Is defending a 'young' earth necessary?

[rogue06]

What few realize, and Jorge certainly won't tell you, is that every single person who writes, or does work for the most prominent, “prestigious” YEC groups like the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) are required to agree beforehand that no matter what they uncover it must not, cannot, in any way, demonstrate that evolution takes place or that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. And no I’m not making this stuff up. AnswersinGenesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) require the same thing.

These groups oblige all those who work for them to sign documents that compel them to ignore evidence that goes against the organization’s particular reading of various Bible verses. IOW, they can only accept what they had already assumed. Here is the statement of faith required by CMI (which is nearly identical to the Statement of Faith that AiG demand you sign). And here is the oath ICR forces their people to sign.

When you are required to sign a statement of faith or oath like this that requires that you ignore all evidence that shows evolution taking place or that the Earth or universe is older than a few thousand years old, then you aren't doing science but only pretending to do so.

While statements of faith and the like are fine in many areas they are not in science. In science one should be prepared to, in the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, "Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."^[1]

But if you set up a preconceived notion and then declare that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts" it then you are merely doing an imitation of Carroll's Queen of Hearts when she declares in Alice in Wonderland "Sentence first! Verdict afterwards."

So in the end they're very selective about just what evidence they will examine and after they’re done cherry-picking they usually end up offering explanations that are mere ad hoc rationalizations that are wholly internally inconsistent and more often than not mutually contradictory.

There is nothing even remotely similar to this in conventional science. In fact, this is pure anti-science. Agreeing to ignore or hand-wave away contradictory evidence in advance isn't even remotely scientific but is a perversion of science.




1. This philosophy is repeated again and again by legitimate scientists. For instance:

• "I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved, as soon as the facts are opposed to it." --Charles Darwin (who also wrote: "A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone.")

• "I keep my theories on the tips of my fingers so that the merest breath of fact can blow them away." --Michael Faraday

• "The hallmark of science is not the question ‘Do I wish to believe this?’ but the question ‘What is the evidence?’ It is this demand for evidence, this habit of cultivated skepticism, that is most characteristic of the scientific way of thought." --Douglas Futuyma

• "A scientist should every morning eat one of his favorite theories for breakfast." --Konrad Lorenz

• "Any real systematist [or scientist in general] has to be ready to heave all that he or she believes in, consider it crap, and move on, in the face of new evidence." --Mark Norell (in his "Unearthing the Dragon")

A perfect example of this is Michael Engel co-author of Evolution of the Insects, who when shown fossilized evidence that honeybees were in fact in North America excitedly stated "I got to overturn some of my own stuff."

Keep this low-grade manure up and I will be convinced that you are working for Satan himself - I'm serious. As things stand, I already regard you as being nearly at par with 'Beagle Boy' --- trust me, that is NO compliment! You continuously promote misrepresentations and a distorted reality via many forms -- here you do it by lying through omission. Even you can't be that ignorant or stupid, you MUST know what you're doing.

Here, for example, you conveniently omit the fact that (1) people seek to work at such places PRECISELY BECAUSE their beliefs coincide with those that the institution represents. (2) No one is held against their wishes -- if at any point they have a change in their beliefs, they are free to seek elsewhere. (3) Try getting a job at the National Center for Science Education, Scientific American, American Humanist Society, or at any other place where the institution is based on a set of beliefs WITHOUT subscribing and promoting those beliefs. Go ahead, try it. Imagine a YEC working for the former NCSE leader Eugenie Scott --- what do you think the old witch would have done?

If you were a Catholic, you couldn't chant enough Hail Mary's to erase your vileness.
Repent while you can.

Jorge

While I'm sure it is accurate to say that those who work for groups like AiG, ICR and CMI do agree with their positions that does not change the facts that these groups still require them to sign oaths and statements of faith to make sure that they outright dismiss and ignore anything and everything that might contradict their preconceptions before they write anything. They must not be allowed to confuse the rubes with an impartial, balanced examination of the facts. Only one side alone is allowed to be presented.

That what they then produce for publication is represented as science is laughable in the extreme. It is anything but science. It is a parody or mockery of actual science. In legitimate science you don't get to cherry pick only the data that you think might support your presumptions must must also examine the stuff that appears to contradict them.

And that is exactly what does happen. I already mentioned the example of the noted paleontologist and entomologist Michael Engel and how he reacted when shown that he had been wrong about honey bees weren't in North America millions of years ago but had (relatively) recently migrated here from Europe or Asia. He didn't throw a fit. He didn't ignore the evidence that refuted what he was sure was the correct view. Instead he was thrilled that he "got to overturn some of my own stuff."

And this is far from some isolated instance. Scientists reject cherished beliefs if and when enough evidence can be amassed against it.

As Carl Sagan noted back in 1987 in a speech:

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day.^[1]

Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" cites a couple examples of just such occurrences taking place, such as with the issue of continental drift and plate tectonics. He notes that

"The Old Guard" who had a lot of time and research invested in fixed continents tended to be skeptical the longest, and many held out until the evidence became overwhelming. Eventually, they all had to concede their cherished beliefs were wrong.

Prothero revealed how the famous geologist Marshall Kay, who had spent his entire life explaining the complexities of geology based on the assumption that continents did not move (even publishing a major book on the topic), ended up embracing plate tectonics when the evidence for it started to amass. Even though he was near retirement age Kay began redoing his life's work using the new concepts and his work ended up providing a good deal of the geological evidence used in support of the theory.

Everybody's favorite Richard Dawkins has repeatedly recounted one instance that he has witnessed:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red.

I can continue giving example after example of this including debates over whether humans were in the Americas prior to the Clovis culture; the megaflood in eastern Washington that resulted in the formation of the Scablands; how a champion of the idea that whales arose from mesonychids abruptly changed his mind and agreed they actually arose from artiodactyls (an idea he had adamantly opposed) when he discovered a bone that contradicted his presumptions.

And yes I can include examples specifically relating to evolution.

There have been numerous examples of what were initially considered to be controversial theories (as they accounted for observed biological changes that did not correspond to the expectations of the neo-Darwinian models derived from the New Synthesis -- which itself over-turned pure Darwinian thought and theory -- that was developed in the mid 1930s through the mid 40s) that have been accepted.

• Like when Conrad Waddington proposed developmental evolution (evo-devo) in 1942

• Like when Willi Hennig proposed phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) in 1950

• Like when Motoo Kimura proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift) in 1968

• Like when Lynn Margulis proposed Endosymbiotic theory in 1970

• Like when Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1973

• Like when Carl Woese proposed horizontal gene transfer in 1977

What none of the scientists who initially opposed any of the above mentioned items ever did was automatically reject the evidence that showed that their cherished ideas had been mistaken. They didn't dismiss it because they had signed an oath demanding that they unconditionally dismiss any and everything that didn't support what they had already concluded. And they certainly didn't throw a hissy fit and threaten those who questioned them with going to hell for daring to disagree as YEC John Baumgardner did as he ran off during a discussion about the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project with Kirk Bertsche and several others after just a few exchanges here at Tweb a few years back.

ETA: Another example of what I'm talking about can be seen in the different replies that Bill Nye and YEC leader Ken Ham provided during their debate last year when asked if there is anything that could get them to change their mind. Nye responded that evidence could whereas Ham intoned that nothing could.











1. As Sagan notes it doesn't happen enough and I'll add that there will always be holdouts but in general science advances when new information demonstrates an old view does not reflect reality. If it didn't we would still think that the earth was immobile and the sun revolved around it or the elements consist of air, earth, fire and water.

[rogue06]

Go ahead and start that "list" again -- I always got a laugh out of it. I realized that it gave the IQ-starved folks here an easy way out every time they feel cornered. Like witless brat teenagers that say, "whatever" every time they can't come up with a rational answer, at TWeb we had
"Item 3 from the list" ... "Item 1 from the list" as their brain-dead "whatever".

Bwahahahahaha !!! .......... "whatever"

Jorge

The irony here is that Jorge fails to comprehend that his stock excuses of things like "You're too stupid to understand my brilliant argument so I won't bother" are the "easy way out" when he feels cornered.

[birdan]

Fine. I honestly don't recall - I have many things on my mind. Regardless...

Write up your calculations - better yet, write up your entire case - and email it to the places that I suggested [ICR, CMI, AiG, CRS]. If you can't handle that, send it to me and I'll do it for you. Rest assured that your case has been addressed and answered.

Now, whether or not you accept the answer is quite another matter.

Jorge

I've tried that in the past. Here is an email correspondence with Danny Faulkner (PhD physics) of AIG:

Dear Dr. Faulkner,

I recently read your article "A Biblically Based Cratering Theory" from the Journal of Creation, April 1999. I have read other similar articles about impact craters from a biblical perspective over the years, but none of them have addressed a topic that is very important: heat.

Meteor impacts carry (due to their velocity) large amounts of kinetic energy, which primarily gets converted to heat upon impact. Newton tells us this energy is equal to 1/2 mv^2, and there is a standard formula for calculating the initial kinetic energy based on the crater size: KE = 2.499 x D^3.250 x 10^6, where D = crater diameter in meters.

Since it is a straightforward process figuring out the amount of energy released upon impact, it is easy to calculate the total amount of heat introduced into the lunar environment over many measured craters. This much heat from these hundreds of thousands of craters over a short period of time would seem to be enough to melt the moon's crust given it is only going to shed heat via blackbody radiation.

Could you help me out and show me where my calculations or thinking have gone astray?

Thank you,

Xxxxx Xxxxxx

Hi Xxxxx:

If one tries to place all the solar system craters, such as on the moon, at one time, such as during the flood, then there is a tremendous heat problem. However, I place relatively few craters at the time of the flood. My proposal places most of the craters on hard surfaces in the solar system to Day Four formation. There is a heat problem then too if one is restricted to current physics and processes. However, the conditions and rules of operation during the Creation Week were quite different from today. This may seem ad hoc, but that is the creation model.

Danny

Hi Dr. Faulkner,

Thank you for your prompt reply and information, it was very clarifying. I don't want to take up too much of your time, but I was wondering if there is some literature where I can read about the details of these different conditions and rules of operation during Creation Week? I am interested in physics, so anything from a physics perspective would be wonderful!

Thanks in advance,
Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx

And never got another response from Danny Faulkner ... So I tried Andrew Snelling (geologist for AIG):

Dear Dr. Snelling,

I recently read Dr. Faulkner's article "A Biblically Based Cratering Theory" from the Journal of Creation, April 1999, and you were mentioned as having researched meteor impact craters. I have read other similar articles about impact craters from a biblical perspective over the years, but none of them have addressed a topic that is very important: heat.

Meteor impacts carry (due to their velocity) large amounts of kinetic energy, which primarily gets converted to heat upon impact. Newton tells us this energy is equal to 1/2 mv^2, and there is a standard formula for calculating the initial kinetic energy based on the crater size: KE = 2.499 x D^3.250 x 10^6, where D = crater diameter in meters.

Since it is a straightforward process figuring out the amount of energy released upon impact, it is easy to calculate the total amount of heat introduced into the lunar environment over many measured craters. This much heat from these hundreds of thousands of craters over a short period of time would seem to be enough to melt the moon's crust given it is only going to shed heat via blackbody radiation.

Could you help me out and show me where my calculations or thinking have gone astray?

Thank you,

Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx

Dear Xxxxx,

My apologies for not responding sooner to your email below of August 4. However, at the time I was visiting the AiG office and bombarded by all sorts of other pressing issues, office meetings, etc. Now I am back in Australia again, still recovering from jetlag!

I have done some research on meteorite craters, but more from a geological occurrence perspective than with respect to the physics involved in the impacts.

I quite agree with you that the subject of impact craters is very important from a biblical perspective and hasn't really been addressed with respect to the role meteorite impacts have played during earth history. We are still coming to grips with the impact craters being found on the earth and where they fit into the biblical view of earth history. It is true that meteorite impacts carry large amounts of kinetic energy, which does primarily get converted to heat upon the meteorite impacting the earth's surface. That heat energy produced melted impact breccias that have been well documented by the geological community.

Of course, the equation you are using for calculating the kinetic energy is a well known equation in physics relating the mass and the velocity, but the numbers you have plugged into the equation are not self-evident in your email below. I assume one of the factors is related to the velocity of the meteorites, and another number is derived from the density, but you don't spell that out in your email. If those are the sources of your figures, then I dare say your equation for calculating the kinetic energy based on the crater size is plausible, although it should be noted that the diameter of the impacting meteorite is far less than the diameter of the crater produced. Did you take that into account?

You are certainly correct that a lot of heat was introduced into the lunar environment by the many impact craters that occurred over a short period apparently in its early history according to the radiometric dating of lunar rocks. Furthermore, there is evidence of melting of the moon's crust to produce the basalts of the lunar maria. However, it's a long time since I studied lunar geology in great detail, as my attention has been focussed elsewhere. But it's certainly a topic that needs to be investigated further, taking into account these meteorite impacts.

So in a nutshell, you are possibly on track with your calculations, provided you have taken into account that the diameter of the meteorite is not the same as the diameter of the impact crater it produced. But you are quite right that the heat transferred to the earth as a result of such impacts, as on the moon, needs to be taken into account within a biblical perspective of earth history. The key issue is going to be the timing of these impacts. The secular dating of when these impacts occurred is far from certain, but the timing is crucial when it comes to the biblical view of earth history, as you are no doubt aware. The evidence on the earth which we currently have would seem to indicate many impacts occurred during the Flood year, but the picture on the moon is somewhat different and therefore confusing. That's why a lot more research is needed.

I am sorry if I can't be of any more help than this, but I hope these few comments are a help to you in focussing your thoughts and efforts. The problem we have is that we don't have enough qualified people to be do all the research that needs to be done. But I am sure you are well aware of this. Thanks again for your email and your questions.

Yours sincerely in Christ,

(Dr) Andrew Snelling.

Dear Dr. Snelling,

I appreciate your lengthy and thoughtful reply to my questions. The equation that I quoted is from a geology text, and is solely based on the crater diameter. As I understand it, the formula is based (roughly) on the amount of energy it takes to excavate the crater, so the meteor density and velocity can be unknown.

I have also had an email reply from Dr. Danny Faulkner on this subject, and his thought was that many of these impacts occurred on Day Four, but the processes of physics were different then. I sent a follow-up email asking for any articles that I could read about Creation Week physics, but unfortunately have not heard back from him. Do you know of any reading material available on this subject?

Thank you again for your reply.

Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx

Dear Xxxxx,

Greetings again!

As I am back into routine here again at my home in Australia, I am more quickly able to respond to your latest email. Thanks for your explanation that you obtained that equation from a geology text. Clearly, given that the formula has been justified as related to the crater diameter, then it makes sense that you are able to use it to calculate the energy involved without having to know the meteor density and velocity.

I was intrigued by the explanation you had received from Dr Danny Faulkner regarding where he thought the impacts on the moon fitted into the biblical timeframe. I have a theological problem with placing those impacts on the moon, which are obviously early in the moon's history, into the events of Day 4. To argue that the processes of physics were different back then during the Creation Week on the one hand sounds plausible given that God's creative processes were involved, but nonetheless one would expect some connection between the physics during the Creation Week and the physics thereafter, as the same God created the physical laws by which the universe operated after He created it during the Creation Week, which laws continued on into the post-Creation world. Somehow I am not quite satisfied with Danny's answer, and I guess you aren't either J

I am not surprised that you haven't heard back from him regarding articles on the subject that you could read, as I certainly don't know of any reading material that might be available on that subject. I would presume that's why Danny has not replied. Clearly, this is a topic for ongoing thought and research to find some satisfactory solutions. Maybe that's where you might come in J

Sorry I can't help you further on this matter with any leads to follow up from the feedback you received from Dr Danny Faulkner. It just emphasises once again how few in number are the specialists we have in our ranks who are able to do all the necessary research to resolve these and many other issues. Nevertheless, we should be doing our best to strive to get the necessary research done so that at least we have some overall answers to some of these big picture issues. Thanks for your efforts already to work in this area and think through some of these issues. Please feel free to keep in touch with me if I can be of any further help to you. May the Lord guide and help you in your investigations.

Regards and best wishes,

Yours sincerely in Christ,

(Dr) Andrew Snelling.
PS. Sorry this was a long time in coming your way, but I've had problems with my email server. This is why I switched to using my AiG email address, which you should use from now on. Thanks!

The reader can see from the above correspondences that the crackerjack scientists at AIG have no answers for straightforward geological processes involving high school level math. Consequently, I strongly disagree that answers have been provided by YEC organizations.

[TheLurch]

Fine. I honestly don't recall - I have many things on my mind. Regardless...

Write up your calculations - better yet, write up your entire case - and email it to the places that I suggested [ICR, CMI, AiG, CRS]. If you can't handle that, send it to me and I'll do it for you. Rest assured that your case has been addressed and answered.

Now, whether or not you accept the answer is quite another matter.

Jorge

I'll try to pull things together in a bit more detail than i did there and start a new thread with it. May take a couple of days.

[rogue06]

I've tried that in the past. Here is an email correspondence with Danny Faulkner (PhD physics) of AIG:







And never got another response from Danny Faulkner ... So I tried Andrew Snelling (geologist for AIG):





The reader can see from the above correspondences that the crackerjack scientists at AIG have no answers for straightforward geological processes involving high school level math. Consequently, I strongly disagree that answers have been provided by YEC organizations.

Several years back, shortly after the discovery of the transitional fossil Tiktaalik (a fishapod), AnswersinGenesis (AiG) did a write up describing it including its pelvis and rear limbs which at that time had not been discovered. rwatts, another poster who frequented Tweb at the time called TheGreenMan and myself separately wrote to them asking them for details especially concerning their claims about the pelvis and limbs. rwatts and TheGreenMan received a reply saying that someone would contact them within the next month with an answer. I never even got that despite making sure that I was very polite in my request. None of us heard anything back despite waiting for a reply for 6+ years now.

Similarly, for several years AiG posted an article about the "baboon dog" in which they state "The male Baboon dog dies before reaching maturity, so it should be obvious that this breed has not got much going for it." A number of posters including at least one YEC (afdave) wrote AiG about this asking for verification of this claim since any species where one sex dies before reaching maturity would not do well at reproducing. Not a word back and the article still remains.

They don't have a good track record.

[klaus54]

To answer this question, wouldn't it be necessary to first show that it's at all possible to defend a young Earth in contradiction to excessive evidence for an ancient one?

I'll show myself out....

Lurch,

Contradicting evidence is ignored or disparaged by the YEC, since they start with their conclusion which MUST be correct. It's scientific method turned upside-down.

K54

[klaus54]

The irony here is that Jorge fails to comprehend that his stock excuses of things like "You're too stupid to understand my brilliant argument so I won't bother" are the "easy way out" when he feels cornered.

Bingo!

Jor exhibits the most extreme form of projection that I've ever seen in my 60 years on Earth and 24 years of college professorin'.

K%4

[Jorge]

The answer there is simple Jorge. Your work with the Air Force never required you understand science in the aspect where you demonstrate ignorance here. And it likely never put you at odds with your YEC beliefs (that is, the work you were doing never had an outcome that required you to evaluate age beyond 6-10000 years or supported biological evolution - or was done before you adopted YEC itself).

So tell me Jorge, exactly how far would you have gotten with Dr. Foster had you produced a signed document telling him what the conclusions would be before you ran the tests and analyzed the data?

Jim

Sirens going off ... lights flashing ... explosions ... bells ringing ... yelling and screaming !!!

STRAW MAN ALERT ... STRAW MAN ALERT ......... RUN FOR COVER !!!


A man of your age ought not to be so silly, O-Mudd, it makes you preposterously ridiculous!

Jorge

[Jorge]

While I'm sure it is accurate to say that those who work for groups like AiG, ICR and CMI do agree with their positions that does not change the facts that these groups still require them to sign oaths and statements of faith to make sure that they outright dismiss and ignore anything and everything that might contradict their preconceptions before they write anything. They must not be allowed to confuse the rubes with an impartial, balanced examination of the facts. Only one side alone is allowed to be presented.

That what they then produce for publication is represented as science is laughable in the extreme. It is anything but science. It is a parody or mockery of actual science. In legitimate science you don't get to cherry pick only the data that you think might support your presumptions must must also examine the stuff that appears to contradict them.

And that is exactly what does happen. I already mentioned the example of the noted paleontologist and entomologist Michael Engel and how he reacted when shown that he had been wrong about honey bees weren't in North America millions of years ago but had (relatively) recently migrated here from Europe or Asia. He didn't throw a fit. He didn't ignore the evidence that refuted what he was sure was the correct view. Instead he was thrilled that he "got to overturn some of my own stuff."

And this is far from some isolated instance. Scientists reject cherished beliefs if and when enough evidence can be amassed against it.

As Carl Sagan noted back in 1987 in a speech:

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day.^[1]

Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" cites a couple examples of just such occurrences taking place, such as with the issue of continental drift and plate tectonics. He notes that

"The Old Guard" who had a lot of time and research invested in fixed continents tended to be skeptical the longest, and many held out until the evidence became overwhelming. Eventually, they all had to concede their cherished beliefs were wrong.

Prothero revealed how the famous geologist Marshall Kay, who had spent his entire life explaining the complexities of geology based on the assumption that continents did not move (even publishing a major book on the topic), ended up embracing plate tectonics when the evidence for it started to amass. Even though he was near retirement age Kay began redoing his life's work using the new concepts and his work ended up providing a good deal of the geological evidence used in support of the theory.

Everybody's favorite Richard Dawkins has repeatedly recounted one instance that he has witnessed:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red.

I can continue giving example after example of this including debates over whether humans were in the Americas prior to the Clovis culture; the megaflood in eastern Washington that resulted in the formation of the Scablands; how a champion of the idea that whales arose from mesonychids abruptly changed his mind and agreed they actually arose from artiodactyls (an idea he had adamantly opposed) when he discovered a bone that contradicted his presumptions.

And yes I can include examples specifically relating to evolution.

There have been numerous examples of what were initially considered to be controversial theories (as they accounted for observed biological changes that did not correspond to the expectations of the neo-Darwinian models derived from the New Synthesis -- which itself over-turned pure Darwinian thought and theory -- that was developed in the mid 1930s through the mid 40s) that have been accepted.

• Like when Conrad Waddington proposed developmental evolution (evo-devo) in 1942

• Like when Willi Hennig proposed phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) in 1950

• Like when Motoo Kimura proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift) in 1968

• Like when Lynn Margulis proposed Endosymbiotic theory in 1970

• Like when Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1973

• Like when Carl Woese proposed horizontal gene transfer in 1977

What none of the scientists who initially opposed any of the above mentioned items ever did was automatically reject the evidence that showed that their cherished ideas had been mistaken. They didn't dismiss it because they had signed an oath demanding that they unconditionally dismiss any and everything that didn't support what they had already concluded. And they certainly didn't throw a hissy fit and threaten those who questioned them with going to hell for daring to disagree as YEC John Baumgardner did as he ran off during a discussion about the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project with Kirk Bertsche and several others after just a few exchanges here at Tweb a few years back.

ETA: Another example of what I'm talking about can be seen in the different replies that Bill Nye and YEC leader Ken Ham provided during their debate last year when asked if there is anything that could get them to change their mind. Nye responded that evidence could whereas Ham intoned that nothing could.











1. As Sagan notes it doesn't happen enough and I'll add that there will always be holdouts but in general science advances when new information demonstrates an old view does not reflect reality. If it didn't we would still think that the earth was immobile and the sun revolved around it or the elements consist of air, earth, fire and water.

Still getting paid by the word, I see.

I'll just address the highlighted section as there is waaaaaaaayyyyy too much elephant hurling for my time to handle.

I more-than-adequately answer your silly objection with this from my previous post: "Here, for example, you conveniently omit the fact that (1) people seek to work at such places PRECISELY BECAUSE their beliefs coincide with those that the institution represents. (2) No one is held against their wishes -- if at any point they have a change in their beliefs, they are free to seek elsewhere."

Yes, they have to sign a document and the fact is that most of them want to work there PRECISELY BECAUSE such a document exists and is enforced --- the person wants to be sure that they are in a place that agrees with their own beliefs. What you portray is a sort of against-their-will requirement.

As for this part, " ... make sure that they outright dismiss and ignore anything and everything that might contradict their preconceptions ...", that's nothing more than a semi-concealed way of calling someone dishonest.

READ MY LIPS: I do not know a single Biblical Creationist that would "dismiss and ignore" ANYTHING that would challenge our beliefs. There may be such a person, I just don't know one nor have I ever known one. Speaking for myself (and I am far from alone), I ACTIVELY SEEK challenges to my beliefs (for several reasons - another subject). Thus, "dismiss and ignore" does not apply in any honest sense.

But before you start casting that stone take a good, long, hard look at your own TE flock and at the herd of your ideological allies (Materialists-Humanists-Atheists and similar). You'll see "dismissing and ignoring" like you've never seen it in your life!

You really are going to have to try much, much harder, R06.

Jorge

[Jorge]

The irony here is that Jorge fails to comprehend that his stock excuses of things like "You're too stupid to understand my brilliant argument so I won't bother" are the "easy way out" when he feels cornered.

Yeah ... "whatever" ....... bwahahahaha !!!

Jorge

[Jorge]

I'll try to pull things together in a bit more detail than i did there and start a new thread with it. May take a couple of days.

If you want to start a thread that's fine. But what I asked was for you to send to the aforementioned organizations (and/or to me) your case/argument clearly and concisely stated.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I've tried that in the past. Here is an email correspondence with Danny Faulkner (PhD physics) of AIG:

And never got another response from Danny Faulkner ... So I tried Andrew Snelling (geologist for AIG):

The reader can see from the above correspondences that the crackerjack scientists at AIG have no answers for straightforward geological processes involving high school level math. Consequently, I strongly disagree that answers have been provided by YEC organizations.

Now hold on a second .........................

Supposed I asked you 500 questions, you totally answered 400, kind-of answered 75 and not at all answered 25. Would I be honest if I told people that you ("birdan") provided to me no answers?

Go to their sites and you will find many hundreds of answers. Yes, sometimes there is "no answer" or there is an "answer" that does not satisfy or there is "answer" with inconclusiveness or ambiguity --- yes, all of those do occur. What I read from Faulkner and Snelling falls into the latter two categories. I myself have asked them questions and, after getting feedback from them, my questions remained.

But to make the shotgun statement that, "I strongly disagree that answers have been provided by YEC organizations" is to be either unfair to those organizations or less than honest.

Jorge

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Interesting that Jorge would say this:

READ MY LIPS: I do not know a single Biblical Creationist that would "dismiss and ignore" ANYTHING that would challenge our beliefs. There may be such a person, I just don't know one nor have I ever known one. Speaking for myself (and I am far from alone), I ACTIVELY SEEK challenges to my beliefs (for several reasons - another subject). Thus, "dismiss and ignore" does not apply in any honest sense.

...after having earlier dismissed and ignored TheLurch's question with this statement:

Rest assured that your case has been addressed and answered.

Now, whether or not you accept the answer is quite another matter.

To proclaim that a case "has been addressed and answered" without actually giving any address or answer to that claim is pretty much exactly what people mean when they say "dismiss and ignore."

[Roy]

READ MY LIPS: I do not know a single Biblical Creationist that would "dismiss and ignore" ANYTHING that would challenge our beliefs. There may be such a person, I just don't know one nor have I ever known one. Speaking for myself (and I am far from alone), I ACTIVELY SEEK challenges to my beliefs (for several reasons - another subject). Thus, "dismiss and ignore" does not apply in any honest sense.

I do.

About ten years ago, a YEC on the old theologyweb forum posted this 'quote' he copied unacknowledged from Kent Hovind's website:

"One part of Dima was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraaphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975)

I promptly pointed out that Dima - a frozen mammoth - wasn't excavated until 1975, and so could not have been mentioned in a 1975 report. Rather than investigating, the YEC in question simply dismissed this refutation. In the ten years since, this YEC has been reminded of their blunder many times, but not once have they done anything other than ignore the facts of the matter. They have certainly not retracted their original claim, nor admitted they were wrong. "Dismiss and ignore" certainly does apply in this case.

Guess the identity of the YEC.

Roy

[JonF]

The irony here is that Jorge fails to comprehend that his stock excuses of things like "You're too stupid to understand my brilliant argument so I won't bother" are the "easy way out" when he feels cornered.

Also when he doesn't feel cornered.