New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby Michael » Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:06 am

Woodmorappe is simply more of a liar than most YECs
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby Dagsannr » Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:24 am

It's common tactic used by any anti-science proponents, not just creationists (and seen on this forum by our very own Marc).

Find minor points of detail that are either irrelevant to the main theory or, if they are relevant, have no bearing on the actual outcome and then claim that if that point is flawed, then the entire theory is false (and goddit, homeopathy works, horoscopes are valid or etc).

Whilst doing this, of course, they ignore the vast gaps in their own ideas and use special pleading to explain them away all the while insisting that the burden of proof is on those attempting to disprove a concept, not the other way around.

One of the best debates I ever saw between a creationist and an evolutionist (whatever that is) was based on the premise that ID should be taught alongside evolution (as seems to be the main tactic used by cDesign proponentists). The evolutionist, right from start, noted that the creationists just wanted parity with evolution so, in effect, admitting that evolution already has the right to be taught and they're just looking for the same treatment. Since, he argued, they accepted the validity of teaching evolution, the entire focus of the debate should be on the validity of creationism and any criticism of evolution is irrelevant to the debate.

It's a tactic I think we should use more often. Unless the creationist is advocating a stop to teaching evolution, then it's upto them to prove creationism is a valid subject to teach alongside, not that evolution has flaws.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby marcsurtees » Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:43 am

Natman wrote:One of the best debates I ever saw between a creationist and an evolutionist (whatever that is) was based on the premise that ID should be taught alongside evolution (as seems to be the main tactic used by cDesign proponentists). The evolutionist, right from start, noted that the creationists just wanted parity with evolution so, in effect, admitting that evolution already has the right to be taught and they're just looking for the same treatment. Since, he argued, they accepted the validity of teaching evolution, the entire focus of the debate should be on the validity of creationism and any criticism of evolution is irrelevant to the debate.

A good debating tactic perhaps, but it is built on a shaky foundation. All we accept is that evolution is taught and we are being pragmatic in asking for equal time. We accept that is taught not that it is true...

Natman wrote:It's a tactic I think we should use more often. Unless the creationist is advocating a stop to teaching evolution, then it's upto them to prove creationism is a valid subject to teach alongside, not that evolution has flaws.

That rather assumes that evolution has no flaws.
What we want is the facts taught clearly as they are. What is the evidence and what does it really mean and an honest admission of the weaknesses of neo-darwinism. It is the unwarrented extrapolation of known examples of mutation and natural selection, speciation and diversition to the idea that everything is explained by evolution, that we are challenging.
Honest treatment of any scientific theory (and that includes creationist theories) requires that the weaknesses are discussed openly rather than ignored.
And before someone jumps down my throat! Let me be the first to admit that in the cut and thrust of vigorous debate on this forum I have not always been as unbiased as I should and have endulged in the occassional rhetorical device.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby marcsurtees » Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:57 am

Natman wrote:It's common tactic used by any anti-science proponents, not just creationists (and seen on this forum by our very own Marc).

Find minor points of detail that are either irrelevant to the main theory or, if they are relevant, have no bearing on the actual outcome and then claim that if that point is flawed, then the entire theory is false


Minor points like the origin of:
life
multicellalar life
segmentation
nervous systems (including here all sensory devices and the processors required)
sex
jaws (and while we are at it, bones in general)
limbs
life on land
feathers (and the birds)
all the organs in the body
ATPase, photosynthesis and all the rest of biochemistry
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby Dagsannr » Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:33 am

marcsurtees wrote:What we want is the facts taught clearly as they are.


They are. That you don't like them has nothing to do with it.

What is the evidence and what does it really mean and an honest admission of the weaknesses of neo-darwinism.


Let's make it really, really simple.

There is no, I'll repeat that, NO better tool for explaining, predicting or working with biology ever devised or postulated. The weaknesses in evolutionary theory are miniscule compared to any other competing idea or hypothesis (wtf is neo-darwinsim, btw?). What predictions can intelligent design make about bacteria genetics and the development of antibiotics to treat MRSA (easily done if you remove the random variable of meddling by an invisible and undetectable supernatural being)? How does creationism explain why the vagus nerve in the giraffe goes from the brain, loops around the aorta and then up to the throat (something explained in 10 seconds using evolution)? Pointing out that there's a slight bit of ambiguity in the development of the jaw doesn't compare.

It is the unwarrented extrapolation of known examples of mutation and natural selection, speciation and diversition to the idea that everything is explained by evolution, that we are challenging.


No, you're not. You want god taught in schools. You want the gaps in human knowledge filled in by a goddit explanation that destroys further thought and exploration. If you were truly and honestly out to disprove evolution, you'd be doing the science, testing the theory and publishing papers that challenge the current theory. The fact is, every time evolution is tested or used to make a predicition, it works. Every time. Professional creationists spend their time alternating between picking tiny holes in the current theory, quote mining scientists and publishing pop-pseudoscience books that get poor reviews from the scientific community and end up on the 'Religion' shelf in Waterstones.

Honest treatment of any scientific theory (and that includes creationist theories)...


ERROR - creationists ideas are not a) scientific or b) theories.

...requires that the weaknesses are discussed openly rather than ignored.


They are. It's just the things you point out as weaknesses aren't.

Saying "We don't know yet." is not a weakness, it's an invite for further experimentation, not an excuse to go "God did it!"
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby cathy » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:50 pm

Let me be the first to admit that in the cut and thrust of vigorous debate on this forum I have not always been as unbiased as I should and have endulged in the occassional rhetorical device.
Thats an interesting piece of lanuage to describe what most of us call lying Marc. Your definition of 'rhetorical device' seems to be as loose as Rebekah Brooks and Coulsons definition of investigative journalism!

What we want is the facts taught clearly as they are. What is the evidence and what does it really mean and an honest admission of the weaknesses of neo-darwinism.

They are Marc, thats why evolution is taught not ID/creationism. Do you think we sit aroung making up some fictional fossils or genomes just to get back at god.

Schools are there to pass on knowledge ie the best understanding of the most logical conclusions of experts in their field based on of mountains of evidence, years of rigorous testing and years of retesting in the light of new knowledge (eg DNA). if you can explain exactly how these scientists have so radically got it wrong (and I really don't want to hear the pitiful atheist paradigm again, nor teh scientists can't accept god which makes them interpret the evidence wrongly mantra/lie-nor do I want to be told schools are promoting atheism by not indoctrinating youngsters again) and point to real evidence of genuine weaknesses that show evolution is false then publish your findings in the real scientific literature. Challenge the scientists in their own fields-overthrow the theory-actually falsify it or throw doubt on it. Claiming gaps in esoteric knowledge in such a generally well supported theory marc is dishonest by anyones standards-or rhetorical devisiveness if you prefer that term. Nit picking about gaps is not falsifylng existing evidence or overturning all the positive evidence that only points in one direction. Suggesting otherwise, as you continue to do, is lying Marc. Ninth commandment mean anything at all to you.

Do not target schoolchildren at the start of their academic lives who haven't the knowledge to see through religious indoctrination pretending to be science.

Honest treatment of any scientific theory (and that includes creationist theories) requires that the weaknesses are discussed openly rather than ignored.
Lets just forget science then and teach religion. If we treat everything as you require us to treat evolution than there is no science left. Gravity for starters-an invisible force attracting objects to each other-pleeease. Nobody can tell us how it works, nobody can see it, nobody has a clue how it came into being. As a theory its way weaker than evolution yet I had to accept its existence without question all through myA levels-physics-gravity blah blah, applied maths-more gravity blah blah. We don't know every little thing about gravity so why should we accept its existence without question. What about Intellilgent Stickiness as an alternative.

Minor points like the origin of:
life
multicellalar life
segmentation
nervous systems (including here all sensory devices and the processors required)
sex
jaws (and while we are at it, bones in general)
limbs
life on land
feathers (and the birds)
all the organs in the body
Marc please tell me where you did your degree and doctorate. I want to make sure none of my chidren go there. It would clearly be a complete waste of fees. Tell me how they are weaknesses rather than gaps in knowledge (which if you bothered to look a lot aren't).

Better still give me your evidence for an alternative Marc! Give me evidence that all these features arose at once 6000 years ago. It should be incredibly easy to find given its recency.

we are being pragmatic in asking for equal time. We accept that is taught not that it is true...

That would assume your notions are equally valid, equally well supported and equally useful. They are not-you have yet to produce a shred of evidence to either dent evolution or give credence to your own fantasies.

To give creationism any parity with evolution would require equal time for astology in physics, homeopathy on medical degrees, alchemy and witchcraft in chemistry, holocaust denial in history etc etc. In short giving creationism parity would be he destruction of education.
Last edited by cathy on Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby Dagsannr » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:26 pm

cathy wrote:Gravity for starters-an invisible force attracting objects to each other-pleeease. Nobody can tell us how it works, nobody can see it, nobody has a clue how it came into being. As a theory its way weaker than evolution yet I had to accept its existence without question all through myA levels-physics-gravity blah blah, applied maths-more gravity blah blah. We don't know every little thing about gravity so why should we accept its existence without question. What about Intellilgent Stickiness as an alternative.


It's called Intelligent Falling :)

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evange ... nt%2C1778/
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby cathy » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:26 pm

It's called Intelligent Falling

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evange ... nt%2C1778/
Thats absolutely spot on :D Love it.

What do you think Marc? It is your argument exactly-so ID, Creationism and Intelligent falling alongside evolution and gravity.

As for astrologyy, 6 billion folk in the world-12 possible scenarios each day (eg Scorpios find love today, Librans bad day with colleagues today). I guess there is quite a large probability that for at least one person the two will correlate. Compare the chance of that happening with the chance of a creationist providing positive evidence for their beliefs (or being totally honest)-and astrology wins hands down. Which means the bizarre notion that the location of uranus when you were born affects your personality is supported by more evidence than Marcs creationism.

So Marc ID, creationism, intelligent falling and astrology alongside evolution, gravity and space.

Other creationst arguments are that creationism contributes to science cos early science was done by people who were creationists (no i didn't get the logic either-its a sociology thing). Recognising creationisms early input to knowledge should we not also recognise alchemy's contributions to modern chemistry. Perhaps some lessons where kids wee on base metals and turn them to gold-(does favour boys though, god clearly had an off day when he designed female urinary systems).

And withcraft-my friend believes it and so do others so lets chuck some wicca in as well (after all if we must respect the minority beliefs of creationists we must extend that right to all others-lest we be accused of favouratism). And along with many others I love Harry Potter. So why not some potions in chemistry (so I can make polyjuice potion) as well and transfiguration in physics-after all must respect my minority rights too.

So using Marcs and the Truth in Science philosophy of education science should really be
Evolution, gravity, rest of mainstream biology, physics and chemistry balanced equally by creationism, ID, intelligent falling (and its inane country cousin intelligent stickiness), astrology, alchemy, wicca (could do the tree hugging bits in biology perhaps cos the 'evidence for ID' 'evidence for creationism' and 'weaknesses of evolution' lessons are going to be a bit short and will need some padding).

What do you think Marc. Logically if we include what you want there is no logical reason not to include the rest is there?
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:29 pm

"What we want is the facts taught clearly as they are. What is the evidence and what does it really mean and an honest admission of the weaknesses of neo-darwinism. It is the unwarrented extrapolation of known examples of mutation and natural selection, speciation and diversition to the idea that everything is explained by evolution, that we are challenging."

I think you need to demonstrate with at least one SPECIFIC example how this is NOT happening at present in schools in Scotland/England.

I think some ID proponents and more moderate creationists eg Todd C Wood when advocating concepts such as 'teach the controversy' imply that evolution is a theory with strong explanatory power but that there is an alternative (involving God) which should also be given 'airtime' within schools/colleges.

You appear to be suggesting that if such people imply that the modern evolutionary synthesis has some validity - but they believe ID/creationism has as much or more validity so want it to receive appropriate/equal 'billing' - they don't really mean it when it comes to evolution and it's just a rhetorical device as they push the 'teach the controversy' idea.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:37 pm

cathy wrote:And along with many others I love Harry Potter.
Now you're for it! :twisted:
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:04 am

I see that CMI have dug up an elderly criticism I made of something on their website, but unhelpfully neglect to remind me when I sent it to them - I think it was an email which I then copied onto Amazon and perhaps here too.
http://creation.com/fossils-plant-survival-flood
I'll respond once I've managed to FIND it again, and check I was quoted correctly (actually if I can find the original CMI article that should narrow things down).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Shafted online by CMI!

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:33 am

I see that I've been SHAFTED by CMI on their website on 9 July! Obviously they consider me an IRRITANT - probably because I wrote a lengthy critical review of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk.
http://creation.com/fossils-plant-survival-flood


THIS is my response to them just now:

"Tas Walker has responded on your website on 9 July to my criticisms of the
article by Garry Graham which appeared online in January 2011 (this follows
a previous email exchange between us):
http://creation.com/fast-octopus-fossils

I can now see that the article was more deceitful than I realised at the
time. It stated "Other scientists have published research showing that the
ocean floor is actually teeming with bacterial life. So these scientists
have not explained the remarkably preserved fossils at all." The footnote
after the word 'life' linked to THIS article - but the link was not active
so people could not easily read it:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 140303.htm And although I
quoted the link in full in my comments, you have DELETED it so readers
cannot easily check what the Science Daily article said.

Which was that the bacteria living deep down at the bottom of the oceans
today at least gain their energy by 'feeding' on rocks in chemical
reactions, NOT by gobbling upon dead or dying cephalopods. Clearly Graham
and Walker want their readers to assume the latter rather than the former.

If you have nothing to hide you will publish this further response on your
website.

Turning to Tas Walker's comments, I note that they are the exact same ones
which I responded to in an email early on 21 January UK time (which I will
re-forward). The CMI response published on 9 July TOTALLY IGNORES my 21.1.11
email (and a further couple of exchanges later that day).

That email included the following which you have cynically IGNORED: "With
respect, nor have CMI explained them [the soft fossils].
"The biblical creation model ...
explains the special conditions needed for soft-bodied animals like the
octopus to fossilize. Specifically, the animal must be buried rapidly (while
still alive or soon after death) under metres of sediment in order to
exclude oxygen and prevent any further scavenging or decay. Such conditions
would certainly have been present in the ocean during the global Flood
recorded in the Bible. No miraculous stroke of luck is called for."
"Conditions during the global Flood would have been suitable for rapid
limestone formation."

Sorry, all that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Are you saying the Bible
'fountains of the deep' under the oceans (and land) - which science knows
nothing about - somehow swallowed up and buried the fossils? And what is
this factoid about rapid limestone formation during the Genesis flood?

"Mutations lead to the extinction of species...". Please provide an EXAMPLE
of that happening in the last 6,000 years (or the last few billions of years
if you prefer).

"He demonstrates that mutations do not lead to new species but to genetic
error-catastrophe...". Not always they don't.

If you at CMI choose to reject uniformitarianism and (usually) slow
processes, you then have to deliberately tinker with 'catastrophist' theories in just such
a way as to make sure you get the results you want ie a catastrophic event
around 4,500 years ago (not much earlier nor somewhat later). This sounds
like manipulation of evidence."

Tas did reply to this email but I remained unconvinced. I sent a further
email which said:

""The octopus fits nicely into the rapid burial scenario but not as neatly
into the slow burial one." I'm sorry but I disagree.

"It is manipulating ... models/scenarios to explain the evidence...". As I
thought. You don't go with the most likely explanation, one based on what
science has already learnt eg about the probable age of the octopus fossils,
but (your colleague) has dreamt up alternative scenarios to allow you to
make the evidence support Genesis rather than the mainstream science view.
CMI believes not only in the gospel but in a fictional worldwide flood
covering the whole planet just 4,500 years' ago; it (eg Jonathan Sarfati in
his latest book) also sincerely postulates farfetched unscientific ideas -
ones not found in the Bible either - in order to make a link, in the eyes of
the scientifically uninformed at least, between the available natural
evidence and Genesis."

Again, if you have nothing to hide you will publish this further response on
your website IN FULL (commenting back if you wish).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: New DVD on the age of the Earth from CMI

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:52 am

To clarify:

Although CMI quote my original January email in full, they have ignored my later responses to the Walker comments that are now displayed on their website.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Shafted online by CMI!

Postby jon_12091 » Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:00 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:"The biblical creation model ...
explains the special conditions needed for soft-bodied animals like the
octopus to fossilize. Specifically, the animal must be buried rapidly (while
still alive or soon after death) under metres of sediment in order to
exclude oxygen and prevent any further scavenging or decay. Such conditions
would certainly have been present in the ocean during the global Flood
recorded in the Bible. No miraculous stroke of luck is called for."

The 'meters required' comment is wrong, the anoxic layer can be very shallow - numbers should be possible to find.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Shafted online by CMI!

Postby Roger Stanyard » Sat Jul 09, 2011 11:54 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I see that I've been SHAFTED by CMI on their website on 9 July! Obviously they consider me an IRRITANT - probably because I wrote a lengthy critical review of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk.
http://creation.com/fossils-plant-survival-flood



Shafted?

Well, the creationists keep telling the courts under oath and the public that creationism is purely justified by science alone and as soon as they open their big mouths, they just have to tell us what their religion is.

To quote "S.B. from Australia writes:

Hi I am a creationist/Christian and I have recently seen the fury of flooding waters in the area of Queensland Australia. If the force of water of inland tsunami’s caused by torrential rain as seen in Toowoomba, QLD, can cause so much ...."
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron