|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2004 : 03:08:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not all of us are clothed. There are plenty of cultures who consider clothing to be decoration, living where clothes aren't needed for protection from the elements. The fact is that there are plenty of people in Western societies who would gladly go without clothing in the summer if there weren't a bunch of puritanical laws on the books which define nakedness as "obscene."
Heh. I support this one. There are a great many otherwise beautiful people that I do not want to observe au natural, even in my dreams! :shudder:
As to the mustard seed, that's an ok example, but not a particularly good one. How is it that the largest animal ever to roam the earth, the blue whale, begins it's life as a single cell far smaller than that mustard seed? As indeed, did you yourself. Actually, we know how that happened and even a casual study of genetics will explain all. I doubt that we'll ever clone the whale or the mustard seed, but we can do it with many other species.
We are a far cry from the 'best' ever put on the earth. There's really no such thing because evolution has no goal, no plan. We are not even a particularly well-designed animal. Our spines are clearly intended for a quadraped and give us a lot of grief, especally mine, due largely to not being designed to carry our weight in an upright manner. Our spinal cords run up the center of these vertebra in a highly vunerable manner, causing yet more grief. Any compent welder could fabricate a better knee joint than what we limp around on, as any athelete well knows. We are blessed with a vermiform appendix that can and does get infected easily and can, and does, kill us. Our jaws are too small for our teeth and result in impacted wisdom teeth (third molar) that sometimes grow, painfully, in at odd angles and must be removed. We are also very foul-tempered and seem to enjoy killing each other over trivia.
I suppose the ability to reason, learn, and create helps to make up for all that. Steel rods and fusions keep my back in place and a steel hip replacing the worn out one has me back on my feet. I will get a new knee next year. I bid hale and farewell to my appendix when, as an innocent lad of some 6 years, it viciously turned on me. I am fortunate that my wisdom teeth caused only a little bother.
Back to the Ark. There have been only a few wooden ships built over three hundred feet long. The most famous and successful of these is thought to be the Great Republic, at some 350 feet and built by David McKay in, if memory serves, Boston. Like all of these giant ships, it was slow and leaked to the point that the bilge pumps had to be manned night and day. Again, if memory serves, it foundered in a storm off Jamaca, and that was pretty much the fate of all of these big ships.
The reason is that a wooden structure can't be made strong enough to take the forces of the seas at those lengths without taking up cargo space with massive bracing (some of them had a lot of iron bracing that only helped a little). At sea, they were found to hog, snake and twist, the hull strakes in constant movement.
At somewhere between four and six hundred feet, depending upon which version of the cubit you use, and a barge-type hull which is a far cry from the best design for open seas, and no steerage, the Ark would not have survived the first hour afloat (assuming that there was a global flood. This does not show up in the geologic record).
I think that the long and short of it is that the up-coming expedition will return with lots of good stories to tell of the adventure, but little else.
I for one wish them all luck, but my bullshit detector will be turned on and finely tuned.
Edited to correct a really stupid mistaske in the name of David KcKay's ship. That's what happens when you work off the top of your head without refreshing your memory frist.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/09/2004 16:45:49 |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2004 : 07:07:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dr. Mabuse wrote:quote:
c=speed of light
c represents the speed of light in a vacuum. Just a small nitpick.
Indeed, you're right Dave_W  The "in a vacuum" was an important part i unintentionally left out. How sloppy of me. quote:
quote:
This does of course not take into account chromatic aberration. Perhaps someone else could explain exactly where/why that happens.
Yeah, the index of refraction for a medium varies with the wavelength of light...
Ah... but isn't the index of refraction defined as the quota between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed of light in the medium?quote:
...and why chromatic aberrations exist in simple lenses (the differing refraction indices mean that red light focuses at a different distance from the lens than blue light - simples lenses are really just slightly-complex prisms).
Some opticians use this for fine-tuning when you test out for glasses or contact lenses. They have two fields of colour next to each other, one red and one blue. In both of them are white letters. If one colour is sharper than the other (due to the difference in focus for red and blue), then the lens used is not perfectly matched for the eye.
Some less proficient web designers use this effect, by choosing red letters on a dark blue background to give the screen a 3D-look. The brain interprets the difference in focus as a difference in depth, and letters appear to hover above or below the screen. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2004 : 08:29:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
What is the deal with you guys? Whats with the mud slinging? . . . Speaking back to the flood story, . . . The[y] have found wood high on Mt. Ararat, along with satillite images of a ship buried in the snow! I suppose that when Noahs Ark is found you will dismiss it as a fairy tale. God says the 'rainbow' was put in the sky as a symboy between man and God that He would never again destroy the earth with water. I'm sure you guys know the scientific formula and explation as to why rainbows exist . . .
Hey verlch. I suppose you didn't see my first post to this thread as it wasn't a direct reply to you. Thus, let me reiterate some of what I said then to you now.
Perhaps some of the "mud slinging" you talk about is-- fairly or not-- a result of the nature of this discussion thus far. From reading through the over five pages of this thread, it's clear to see that nothing brought up has been resolved in any sort of way. From the point of view of most of the people participating, the perceived pattern is quite frustrating: you bring up a point, people dispute your claim, you brush off their critiques by bringing up different points, and on it goes. I'm sure that you see things differently, but it is likely no less frustrating.
To that end, I wonder if it wouldn't be more productive if you (since you started the thread about how things (which ones?) are getting 'fugly' (for whom?)) could begin anew by introducing one or perhaps two related issues in favor of the biblical creation story and/or against evolutionary theory. You should include some checkable (if that's a word) facts and references. Those who agree might add to your arguments, though they should all stay focused on the specific issues you address. Those who disagree could then challenge your position, again by using data that can be checked. This would go back and forth until either a) the matter is resolved, either in the affirmative or negative, or b) it is decided that the available evidence is not sufficient to make a conclusion either way. After this, you could introduce a new issue (or issues) until, ultimately, either you or your opponents are swayed.
This, it seems to me, is how every debate should go, whether it's creationism vs. evolution, who was the best QB ever, or some question related to Assyriology (http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/rencontre/). Unfortunately, this doesn't happen as much as it should.
To tie this in with your post, let me say that I take some offense to your comment that "when Noahs Ark is found," I (and others) "will dismiss it as a fairy tale." This assumes that I am so rigid and unchanging in my thinking that I will deny something even if it stares me in the face. Certainly if someone did find Noah's Ark, I'd have to rethink my position on the Judeo-Christian god. (Of course, I still wouldn't worship the bastard.)
But I'm sure that what you mean wasn't "when Noah's Ark is found" but rather "when this hard-core Christian who made it his goal decades ago to find Noah's Ark claims that some fuzzy photograph proves the reality of the flood." And in that case, yes, I would be skeptical. Would that we all could be. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/09/2004 08:35:20 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2004 : 10:37:37 [Permalink]
|
Is it just me or has this thread become absurd? Verlch moves from topic to topic without any regard for continuity. Now he is on to the ark and humans as the best of gods creations. He has suggested that proof of the arks existence is just around the corner. I guess that is his way of saying that we will get all the evidence we need, but we will have to wait for it. So far, a Verlch version of providing evidence is to suggest that since a group of Christian archaeologists are once again going into the field to find the ark, we should be impressed and count that as evidence of the arks existence. He continues to not respond to calls for evidence for the many other claims he has made. There have been good suggestions on how to improve the debate, but I do believe, based on his lack of response to those suggestions, that this debate will just continue to sputter along aimlessly.
quote:
Cuneiformist:
To that end, I wonder if it wouldn't be more productive if you [Verlch] (since you started the thread about how things (which ones?) are getting 'fugly' (for whom?)) could begin anew by introducing one or perhaps two related issues in favor of the biblical creation story and/or against evolutionary theory. You should include some checkable (if that's a word) facts and references. Those who agree might add to your arguments, though they should all stay focused on the specific issues you address. Those who disagree could then challenge your position, again by using data that can be checked. This would go back and forth until either a) the matter is resolved, either in the affirmative or negative, or b) it is decided that the available evidence is not sufficient to make a conclusion either way. After this, you could introduce a new issue (or issues) until, ultimately, either you or your opponents are swayed.
Cuneiformist is absolutely right. I wouldn't make this a suggestion, however. I would, at this point, insist on it. If Verlch is unable to play by any rules of debate, too bad for him. I guess that what I am asking that we force a response to our calls for evidence in support of the claims that he has made so far, or end this thread. I would back up to the beginning of the thread and put the first couple of claims to rest one way or the other. I believe that fossilized trees offered as proof of the flood was the first claim that Verlch made. Verlch never bothered to source his information when that claim was challenged, or offer to counter the objections in any meaningful way. What he did do is make an appeal to his own incredulity (about what science says) claimed his faith, and moved on. That shouldn't cut it on a skeptic forum.
I guess what I am saying is we should force a proper debate or move on. Verlch, I don't want to see you go. But there are rules when debating and it is high time that you follow them. If you make a claim, it is incumbent upon you to supply evidence for those claims. I understand that you think your upside down tree claim is evidence of a global flood. But you didn't bother to source where you got that information or demonstrate how that claim is valid when you were challenged to do so. I suggest that you start there. And I suggest to others on this thread to keep it there until the subject has played itself out. We may need to work at keeping Verlch on track.
I am not too many posts away from locking this thread...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2004 : 11:22:40 [Permalink]
|
Gotcha covered.
'K verlch, again and yet again, I respectfully request your references for 2,000 year old fossil trees. Who did the study, using what dating methods, and sponsered by what organization? What publication(s) was the findings written up in and when? Were they peer reviewed organs? A mere statment, while interesting, won't cut it. Need evidence that we can verify for ourselves.
Don't be in too big a hurry to lock 'er down, Kil. Amongst all the sow's ears, there are some silk purses to be found. More might be in the offing. I am curious to know the opinions of others about shipbuilding as evidence for the flood being a myth. At the moment, I'm too lazy to start another thread on it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2004 : 11:34:15 [Permalink]
|
They didn't have to carbon date the trees they looked at the rings and found out that millions of trees where around 2000 years old when they became petrified and died.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4109.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-268.htm
http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
| Edited by - verlch on 05/09/2004 12:05:40 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2004 : 12:11:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Filthy:
Don't be in too big a hurry to lock 'er down, Kil. Amongst all the sow's ears, there are some silk purses to be found. More might be in the offing. I am curious to know the opinions of others about shipbuilding as evidence for the flood being a myth. At the moment, I'm too lazy to start another thread on it.
If I was in a hurry, there would be a lock on this thread, now! Really, I am hoping this thread can be saved. I really do want to see Verlch rise to the challenge of a real debate. It seems to me that he has the most to gain by doing that. If he can improve his debating skills (by practicing on us, maybe?) he will be better able (prepared) to take his case to others by avoiding silly mistakes in logic that make his arguments such easy targets. He might even learn to be more open to contrary evidence, and in doing so, signal that he has an open mind and is worth the effort it takes to engage in a debate... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2004 : 12:12:56 [Permalink]
|
verlch wrote:quote:
They didn't have to carbon date the trees they looked at the rings and found out that millions of trees where around 2000 years old when they became petrified and died.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4109.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp
Perhaps you can quote the section in either one of these articles which makes the claim that you have. Neither article discusses millions of trees being 2,000 years old when they died.
Both articles, by the way, offer lies instead of facts in several places. For example, the first claims that "normal" science only deals with observations made in the present. Forensic scientists would get a good belly laugh at such a definition.
Therefore, since your sources openly relate falsehoods to their readers, they are not good sources at all. You should, perhaps, reconsider from where you get your information. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2004 : 15:55:10 [Permalink]
|
Ah, at last we're geting somewhere!
The last site, ncreation.net, is a dreadful example of a reference. All of the claims in it are very old and have been long ago debunked amid gales of laughter.
For example, the receding moon as young earth proof:
quote:
Introduction
One of the common arguments made in support of young-Earth creationism is that the dynamic age of the Earth-moon system (as determined by the physics of the Earth-moon tidal interaction) is too young to support a multi-billion year age for the system. In this article I will (a) review the basic physics of gravity and tides, (b) review the history of theoretical models for Earth-moon tides, (c) review the paleontological evidence relevant to the history of the Earth-moon system, and (d) demonstrate that the combination of theory and observation refute the young-Earth creationist arguments, with reference to specific young-Earth arguments and their specific failures. This is intended as a review for readers not versed in physics and math, so the arguments are presented as non-technically as possible. There are references to more technical work, for those who are interested in following up any of the arguments presented here as accepted assertions.
While this article is intended as a refutation of yet another ill conceived young-Earth argument, the introductory reviews do not refer to creationism at all. Therefore, the article should work just as well as an introduction to the physics of the evolution of the Earth-moon system, even for those readers not interested in the issue of creation vs. evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html
The shrinking Sun:
quote:
The gravitational-contraction theory was perfectly respectable mainstream science, in the 19th century. As described in the \l "_Toc430357861" above, it was abandoned in the early part of the 20th century, for good scientific reasons that had nothing to do with creationism. Some creationists, notably Barnes ( \l "Barnes1974"), appear to be unaware of developments in science beyond 1895 or so, and continue to invoke Kelvin's arguments as if they were still valid. But even if we didn't know anything about nuclear fusion (or if fusion for some reason didn't work in the sun), Eddington's ( \l "Eddington1920"; \l "Eddington1924") refutation of the gravitational-contraction theory would still remain solid. This directly contradicts the claims of Akridge ( \l "Akridge1980"), that the theory was abandoned solely because evolution required more time: "Scientists have not always attributed the energy source of the sun to thermonuclear fusion. Prior to the discovery of thermonuclear fusion, Helmholtz predicted that the energy of the sun was supplied by the gravitational collapse of the sun. This model was accepted until the theory of evolution began to dominate the scientific scene. Then Helmholtz's explanation was discarded because it did not provide the vast time span demanded by the theory of organic evolution on the earth. The substitute theory was introduced by Bethe in the 1930's precisely because thermonuclear fusion was the only known energy source that would last over the vast times required by evolution. Science may now be on the verge of disproving the substitute evolutionary model of the sun." ( \l "Akridge1980", p 3). Akridge's last sentence is also misleading, in that the standard model of the sun isn't "evolutionary" in any sense connected with the Darwinian evolution that he's referring to elsewhere in the quote (and of course also misleading in that science is nowhere near disproving it).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html#_Toc430357875
For a lot more, go here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html
I have had some on line conversations with Dr. Sarfati, which I will refrain comment upon. He holds a PhD in chemestry, but has not done research in the field in many years. Dr. Weiland is an MD. Neither they nor their organization goes into the field to do any serious reasearch. I will say that both are excellent writers (would that I could do as well), even though their writings are factually inaccurate. We'll get to that shortly.
ICR and the Morris boys are pretty much the same. This is the outfit that claims fresh, all but still bloody, dinosaur bones have been found in Alaska. A couple of years ago, they had an article on the discovrry of such on site, but if you want to read it now, you must buy a book. The state of CA was silly enough to give them accredation to award master's degrees. 
Both of these organizations demand a statement of faith from their associates amounting to the firm belief that every word in the Bible is a stone fact and nothing else matters. Indeed, I think it was Henry Morris (correct me if I'm wrong) who made the preposterous statement that, "If the data differs from my translation of Scripture, then those data are flawed."
Neither of these outfits dated the trees nor counted the rings. They took the work of people who did and wrote it up in such a way that the data were no longer 'flawed'. Old, Creationist trick and entirely dishonest.
I'm not so much concerned with how old the tree was when it was buried and no one is suggesting that they did not die in some catastrophy. Sorry if I failed to make that clear. Doubtless they did die in a catastrophy, but it was a local one. Gots plenty of those, even today. I am more interested in the age of the fossils themselves. As the area has lots of volcanic strata, radiometric dating with several elements should be a snap. Radiocarbon dating won't work, of course. There must be organic material present for carbon 14 and the petrified trees, being mineralized, have none left. I believe, a few miles back down the road, I posted a link explaining that. I'm certain that these strata have been dated, lots of times to check accruacy, but I don't have the info at hand. I suppose I could find it. Could probably google it up.
As to these trees living no longer than a couple of thousand years, so what if they didn't? That proves nothing one way or another. And who's to say that other species of trees didn't live a lot longer? Or have much shorter lifespans? Or the ones with countable rings were killed in the prime of life?
Questions, questions, eh? 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/09/2004 16:09:00 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2004 : 17:49:17 [Permalink]
|
Ah, you edited to add two more while I was typing, verlch. Okay.quote:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-268.htm
http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html
Neither new source supports your claim that no fossilized tree has ever been found more than 2,000 years old when killed, nor does either source support your claim that millions of fossilized trees were around 2,000 years old when they died.
The first source is Biblically inaccurate, claiming that "the years following the Flood were rife with volcanic activity and the ground surface remained saturated with much standing water." Which verses describe the post-Flood world this way?
The second new source contradicts your earlier use of Answers in Genesis as a source, as it continues to use Arguments [AiG] think[s] creationists should NOT use. A few of them, including Moon dust and missing solar neutrinos. Why is it that creationists cannot agree on these things? Don't they all read the same book? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2004 : 18:00:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
They didn't have to carbon date the trees they looked at the rings and found out that millions of trees where around 2000 years old when they became petrified and died.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4109.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp
Hi verlch. So I assume that you are returning to your initial point, namely that of the petrified trees.
If so, then let me here confess something: I sometimes have trouble understanding your writing. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases. So help me understand: what, exactly, is your point about the millions of 2,000 year old petrified trees supposed to prove?
Any help with this would be appreciated. I would hate to engage in a debate where I'm not even clear of the other side's position! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2004 : 06:19:52 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist, I think verlch needs to come up with evidence that there really are millions of fossilized trees which all died when they were "around 2000 years old" before moving on to the next step of talking about what it's supposed to prove.
None of the four references he's offered does so. They're all talking about Yellowstone, really, and at least one of them talks about the fossilized trees there as being no older than 1,000 years when they died. So, neither do they support a world-wide general claim, nor do they support the 2,000-year claim. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2004 : 07:31:12 [Permalink]
|
I wouldn't worry a whole lot about that, Dave. I think that our young friend got caught up in the excitement of the moment and spoke before he thought. We all do it, especally me.
I am more concerned with the references he provided -- organizations with no scientific credability at all.
One must remember that the credentials of the reference are as important as the reference itself. If I were to expound upon quantum physics, I'd be laughed from the board, and rightly so. But this does not mean that unless someone has a few esoteric letters after his signature, he isn't worth listening to. Jack Horner is a world-respected paolentologist, and he has no doctorate. On the other hand, Jonathan Sarfati holds a PhD in chemistry, but would never be invited to lecture a class of chemestry students except in a religious institution. Thus, who would give the most closely considered, scientific reference in their respective fields; Horner or Sarfati?
I think that verlch's writing has shown a marked improvement since coming here to snipe at us. Can it be that we're an influence for coherence, study, truth and light, and other good shit....... naw. I ain't havin' that. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2004 : 08:43:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I am more concerned with the references he provided -- organizations with no scientific credability at all.
This is quite true, and it was something I was going to address once I figured out what verlch's point was. But while we're on the topic, let's talk about some of these references. Verlch presented four in his latest post, but I'll examine just one of them: the article from the magazine Creation entitled "The Earth: How Old does it Look?"
The author of the piece is Carl Wieland, who, according to his biography, was trained in "medicine and surgery" and has no other scientific training. He is, however, the founder of Creation, and has written over 100 articles for it and its sister publications.
Of course for this type of article, one need not have a PhD in geology-- the bulk of the piece is a summary of other authors' works supporting the young earth theory. Unfortunately, of the 12 works cited, 10 come from Creation or its sister publication Technical Journal.
Is this necessarily bad? It is when one considers what Creation is. In AiG's blurb about the magazine, it says that the mission of Creation is to "[confirm] the Bible's account of history!" Already, verlch (if you're reading), you should be skeptical of the evidence presented in such a magazine-- such a mission tells us immediately that nothing critical of creation will be considered. So much for peer review, eh?
If you look at the submission guidelines, you'll see how the magainze works. Sure, it purports to want backed-up facts, but your piece will only be considered if it suits the magainze's purpose-- that is, if it's pro-creation.
Of course, not all article in Creation limit themselves to citing other Creation pieces. But those that cite "secular" journals, rarely do so in a meaningful way. In one typical article (A. Williams, "Copying Confusion" (Creation 25:4 (2003)), the author cites various secular articles to back up his facts about genes, but then concludes with an appeal to personal incredulity, stating, in effect, "Look at all these staggering numbers! Surely that points to an intelligent designer!"
At this point, it's clear (even to me!) that I'm rambling. So let me conclude by letting verlch know that we 'evolutionists' will certainly (and rightly) be skeptical of citations from publications which a priori support the creationist position. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 05/11/2004 10:27:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2004 : 10:20:40 [Permalink]
|
filthy wrote:quote:
I am more concerned with the references he provided -- organizations with no scientific credability at all.
Oh, I understand that concern quite well, and crucifying such references as unscientific propaganda tools written by people with gigantic religious chips on their shoulders is fine and dandy.
My point was that we don't even need to do the "work" required to impeach verlch's sources until he can come up with a source or two which makes the same claims that he has been making. He offered four sources as apparent backup for this:quote:
They didn't have to carbon date the trees they looked at the rings and found out that millions of trees where around 2000 years old when they became petrified and died.
There are several claims, both implicit and explicit, here:- That people have found millions of fossilized trees in Yellowstone park.
- That at least "millions" of fossilized trees in Yellowstone have had their ages at death determined by ring counting.
- That all these trees were about 2,000 years old when they died.
- That trees petrify, and then die.
If I remember correctly, not one of these claims are supported by the references provided. Coffin, an oft-cited creationist source, only counts 791 trees in table 2, and most of those will not have been sliced open in order to count the rings.
Now, some might argue that verlch is simply engaging in youthful hyperbole (by three or more orders of magnitude), but it seems to me that it simply isn't within the "rules" of this sort of discussion to exaggerate claims so outrageously. Perhaps if verlch limited himself to only those claims which could be supported by evidence of any sort (either scientific or creationist), we'd be able to have a truly interesting discussion. I don't think it's possible while he appears to be spewing "facts" from his own imagination. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
