ACLU Vs Creationism

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Those types of results are obtained because either the wrong method was used or an improper sample was tested. I believe that was covered in Dr. Wiens’ paper.

Will look at it.

Orogeny:

So, evolution must be arithmetic or chemistry to be valid?

To be AS valid. It is distinct from these disciplines because it (non-human to human) is not observable even once let alone over and over and over again as arithmetic and chemistry allow.

Orogeny:

What??? You mean like claiming that “evolutionists” are evil because there is too much evidence that evolution is real?

/QUOTE]

I used the example, not because it had Christians in it, but because it showed that irrefutable evidence does not bring the number of negative arguments against it that evolutionary theory does - even if there is extremely high religious motivation to do so.

 

[Brad]

2+2 is arithmetic. What is the point? That if evolution is not arithmetic, it cannot be true?

Peace

Tim

The point is arithmetic is verifiably true by observation. Evolutionary theory (that which says humans came from non-humans) is not.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Sorry, but that is not proof. That is observations supporting the theory. Exactly what we have with evolution.

What is this “theory of addition” you refer to?

Peace

Tim

I was using “theory of addition” phrase to emphasize that it is not a theory but a fact.

20 people can each take 2 blocks and then receive 2 more blocks and confirm they have 4 blocks. Every person could confirm that every other person has 4 blocks

20 people can stare at the rocks and the DNA and do math, science and other forms of analysis over them and never produce a human from a non-human. Every person could not confirm that this happens or ever happened by producing evidence (like 4 bocks).

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

The point is arithmetic is verifiably true by observation. Evolutionary theory (that which says humans came from non-humans) is not.

Arithmetic is not science.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

I was using “theory of addition” phrase to emphasize that it is not a theory but a fact.

20 people can each take 2 blocks and then receive 2 more blocks and confirm they have 4 blocks. Every person could confirm that every other person has 4 blocks

20 people can stare at the rocks and the DNA and do math, science and other forms of analysis over them and never produce a human from a non-human. Every person could not confirm that this happens or ever happened by producing evidence (like 4 bocks).

Addition is not science.

Peace

Tim

 

[mlchance]

Orogeny:

Arithmetic is not science.

Maybe arithmetic isn’t, but mathematics is. Various definitions of mathematics:

science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

The science of patterns and order and the study of measurement, properties, and the relationships of quantities; using numbers and symbols.
www.iteawww.org/TAA/Glossary.htm

The science of structure, order, and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the shapes of objects. It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative calculation …[Britannica Online v 1.31, 1995]
www.mathematicallycorrect.com/glossary.htm

Genus: Science. Differentia: The relationship and properties of quantities, through the use of numbers
www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Dictionary.html

The science that deals with numbers, quantities, shapes, patterns measurement, and the concepts related to them, and their relationships. Includes arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, etc.
www.sssoftware.com/docs/wnadoc/glossary.html

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Nope.

Peace

Tim

Not an intelligent designer of evolution or not science?

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Arithmetic is not science.

Peace

Tim

Correct - so, by extenstion, potentially false science should be properly demonstrated as such and not taught as fact to impressionable young minds.

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Addition is not science.

Peace

Tim

See previous post.

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Not an intelligent designer of evolution or not science?

Not science.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

Correct - so, by extenstion, potentially false science should be properly demonstrated as such and not taught as fact to impressionable young minds.

Sorry, but your continued claim that evolution, geology, etc are false sciences doesn’t make it so. Evolution and geology are in fact science and should be taught that way.

Peace

Tim

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

Sorry, but your continued claim that evolution, geology, etc are false sciences doesn’t make it so. Evolution and geology are in fact science and should be taught that way.

Peace

Tim

I didn’t say it was false. I said it was potentially false. It is just as potentially false as it is potentially true. It should be taught within this perspective.

I read the arguments refuting the questioning of radiometric dating. They spend a good deal of time criticizing his motivation and methods but very little time proving the false dates are actually not false. In fact, they agree that many radiometric dates give false results. How can we rely on a method that is only accurate sometimes?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catholic2003:

As far as science is concerned, evolution is both a fact and a theory. Intelligent design is essentially just another name for creationism.

Now, if the school wants to teach creationism and intelligent design along with African, Babylonian, and Lakota creation myths, then they are perfectly free to. However, in science class, they should stick to science.

== What a strange idea ==

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

I didn’t say it was false. I said it was potentially false. It is just as potentially false as it is potentially true. It should be taught within this perspective.

So geology should be taught as potentially false?

I read the arguments refuting the questioning of radiometric dating. They spend a good deal of time criticizing his motivation and methods but very little time proving the false dates are actually not false.

They also spend a great deal of time explaining the methodology and, based on proper methodology, why people like Steve Austin are wrong.

In fact, they agree that many radiometric dates give false results. How can we rely on a method that is only accurate sometimes?

You didn’t understand the article in the link I gave if you. Improper techniques and improper sampling will give improper dates. Proper methodology will give proper dates within a margin of error. It’s all there.

Once again, just because you say it doesn’t work, or more accurately, you don’t understand it, doesn’t make it false or invalid.

Peace

Tim

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I understand that the scientific community has a consensus on evolution though there may be some debates around the edges. Is Intelligent Design a specific theory? Or is every individual or group have their own Intelligent Design?

To say that “order reflects God and beauty in Nature points to God” does that make me an IDer?

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

You didn’t understand the article in the link I gave if you. Improper techniques and improper sampling will give improper dates. Proper methodology will give proper dates within a margin of error. It’s all there.

No. You didn’t understand what I said. I said that the authors in the links you gave me ADMIT that some of the rocks give improper younger dates. They spent a good deal of time criticizing methodolgy but they still ADMIT that rocks are tossed that give “bad” dates.

Thus, “proper” methodolgy does not always give proper dates within a margin of error - those that do not are tossed and explained away.

My question is how can you call this methodology “proper” if it doesn’t always work?

 

[Brad]

Orogeny:

So geology should be taught as potentially false?

If it is potentially false it should not be taught as fact and then try to retrofit what is classified as religion into these “facts.”

The metaphysics pushed by Hawking and others has a purposeful intent to be able to explain all (the Final Theory, The Theory of Everything etc.) through naturallistic means so that the mind of God may be known. In other words, they will not settle for any theory that allows for the unknown - they will keep working until nothing is unknown. This motivation is misguided because there will always be things that we will not know through reason alone. In general, science is guided by this motivation and it should not be. It should know it has limitations - they can say that a good majority believe… or 85% of samples show us that… but they should not teach impressionable minds “facts” that are really only theories or possibilities.

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

No. You didn’t understand what I said. I said that the authors in the links you gave me ADMIT that some of the rocks give improper younger dates.

Finish the thought - some rocks give improper younger dates when improper methods are used or the proper method is used improperly.

How many of the improper dates were derived using more than one dating method?

They spent a good deal of time criticizing methodolgy but they still ADMIT that rocks are tossed that give “bad” dates.

If the date is validated with multiple methods, the date is not tossed. Can you give me an example of a date derived from multiple dating techniques on the same sample that was tossed?

Thus, “proper” methodolgy does not always give proper dates within a margin of error - those that do not are tossed and explained away.

If the method is the proper method for the sample and the sample is a proper sample, the dates will be acceptable. Do you have an example where this is not true?

My question is how can you call this methodology “proper” if it doesn’t always work?

Show me where it doesn’t work.

From Dr. Weins’ article:

14*. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.*

There are indeed ways to “trick” radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Brad:

If it is potentially false it should not be taught as fact and then try to retrofit what is classified as religion into these “facts.”

What?

The metaphysics pushed by Hawking and others has a purposeful intent to be able to explain all (the Final Theory, The Theory of Everything etc.) through naturallistic means so that the mind of God may be known. In other words, they will not settle for any theory that allows for the unknown - they will keep working until nothing is unknown. This motivation is misguided because there will always be things that we will not know through reason alone. In general, science is guided by this motivation and it should not be. It should know it has limitations - they can say that a good majority believe… or 85% of samples show us that… but they should not teach impressionable minds “facts” that are really only theories or possibilities.

OK, Brad. You have the pulpit. When should scientists quit looking for explanations?

Peace

Tim

 

[Asking]

Anybody here knows how the Jews read Genesis?

Do they read it in a literal way or do they believe in evolution?