Scientists" actually allow an "observer" to ensure that their "science" does not conflict with the official party line. That is, a Hebrew language scholar will participate to make sure the RATE Group stays on course.
This is reminiscent of Stalins grip on scientists in the old USSR. Dictating what they must conclude.
Any research that must conform to predisposed conclusions, and discards or ignores any findings that conflict with with these conclusions is the worst type of bad science.

It is not unscientific to set up specific parameters and guidelines for an experiment. The fact that just the mention of Creation or Genesis shuts doors and limits publication would seem to smack more of Communism to me.

 

[LittleNipper]

Any research that must conform to predisposed conclusions, and discards or ignores any findings that conflict with with these conclusions is the worst type of bad science.

People studying evolution do the same thing.

So one finds a modern human skull in a geological plane that also has "prehistoric" fossils and immediately concludes that the modern skull is out of place...... That seems like the worse type of science to me.

 

[Tristesse]

It is not unscientific to set up specific parameters and guidelines for an experiment. The fact that just the mention of Creation or Genesis shuts doors and limits publication would seem to smack more of Communism to me.

Well, if we're going to give special treatment to the christian myth, than we also have to give equal treatment to every other creation myth. Science doesn't operate that way, if you have a claim you should be able to demonstrate the truth of it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Actually on the contrary, scientists revel in being proven wrong, or refining a hypothesis or theory. Nothing in science is unquestionable. In fact, questioning is encouraged. And as for the fossil record, first of all, it's amazing that we have any fossils. Fossils are incredible hard to find, because not all animals fossilize. And secondly, we have a very accurate fossil record of various different species. This whole business of "missing link" is a myth. If evolution were found wrong tomorrow, my pride wouldn't be hurt at all. But also, if evolution were found wrong that doesn't mean that some other hypothesis wins by default.

You hit a good point. The idea that a fossil could exist for "hundreds of millions of years" and not be distored, desolved, ground up, chewed up, eroded, etc., seems to give much more credence to an understanding that fossels could not be as old as they have been made out to be by evolutionists.

 

[Gunfingers]

It is not unscientific to set up specific parameters and guidelines for an experiment. The fact that just the mention of Creation or Genesis shuts doors and limits publication would seem to smack more of Communism to me.

Parameters and guidelines on experiments are there to ensure that the data is not corrupted by preconclusions. This is literally the exact opposite of what this organization does.

Mention of creation or genesis shuts doors because it's science based on a book. It would be like trying to justify the science of the creation of the world by the Ainulindale (anyone who knows what that is is just as big a geek as i!) because it is an attempt to justify an existing belief, rather than an attempt to discover facts. If creation scientists did a proper experiment, without fudging the facts to fit their beliefs, and discovered that the universe was 6000 years old they'd have something to go on. But that isn't ever what they do.

 

[Tristesse]

You hit a good point. The idea that a fossil could exist for "hundreds of millions of years" and not be distored, desolved, ground up, chewed up, eroded, etc., seems to give much more credence to an understanding that fossels could not be as old as they have been made out to be by evolutionists.

Are you joking? Most of the fossils have severe erosion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Columbus was at least influenced by christianity and he didn't believe the world was flat. Blind superstition made out that the world was flat and not a through Bible study.

Nobody with an education at that time believed that the world was flat. Columbus was laughed out of every royal court he went to but one because he messed up his numbers. In his calculations to show that a voyage to Asia would be possible, he used a Latin (IIRC) translation of an Arabic translation of Marinus of Tyre's work where he estimated the circumference of the Earth. Marinus' estimate was on the low side to begin with, but where Columbus really failed was in assuming that the term "mile" in his copy meant a Spanish Mile (about 1 km), while it actually meant an Arabian mile (about 2 km), because Al-Farghani had converted everything to the units of his culture when he made the translation to Arabic.

Columbus tried to argue that the distance from the Azores to Japan was about the same as the distance from continental Europe to the Azores, and all the various royal advisors and scholars realized that he was full of it. It was only Isabella's desperation that made her decide to fund the expedition even though it looked doomed to failure, and it was only the existence of a continent that nobody knew about that saved Columbus and his crew from dying of starvation or thirst halfway to China.

 

[Mr Cheese]

this thread is a clear case of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear....

Yet people still persist in it

 

[johnhanks]

So one finds a modern human skull in a geological plane that also has "prehistoric" fossils and immediately concludes that the modern skull is out of place...... That seems like the worse type of science to me.

Please give us instances of this happening. I don't mean link us to a creationist website; I mean cite scientific papers where such a find has been made and such a conclusion reached.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is not unscientific to set up specific parameters and guidelines for an experiment. The fact that just the mention of Creation or Genesis shuts doors and limits publication would seem to smack more of Communism to me.

Yeah...they do that with any mention of a flat earth, geocentrism, or reptilian alien overlords too! Those ********!!!

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, if we're going to give special treatment to the christian myth, than we also have to give equal treatment to every other creation myth. Science doesn't operate that way, if you have a claim you should be able to demonstrate the truth of it.

Ridiculous. A belief that says the earth is carried on it's back by a giant turtle would be easily disproved. We have pictures from space. There is no spot on this planet that comes in contact with tortoise's shell.

We have proof that JESUS existed, both religious and secular. We have a book which provides specific data which has been investigated and proven correct to a very substantial degree.

This is not true of all religions. In fact Jews and Christians have spent much time investigating their own backgrounds and writings to prove their validity. This is most uncommon of religions in general, who simply cling to word of mouth traditions.

 

[Agnostic75]

Ridiculous. A belief that says the earth is carried on it's back by a giant turtle would be easily disproved.

I agree, and the claim that a global flood occured would be easily disproved, as even some evangelical Christian geologists know, like Davis Young.

 

[LittleNipper]

Parameters and guidelines on experiments are there to ensure that the data is not corrupted by preconclusions. This is literally the exact opposite of what this organization does.

Mention of creation or genesis shuts doors because it's science based on a book. It would be like trying to justify the science of the creation of the world by the Ainulindale (anyone who knows what that is is just as big a geek as i!) because it is an attempt to justify an existing belief, rather than an attempt to discover facts. If creation scientists did a proper experiment, without fudging the facts to fit their beliefs, and discovered that the universe was 6000 years old they'd have something to go on. But that isn't ever what they do.

If one finds a map that tells the location of a treasure, one will apply the information and not cast it aside with the logic, it isn't scientific. The truth is that much of what has been found in archaeology has been researched because of biblical information provided. Which is more than anyone can say for the Book of Mormon (as an example).

And if there was an experiment the proved that it world take billions of years for a planet to come into being all by itself, you'd certainly have my attention; however, conjecture based on "authoritative" opinion is not scientific fact, but mere speculation.

 

[Jeremiah]

Arguing with him is a waste of time.

 

[Agnostic75]

The truth is that much of what has been found in archaeology has been researched because of biblical information provided.

So what? It is quite ordinary for the writers of various religious books to mention real people and real cities. That is merely secular history. If religious writers made up non-existent cities, they would immediately discredit themsevles.

If a global flood occured, there would be physical evidence that it occured. There is not any credible evidence that a global flood occured.

Are you an inerrantist?

 

[Tristesse]

Ridiculous. A belief that says the earth is carried on it's back by a giant turtle would be easily disproved. We have pictures from space. There is no spot on this planet that comes in contact with tortoise's shell.

We have proof that JESUS existed, both religious and secular. We have a book which provides specific data which has been investigated and proven correct to a very substantial degree.

This is not true of all religions. In fact Jews and Christians have spent much time investigating their own backgrounds and writings to prove their validity. This is most uncommon of religions in general, who simply cling to word of mouth traditions.

Thats just one myth among thousands. What about the babylonian myth or the african creation myth. You're happy with the myth that's most comfortable for you. And what contemporary secular evidence do you have that jesus existed? I'm not saying he didn't, but you can't get from a belief that jesus existed, to jesus raised people from the dead and performed miracles. Because there are people you can visit today, who claim to perform miracles all over the world. And when people go down to investigate these claims, they just don't hold water. And if you mention josephus I'm gonna smack you, I said contemporary.

 

[LittleNipper]

Please give us instances of this happening. I don't mean link us to a creationist website; I mean cite scientific papers where such a find has been made and such a conclusion reached.

Does Human Existed Before Current Thoughts or Something Else? « Bruceleeeowe's Blog

http://www.creationism.org/vonfange/vonFangeTimeUpDownChap05.htm

 

[Jose Fly]

Every time I see mention of the RATE Project, I can't help but recall this account:

I asked why no recognized experts on radiometric dating were
invited to participate in the conference, given that none of the
speakers had any training or experience in experimental
geochronology. He was candid enough to admit that they would
have liked to included one on the team, but there are no young-
earth geochronologists in the world. He also agreed that the
mechanism for accelerating radioactivity by nearly a billion-fold
during a single year (the flood year) was a major problem for the
group that in the end will probably only be resolved by invoking a
“cosmic-scale event” or miracle. He further conceded that at
this point they have no physical evidence for this miracle.
Apparently, dissipation of the heat produced during the event is,
in the end, going to require yet an additional miracle.

You should read the rest of the account. It includes a very telling incident when one YEC is confronted with his hypocrisy in being a YEC, but publishing papers saying the earth is old.

 

[Agnostic75]

We have proof that Jesus existed, both religious and secular.

So what? We have proof that Nebuchadnezzar existed, but we do not have proof that he ate grass with cows as the Bible claims, nor do we have proof that Jesus performed miracles, certainly not secular proof.

 

[tumbleweed41]

RATE Research? You mean the 'Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth' committee that combs the scientific literature and designs laboratory "experiments" that will somehow verify what they have already concluded, namely that Genesis is "The Truth" and geochronology is "wrong".
These so called "Scientists" actually allow an "observer" to ensure that their "science" does not conflict with the official party line. That is, a Hebrew language scholar will participate to make sure the RATE Group stays on course.
This is reminiscent of Stalins grip on scientists in the old USSR. Dictating what they must conclude.
Any research that must conform to predisposed conclusions, and discards or ignores any findings that conflict with with these conclusions is the worst type of bad science.

It is not unscientific to set up specific parameters and guidelines for an experiment. The fact that just the mention of Creation or Genesis shuts doors and limits publication would seem to smack more of Communism to me.

Do you ever even read what you are replying to?
By forcing research to conform to a predisposed conclusion and ignoring findings to the contrary, RATE has performed an abomination on science.
As for your "mention of Creation or Genesis" comment, an introduction of the supernatural into the natural sciences would have to be backed by overwhelming empirical evidence. Of which Creation "Science" has none.