Questions on biology

[Rían]

I don't know that I would categorize them as "successive steps", GrayMouser ... I disagree with that statement from TalkOrigins. I think it would be more accurate to amend your statement to "the TalkOrigin site presents them as 'ends of a continuum' and suggests the following list:", but that's only MHO

(Presenting the options this way is also a subtle slight to creationists, btw, (as in "they belong down there with the stupid flat-earthers, who we all know are wrong") but I'm not surprised by that, seeing as it's from TalkOrigins. They do better than usual at repressing prejudiced, un-scientific jabs, but they still do it.)

And Janny, here's a link to my summary posts on creationism, if you're interested: link

TalkOrigins is a pretty good site, IMO, and I've enjoyed reading it. However, I find them prejudiced in favor of evolution (which is certainly their right, but they should not present themselves as being neutral, then.) I've found that several of the arguments against creationist positions which they present as CONCLUSIVE are COMPLETELY hypothetical; this is not proof. (IOW, they "refute" some creationist points by saying "This creationist point is false, because it is possible that so-and-so is true." I'm sorry, but that is NOT proving the creationist point false; it is merely pointing out that it MAY not be true - there is a HUGE difference!)

A creationist would get (rightly) laughed off the site if they said "evolution is not true because God may have created things like the Bible says", yet in those cases, the evolutionists are saying the SAME THING, and presenting it as conclusive proof against the creationist point in question. Read their posts with an open mind (yes, I said an open mind, IRex ) and you will definitely see this happening in some cases.

I still need to get my rear in gear and present my logical objections to their computer simulation examples ... I think my objections are quite valid, and I have the background to support them. Should be interesting.

And also, I've been meeningtersay that frankly, I think the purpose of science is to .... find out things. The universe is incredible - let's find out more about it! "Science" has been kinda hijacked in the creation/evolution debate, IMO, like "science supports evolution!" or "science supports creationism!" Well, science should support whatever observations are observable, measureable, and repeatable. And it does. And the important underlying assumptions of the theory of evolution and creation are NOT observable, measureable and repeatable. I'm NOT saying we shouldn't make logical inferences, such as punctuated equilibrium, but I AM saying we should not label these inferences as "supported by science".

[Janny]

My word that is long! I will read it soon. I promise.

[Rían]

Yes, and believe me, I had to cut out a lot of things. There's a lot of good stuff out there for creationism, IMO. Have fun, and read it with an open mind

[Lief Erikson]

I've spoken with the creationist speaker now, in person. Unfortunately I had a very limited time span in which to talk with him, so not all the answers were satisfactory to me.

He's not a part of the Institute of Creationist Research. He has studied these issues at great length on his own, as a hobby.

I'll start to post his answers to the questions, now.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
if he wants to claim that creationism is a science, he must be willing to accept the possibility, no matter how small he may perceive it, that his theory is wrong

His answer to this question didn't seem like much of an answer, to me. He pointed out to me how Creationism has more and more been being validated by science, and how science is actually closer now to the Creation account than it has been for . . . I don't remember how long he said it was, but it was a long time.

However, this answer didn't really address your question directly. Sorry about that. He might explain more fully on email, later on.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'd really like to know more about the underlying assumptions that are in existence in the various standard dating procedures, and the reasons that are given why a raw sample can't just be sent to a lab without a preliminary date guess. Now if it's a question of half-lives, etc., then the return should either be a valid date or a "sample invalid for this type of procedure". Samples should NOT be pre-vetted for dating types, IMO - why are they, then?

He didn't provide a reason this is done, but he said you were completely correct in finding fault with that method. He then went into a further tirade against modern dating methods.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
What does he think of the notion of only partially quoting sources? The so-called creation 'spin'? (creationist 'lies'/misinformation, etc.) Or misinterpreting/misusing certain methodologies? For instance, using carbon dating to date LIVE samples, when the method measures the ratio of breakdown of carbon and nitrogen AFTER an organisms death.

Actually, I asked something similar to this. I asked him how one could be sure of the accuracy of the information they're using.

The speaker was very knowledgeable in biology. He simply suggested knowing the material, examining both sides of the story. He said that he'd read creationist arguments that he didn't find valid, as well.

As I suggested he might, he also mentioned at various times occurences when others had faked information against Christianity. He took apart the intermediate species for the horse, when I brought it up. He stated that some of those animals that were supposedly intermediate species were still alive today, and that others differed between having two and four toes.

Let's see. So his primary statement was simply to emphasize the importance of knowing the subject, and of looking at both sides of the story.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
is there anything in the creationist realm like the above example, where you can perform more than one experiment in order to verify specific findings?

He provided a very good piece of evidence for creationism. I need a bit more back-up information before I present it, though.

Originally posted by Janny
All I was asking really was if you were God how would you set about telling people who had no knowledge of how the world would be need to be created, complex biology etc? Would you explain in terms of biology, or would you use a metaphor?

The creationist's answer to brownjenkins' question will probably answer yours, too. I'm very eager to procur all the back-up information I'll need.

Unfortunately the man will be out of state for a week, and incapable of using his email. Therefore it'll be probably about seven to eight days before I'm able to offer his responses further, here. Though I could be wrong.