Creation science

Tater:

Juntel, you insist that evolution is not treated as a religion. Look around you

Tater, do I really treat evolution as a religion? I mean, really? Look in this thread for evidences of my treating evolution as a religion... a religion being sets of dogma that can't be questionned by experience nor logic.
I've never here treated evolution and the theories trying to explain it's existence as infallible; I've merely said, at most, that it hadn't been defeated yet by arguments such as ICR's or the ones invoked by Lurker. I've even said that in the future evolution and the theories of evolution could indeed be brought down (in this post, to be exact).
Do you and others at ICR ever say that Creationism (ICR's brand) could be brought down by experimentations, by research? NO. Because ultimately that is dogma, that is faith. And because of this, ICR's Creationism is religion, not science.

So, if after all you do think that I treat evolution as a religion (which I don't think you have said so so far), then I don't think I could convince you otherwise; I'll let our Entmooter friends decide that by themselves.
But if you really don't think that I treat evolution as a religion, that I suggest that you look around in litterature, in universities, etc... the official position isn't much different from mine (as exposed here in this thread). If evolution was a religion, ICR and others wouldn't be pointing out at debates among evolutionists about mechanisms of evolution, and other debates where evolutionists do question the structure itself of evolution and the theories pertaining to it, they do still do research on that field because they know we don't know all there is and there is still much to learn. They know that evolution and its pertaining theories aren't perfect (and they never deny this), in the same way that all sciences are not perfect.

And that is not only my personal opinion on this, it is the usual philosophy that scientists have towards their art.
However strong you may try to deny this...



Lurker:

"The things that I will forever believe: God does exist. God did cause the Universe to come into existance."

I of course will not try to debate against this. I believe that the truth or falsity of these are outside of sciences or logics.


"The things that I will debate..."

I do expect from you that you will support your bible scenario on its own grounds, by that I mean that, unlike the people at ICR, you will try to find direct evidence pointing towards its acceptability, rather than just try to destroy the actual scientific explanation and thinking that only the bible explanation would survive.

As for the old-Earth theories, I'll do my best to see your arguments, think them over, study them.

"I do not contend that [creationsim] is part of science"

Then at least we two have one thing less to disagree on. That you "do feel it overlaps with the natural world in many places" isn't a problem at all for me.


"I must beg to differ here" (about the billion year old petrified human skeleton finding scenario)

I can't prevent you from begging to differ.
I did choose that big number (1 billion years) for good reasons.
As for discrediting the dating, well, the dating could be done over and over again. When I say that the skeleton would be dated 1 billion years old, it does take into account independant dating from different labs, etc. (i guess i should have made that more precise in my original scenario)


"Science makes definitions to suit the theory-du-jour as well"

Not totally false, not totally true. Definitions and assumptions are important in science, that's true. But the theory must not be impervious to testing in experimentations.
But it ain't true that a definition can be made to make an already existing theory true. If one changes or makes definitions, the explanation or theory is changed, and must be treated as such.
So, one doesn't make or change a definition to suit a theory, but rather to make a new one, to make a new explanation, that in turn must be tested itself.

But, coming back to the subject of transitional forms, so if ICR's adepts do change what is to be considered a transitional form, then they shouldn't expect a theory of evolution to abide by it, since it isn't even what it was predicting anyway: ICR's position on transitional forms is of their own making, and not what is predicted by theories of evolution.


"I guess your literary suggestions might count as some enrichment"

It may come to a point when I'll only do that, literary suggestions.


"Philip E. Johnson"

Haven't heard of this book. Is it available at Chapters (probably not if it's coming from Harper!), or Indigo?

"The Lost World"

I did enjoy my browsing through the "Jurassic Parc" book; the mathmatician was rendered a bit too stupid in the movie though.
Haven't browsed through LostWorld yet... but do be sure that I won't see the movie before browsing through the book: I know from reports that the mathematician is the main character! The last time I saw a mathematician as main character in a movie is Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs"!
I wonder how far Crichton has pushed the "chaos" issue...


"if I can make you question your beliefs, then I guess that's worth a bit"

I'm already very good at questioning my own beliefs, whatever some others might think. And yes, the material of this thread will enter into my counter-arguments I will make against my own arguments.

I hope I will not be the only one getting out of here enriched...



"Even nice people who did almost nothing wrong in their lives?" (my quote)

What makes you ROFL on this one? I did say "almost"...
But I guess that not believing in god is the most ultimate wrong doing in your religion...


"I know that I am justified in my faith, in the same manner that I know I'm sitting on my chair right now. I don't have to see it... I can feel it. Not in the physical sense (except for the chair), but I can feel it right there nonetheless."

I don't doubt that.
I also know that is the same feeling that faithfull muslims, buddhists, jews, hindus, etc... have of their own faith.
That doesn't mean either of you are wrong, though.
Nor right.


"Some of juntel's posts would suggest that this is about whether creation is a science, not which theory is more valid... *shrug*"

A theory that is scientific doesn't make it necessarily valid.
A theory isn't necessarily scientific.
I contend that Creationism (esp. ICR's) is not science.
Could the Creationist theory be valid? Yes, as much as the Matrix scenario of mine could.
All I say is that neither two is scientific.

*Shrug* all you want...


"Maybe you don't use your coccyx..."

I myself use my coccyx in Scrabble. Very helpfull. j/k



Quickbeam:

"Archaeopteryx"

I guess at this point I'll just have to give some literature to read, just for Entmooters to know by themselves what Stephen J Gould has to say about evolution and the theories of evolution:

Some books by Stephen J Gould one should read:

Ever Since Darwin (very nice introduction to evolution through a collection of some articles he wrote in some magazines)
The Panda's Thumb
The Mismeasure of Man (if some still think evolution has anything to do really with racism, geniocraty or eugenistics)
Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes
The Flamingo's Smile
An Urchin in the Storm
Wonderfull Life
Bully for Brontosaurus
Eight Little Piggies
Dinosaur in a Haystack
Full House

Too much? Well, begin with the first one...
All can be found i'm sure through Amazon; and most I hope at your local municipal library. Or at bookstores.

Gould is often quoted by ICR... so above are most of his vulgarized works: rather than just reading quotes, go for the books themselves.
You can read Tolkien's bricks? Than you can read Gould!


Your suggestion, Juntel, that these transitions could take place without these intermediates existing is amazing to me. It seems to be a particularly powerful strain of the standard evolutionary 'how much we don't yet know' quasi-argument"

You see evolution of life as a simple ladder, from simple forms of life at the bottom, and more complex at the top, and you want science to find what you and ICR think must be a continuous spectrum of intermediate "rungs" in that ladder.
What can I say? Just that your and ICR's view of evolution simplifies it too much. There is no such ladder of evolution, it is seen rather as a beautifull "tree" with many embranchments, some leading nowhere, some continuing upward by splitting into different branches.
When two forms of life separated by millions of years are said to be related, it doesn't mean one is the direct descendant of the other; it only means they come from the same embranchment.

Again, please Entmooters, do read the above books by SJ Gould, and the books he himself suggests. And do go on reading the ICR site (www.icr.org). Don't believe me or QB, or Lurker or Tater, do go on learn by yourselves.

(btw, QB, "we don't know yet" isnn't an argument, it is a fact. We don't know yet everything there is to know about evolution, the origin of life, the origin of the universe, and oh! so many other things. And science doesn't hide from that fact.)


"Darwin's 'mechanism for evolution' that I referred to was the idea that little things in the blood called 'genomes' (I think that was the term) transmitted information to the sex cells. What he theorized was that when, for example, a relatively short-necked animal stretched out it's neck to reach leaves on trees to eat, the genomes would carry to the sex organs the message that the next generation needed a longer neck. Over many generations, the long neck of the giraffe thus evolved"

Hmm... Darwin as a Lamarckist... I'll leave that one to Lurker himself.
Or IronParrot.


*About "Glen Rose" footprints... I'm sorry that at the time, and right now, I didn't have the name of the ICR own debunker of this. I'll go at the library today and look for the name.


"It's only the verbal or literary 'crossing of swords' that I'm uncomfortable with"

And so am I. I ain't the perfect debater, I admit it.

But when I read (between the lines at least) that geologists, zoologists, archeologists, paleontologists, biologists (molecular biologists, geneticists, etc), astrophysicists, physicists, and others are all adding little lies after little lies just to support evolution and the theories of evolution... it is something that I myself am amazed at that somebody would just take that belief in a series of lies, which amounts to nothing more than a conspiracy of scientists, and believe it.

I guess that if I did offend someone by my words, it was a unconscious reaction to prevent me from smacking my forehead with my hand and hurting myself.


"'And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven given among people by which we may be saved.' (Acts 4:12)"

Hmmm... and if I never confess Jeesus as my personal savior, even when I die, I am not saved? Do I go then to hell? Would I ever be in heaven?


"I'm guessing there will be question about that that will be raised in a subsequent post"

Or you could start another thread...

IP, both QB and myself have given an abundance of evidence showing that evolution is treated like a religion. Juntel, I'm not saying this is the official view or your view. That would be rediculous: why would scientists admit it is their view? Do what you've been telling others to do, don't believe everything you read.

Lurker, why are the fairies rediculous? I'm not saying that's what they were, but please, open your mind, do you not want to accept them because it doesn't fit in with your view of the world? Then you're no different then the evolutionists. Oh, and Johnson is awesome.

QB, I pitty you. You're showing a lot of prejudice by saying that those who are not Christians cannot be saved. Living by what Jesus said and knowing the truth about Him are two different things. Let's look at Taoism. Currently it's sorta worped, but in its original state Taoism was based around what is obviously a prophecy about Jesus. Sure, it doesn't use the same words, but the Tao and the Word are definately the same thing. And what about Arab's, especially women, who cannot possibly accept Jesus without death and often don't know about him? I'm reminded of something I read once. A pastor has just evangelized some eskimo's. A young boy comes up to him and asks "Father, if I didn't know about Jesus and his teachings and sinned would I go to hell?"
The pastor responded that the boy would be forgiven because he had not been taught.
"Then why did you tell me?" asked the boy.

Quickbeam:

Yes, I got a bit carried away; no, I wasn't really desperate for an argument against you, it's just that (personaly) it's always bothered me how Christians said that everyone except them would go to the "firepit", because that would mean only 3 out of 10 people are really "good" in the opinions of Christians. Just my personal opinion.
I shouldn't have posted, but that was one of the things that majorly annoys me, so I apologize.

And about Cynodont; my "latest" news come from April, 2000. What time do your "latest" news come from?

I'm really getting tired of this thread... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\">

I am too

Hey, I am too... I'm reading it... just not posting 'cause I know not enough!

But now, posts are getting longer and longer... (In fact I just read the short ones)

Heck! I'm tired also!
Mentally and physically.
But it doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it.
When I work out, do some sport, I get tired too.
So also when I play chess (which I do poorly...)
None of us should have expected changing another's point of vue here. We have all our lives ahead of us where we can learn more, if we want.

And really, really my friends, the truth or falsity of evolution or creationism does in no way affect how I live my life. Really.
The subject will be forever open, for our descendants.


I still don't think science or evolution is a religion: the questioning of the ways of evolution (whatever you or QB or Lurker think) is a reality; or else there wouldn't be such people as Gould, Eldredge, Cairns-Smith or others for the creationists to quote from.

Sciences in the past that thought they had a final answer to problems of nature have been thrown down by new discoveries, new explanations that gave a better picture of nature - although a very incomplete one, something that science doesn't deny.
As I mentioned before, even mathematics didn't escape that fate.

And these lessons from the history of science are not forgotten by the scientific community.
Diverse philosophies of the ways of science have emerged to try to understand the inner workings. Some are nihilistic in nature (Feyeraband), others commenting on its social nature made its marks in many other fields (Kuhn's paradigm paradigm), and others bear on the legitimacy of what should be called scientific or not (Popper).
Whatever one think of those previous philosophies of science, the point is that science is under scrutiny as deeper as it has ever been, not only by scientists themselves, but by philosophers and others. Even creation "scientists". All that scrutiny is a good thing; and science get stronger with these.
Some here may take what I've just said and ridiculize it, saying that scientists are afraid to "rock the boat"; or maybe that scientists conspire to keep their theories at all costs, even the cost of truth from nature; or maybe that scientists all over the world are simply blind to the truth; and whatever else...

All I can say is: inform yourselves, just don't believe all you here, be it science or religion. What I want you to remember is that science has been made by us all (humanity) not to be believe blindly, but to question nature itself in the neverending quest to understand it. And one must do science as independantly as possible of our opinions as what nature should be.
Science is not against or contrary to religion, and vice-versa.
The two can coexist, and that's a fact.
That it cannot coexist for some, that's also a very sad fact: those are religious or scientific extremists.

That there are some scientists who take their art as religion, I may believe that, it wouldn't be uncommon; filmmakers thinking they are some kind of gods have been noticed also, and so it is for some writers also, etc...
But the community itself, I have observed personally, isn't like that; there are questionings of the foundations, and of many other aspects. There is no dogma. Where there were dogmas, coming from a blindingly proud past, those dogmas have fallen (the last dogma I saw fall was the "Fundamental Dogma of Biology", about the one-way orientation of the transfer of information from dna to rna to proteins...)

But since the protagonists of this thread seems fed up with this thread, maybe I also should put an end to my contributions.

I'll see if L or QB have anything new to say.

And as wheter this one or that one will be saved by Jeesus, I do suggest that another thread be started; one in which I may contribute little, since it doesn't really concern me.


btw... I would like to suggest another book: The Triumph of Evolution, by Niles Eldredge. He has an interesting chapter on P. Johnson. I hope to find Mr.Johnson's book soon!

This thread is getting very depressing...
Before the admins close it, I think that Quickbeam and others who didn't yet reply should get a chance to make their final statements (with replies to my Cynodont question, please ).

PS My 150th post!

Closing the thread?
Was the abortion thread closed? I don't think so...
I think it went cold by itself, by people simply not posting there anymore.

I absolutely don't mind not having the last word!.....


PS: my 2516th post!
I did see a guy once with something like 100,000 posts... no kidding! And honestly, I don't envy him!!!! The sun and blue skies are too precious!

yes, but 2516 isn't a "celebratable" number; 150 is, as is 100, 200, 1500, etc.

Besides, you've been here for-
How much longer than me? Anyone?

... Hey! I just noticed that I'm an elven warrior! When did I become that?... Wasn't it 200 posts?

First of all... from an admin perspective, I see no reason to close this thread. If the discussion dies, it'll naturally sink, as juntel pointed out.

Secondly, I'm only ahead of juntel by three weeks in terms of time since ezboard registration, but my post count is more than double his... hehe, just boasting... who was the guy with 100,000 btw? Do you recall any clue to his whereabouts?

And hey, does anybody here have a higher post count than me?

I hate to have to keep making the same point over and over, but Juntel refuses to stop comparing the 'fine-tuning' of evolution to the basic assumption of creation.
Let me try this once more. Both creation and evolution have a central, unchallengable assumption. Both creation and evolution have ongoing research that results in changes in the fine points of the theory. Both creation and evolution have disagreements between subscribing scientists on some of these fine points. So, as I said much earlier, both creation and evolution are scientific in the broad sense, and religious in terms of their unquestionable central assumptions. The argument is only over which is the BETTER scientific model. That is where we differ.
I don't ask for an admission of wrong or an apology, Juntel. I just ask that you not say YET AGAIN that evolution is science because there is ongoing research and changes, and creation is religion because it starts with a belief in God. This is a distorted and unfair comparison, and you demean yourself and your position by continuing to harp on it.
I also remind you that I DID give you an example of something that would falsify Creation. Your response was to suggest that a shell could turn into a central spine and attached bones without any intermediates existing that had these features in the process of forming. That argument can be made in regards to transitions between vertebrates, as you have also done. Those changes are less black and white, especially in terms of skeletal structure. (There is still no definitive evidence, but it's at least conceivable.) But I chose the invertebrate-vertebrate transition because I assumed you would agree that fossils of intermediates in THAT series would be unmistakable, regardless of which invertebrate was the starting point. Your response is applicable to vertebrate-vertebrate transitions, but the invertebrate-vertebrate change, as far as I can see, is sufficiently profound that it transcends this kind of explanation. This is the one thing I would still be interested in hearing more from you about.
I agree with what you say about Gould, and if you recall I suggested people read about all these things for themselves, from BOTH sides of the issue, in my first post on this subject when it began in the LotR forum. But that doesn't change the fact that Gould admitted that archaeopteryx was NOT transitional, and other evolutionists agree.
I never said, nor do I believe that I think evolutionists are lying. Mostly they are only guilty of rationalization, of finding what they want to find and seeing what they want to see. All of us are guilty of this sometimes. We all want to be right, and that desire can cloud our judgment, particularly in those instances when future funding is on the line. It's not a specific indictment of evolutionists, it's just human nature. There are changes made in fine points of evolution, and some of the more obvious errors are eventually found out, but many more go unchallenged because the central assumption of evolution - that everything got the way it is by naturalistic means - is not allowed to be questioned. So I don't believe most evolutionists engage in willful deception; but, from my point of view, being unintentionally wrong is still being wrong. You obviously don't agree, because you think evolution is basically correct.
For the cynodont thing, Niffiwan, I really can't give any better an answer than I already have. We have differing interpretations of the data. It's just not something we're going to agree on, and we'll have to leave it at that.
I do agree, Juntel, that there is still obviously huge amounts of data that we don't know. My objection is when evolutionists use 'there's still so much we don't know' as a way to bypass data that contradicts evolution. From your point of view, however, this is reasonable, and it's just going to be another thing on which we won't agree because of our different starting points.
On the theological things that have come up, I also think that a separate thread would be better. If someone is interested enough to start one, I'll be happy to elaborate on the points earlier raised.
I can't think of anything I want to say to sum up that hasn't already been covered. This has been interesting, and will undoubtedly be remembered by all of us for some time to come. I just want to thank my opponents in this debate for not getting too nasty, and I again apologize if anything I posted was taken that way.

as to whether to do another great big huge megapost, responding to everything everyone said that could have the slightest importance whatsoever.

I decided not to.

"a religion being sets of dogma that can't be questionned by experience nor logic."

Religion can be questioned PLENTY by logic and experience. Not conclusively, but...

"that it hadn't been defeated yet by arguments such as ICR's or the ones invoked by Lurker."

I would like to think that if I had put in the effort of explaining all my arguments in detail, providing logical and factual evidence, that you would see some of the gaping holes in the present model of evolution. Unfortunately, I'm just too freakin' lazy to ever find out... at least tonight... er, this morning.

"As for the old-Earth theories, I'll do my best to see your arguments, think them over, study them."

Nothing sucks more than running out of energy in the middle of a debate. It's not your fault... it's just... maybe there's some point right at the edge of my mind, and trying to process it is sapping my attention span... or maybe I just can't stick to one thread for a prolonged period of time without a whiff of some sort of victory (I have actually won battles on religious subjects... very, very minor ones, but still...).

If I get the energy back, I'll put it into the Quebec forum first, and this second.

As far as the things I've said, I do hope that I've left you with enough of an inkling as to what I meant that you can interpolate the rest... that's a bit doubtful, though.

"I did choose that big number (1 billion years) for good reasons."

And I am of the opinion that no matter how big the number is, it can still be compensated for. In fact, the presence of a skeletion "conclusively" dated at 10^9 years would probably be enough for the fashionable age of the earth to be multiplied hundredfold.

(The cards are glued together)

"But it ain't true that a definition can be made to make an already existing theory true."

I'll use this as an example for now, because I'll be honest, I don't have any provable examples that directly pertain to evolution.

Let's say someone says I'm a homophobe.

I take this as an unjust insult, and say, "No I'm not!"

They say, "You think men having sex with other men is morally wrong, right?"

I say, "I guess so... but that doesn't mean-"

They say, "Then you're a homophobe, because you're biased against that lifestyle."

I ask them to look up the word "phobia" in a dictionary.


But as far as definitions changing in science, you can look at the examples of definitions of supposed "constants" that were later proved not to be constant. (I haven't looked at this - it just sprung to mind, so I won't tell you what you'll find) Possible examples: The speed of sound, the boiling point of water... and on a different train of thought entirely, you could look at biological classification criteria... or even the definition of "life". Not necessarily changed to suit a hypothesis, but I bet that when the current definition has been found inadequate or flawed, they've been changed. Sounds logical, eh?

But if you see how this form of correction could be used to keep a hypothesis viable....

"Haven't heard of this book. Is it available at Chapters (probably not if it's coming from Harper!), or Indigo?"

Not sure. I think I picked it up at Blessings Christian Marketplace - it was published by a Christian publishing company. Please don't write it off because of that.

"if ICR's adepts do change what is to be considered a transitional form"

Perhaps they're only being more specific as to what is to be considered... look at whether the definition they're proposing is a subset of the currently accepted definition, or whether it's another thing altogether. (Definition of "life"...)

"I'm already very good at questioning my own beliefs, whatever some others might think."

I suppose.

"What makes you ROFL on this one? I did say "almost"...
But I guess that not believing in god is the most ultimate wrong doing in your religion..."

Two parts.

Firstly, I laughed at the notion of a mature adult being "almost" perfect... it's simply ludicrous. If you look at the sheer number of things that are incorporated in the Christian definition of "perfection" - my working definition (especially after Christ raised the standard to include thoughts)...

And as far as the most ultimate wrong, I don't think you're clear on that.

I am under the impression that it's worse to know about God and to rebel against him than to not know about him... If you wish, I could come up with some Biblical quotations to support this - I'm sure that I read this, just don't have the verse written down anywhere.

"*Shrug* all you want..."

Thank you for granting me permission :P

I shrug because it's irrelevant to me.

"Again, please Entmooters, do read the above books by SJ Gould, and the books he himself suggests."

I dunno... if I don't have to pay for them, then I'll probably keep them in mind.

"Hmmm... and if I never confess Jeesus as my personal savior, even when I die, I am not saved? Do I go then to hell? Would I ever be in heaven?"

There's a reason why the NIV of the Bible is over a thousand pages long... it's not easy to sum it up in a few words. Things are interdependant - a doctrinal issue taken by itself won't make a lot of sense.


Dang, I said I wasn't going to do another megapost... ah, well.

Good night, and take care.

And don't worry about trampling that house of cards.

IP:

That guy with 100,000 posts or so... I think he was some sort of dancer, not that this would be an indication of why he would have such an ezboard record...
I'll try to find him out again (he had posted in ezboard's own ezboard)


Quickbeam:

*About evolution as science and Creationism as religion: I've developped quite extensively on this in my posts. You bring nothing new that would urge me to post anything new on this.


*About Creationism's falsifiability: you DID NOT give a proper example, since you mistreated what should be considered as transitional form, nor considered evolution as a big set of embranchments, rather than just a simple ladder; I have talked about that in my last long post.


*About scientists (esp. those among them that support evolution idea) as liars: you didn't say explicitly they are liars. I listed earlier a long list of what kind of sciences/scientists furnish evidences supporting evolution. This represents not just a handfull of people in the world, but many hundreds of thousands, and much more. Also add to that many watch dogs as philosophers, commentators, students (young and old), etc.. that look and study and scrutinize evolution and the theories of evolution. To say that all those people are blinded by their rationalisations is tantamount to saying that reason is blind.
Reason can't explain all there is in our sentient world, I don't deny this; but reason is the only one that can study the natural world scientifically.

*I do not think evolution is necessarily basically correct; I do not myself enough knowledge or didn't study enough the subject to make such a assertion. But I know it enough and studied it enough to say that what supports it has been attained by scientific means, and that the theories of evolution (ie those that try to descrive how the process of evolution did happen) are also scientific in character and content.
So, that was my main goal in this thread: not to say that evolution and the theories of evolution are correct (true), but that contrary to ICR's Creation "Science", they are of scientific nature.


"My objection is when evolutionists use 'there's still so much we don't know' as a way to bypass data that contradicts evolution"

There is as yet to be data that contradict evolution. So your objection is pointless.
There is "still so much we don't know", so no, because of that scientists can't give ALL the details of what happened everyday of those billions of years of our past.


"I just want to thank my opponents in this debate for not getting too nasty, and I again apologize if anything I posted was taken that way."

I don't think you're nasty.
But ICR (www.icr.org) undoutbtedly is; one evidence of this is the article from them I linked in an earlier post.


Lurker:

"Nothing sucks more than running out of energy in the middle of a debate"

We can do that another time. In a few months? This isn't a contest. Time is irrelevant. I save the pages of this thread on my hard disk, and Entmooters can do the same. We can get back to it whenever one wants.


"...you can interpolate the rest... that's a bit doubtful, though"

Now it's your turn to underestimate me!



"the presence of a skeletion "conclusively" dated at 10^9 years would probably be enough for the fashionable age of the earth to be multiplied hundredfold."


The age of the earth is a matter for the science of geology. They won't change to age of the earth just because of one finding that shakens the basis of biology.
Fossil records may have been a way for geologists to qualitatively categorize the time-hierarchy of geological layers, but the absolute quantitative dating is independant of the fossil records.
Fossil records are still used for preliminary qualitative identifications of the stratta, but when it comes to quantitative dating, the fossil can't say much and can't influence the results: in fact only they can the fossils be themselves dated. So there is no "vicious circle" as ICR's Creationists (and some others) want to let believe.

The cards are mostly independant.
That's what makes the house of cards fragile: it often needs a correlation of findings.
And when that correlation is there (as it is for evolution), we have an explanation (even though incomplete) that is supported indepedently from many sides.

It is not evolution that created those supports and evidences; it is those supports and evidences that create evolution.
Whereas Creationism is not created by evidences; it is, deep down, created by belief in the bible.

*About definitions: my quote was "But it ain't true that a definition can be made to make an already existing theory true."
I stand by it, and I don't see how you explanation attacks this.
As I said before, if you change a definition, than a related theory also changes.
So, in the context of how this definition debate came to be, if someone changes what a transitional form SHOULD appear in evolution, even though the original theories of evolution didn't see it that way, you are then making your own theory of evolution, and shouldn't expect others to think this was one of the original theories...
Anyway, that's my view....
(no, their transitional form thing isn't a subset bla bla bla... it's just a result of their view of evolution as a naive ladder).

Juntel, notice that when scientists talk about evolution they do so as if it's a fact. They hardly ever refer to it as a theory. And when something dissagrees with this fact they change that. No, it's not the official view, of course, but for the most part it's the way it is. Please, listen to the way scientists speak, to what they say, to why they change things in their theories, and how their theories come about. Evolution is becoming a dogma that more and more parts of science are based around.

And no one's closing this thread

"Now it's your turn to underestimate me!"

Once you see the extent of them... you may think again.

"They won't change to age of the earth just because of one finding that shakens the basis of biology."

Do you really think that the scientific checks and balances would be strong enough to prevent this from happening?

"the absolute quantitative dating is independant of the fossil records."

This is a difference in opinions.

You seem to think that the scientific community doesn't fudge the facts.

I think they quite frequently do, whether it be through sheer incompetence (of which there is no end), through malice, or through misdirected altruism.

"The cards are mostly independant."

A card usually won't stand up by itself...

A card usually won't stand up by itself...

I think he means that while they do lean on one another, they're not glued together. For instance, if the bottom card was removed, yes the house would crumble. However, if you remove the top card then the house would just get a bit wobbly untill a replacement is found. I think Juntel means that the cards are movable, and not glued together like someone (Quickbeam? I'm can't check now...) said. So it is still possible to remove a few cards (from the top of the house) without the structure collapsing. If you remove the bottom cards then it will collapse like any other theory.

Wasn't me!

Tater:

When I hear a science reporters talk about black holes, I do sometimes get the impression black holes are experimental facts; when I do get out a bit of vulgarized scientific expositions made by those journalists, I do see that this isn't so. There are evidences that make black holes very close to be experimental facts.

Now, as for evolution being a fact.
What do you think a fact is, in science? Is a fact an absolute truth, or something we know can never be false?
Facts, in science, are the measures we take, the things we observe.
Facts, contrary to what a famous expression says, do not speak by themselves.
To have meaning, facts must be interpreted by some structure.
That usually is what we call a theory.
So, a theory can't become a fact, no more than fact become theory.
Both "need" each other, rely on each other, have no meaning without each other.
Evolution is a scientific fact. And there are theories of evolution (Darwin's natural selection theory for exemple) to try to explain how it happened.
So is evolution an absolute fact, that cannot be false whatsoever? No. And science doesn't say that in any way.
And as new researches are done constantly, new discoveries about nature will tell us where science was right and where it was wrong, and accordingly to what nature "tells" us science WILL amend their explanations (ie theories) to try to make new ones that are more in accord with what nature "told" us in the whole.
So you see Tater, those changes in theories are not rare: they are usually the rule. And that, Tater, is because science is not dogma.
Dogma doesn't change, dogma is there to make you believe, whatever it is we see around us; and dogma is also there to make one blind to whatever there is that can contradict dogma.


Lurker:

"Once you see the extent of them... you may think again"

Meaning... that since I'm not agreeing with you, I haven't seen enough of them.
I don't think this needs any more comments...


"Do you really think that the scientific checks and balances would be strong enough to prevent this from happening?"

Yes. Unless you want to propose the existence of a global conspiracy of most of the scientists......


"I think they quite frequently do [fudge the facts], whether it be through sheer incompetence (of which there is no end), through malice, or through misdirected altruism"

......and I do see now that you do.

You are free of course to think what you do.
However, thinking is one thing, proving it another.
But I guess some tactics do need the absence of proofs...


"A card usually won't stand up by itself..."

But that is only the limit of the analogy of a house of cards you started with. All analogy have their limits.
I did go along with your analogy to answer the question of the fragility of scientific theories: I see that fragility as a quality of science, contrary to the hard unmovability of a strict dogma (which evolution and science in general isn't)

Quickbeam:

I didn't go to the library today, so couldn't fetch up that name about the debunker of the GlenRose footprints. Sorry about that; tomorrow maybe. I ain't forgetting, don't worry.

I haven't posted in this thread at all, although I've been lurking on it and I've read most of it. But, I do know who has over 100,000 posts: It's some guy named Bugforest, and I checked his profile and he has 102,856 posts.

I'd just like to commend juntel for his amazing posts, and he basically says whatever I would say about this issue, if I could write that well

I don't know if this has been brought up in this thread, but recently Kansas Board of Education elections ousted the people who voted against evolution in schools, so now that will be overturned. Any comments about that?

Hmmm... I wonder how many "Anything Thread" one would have to start to get to 102 000 posts...