Also, appologies for my horrible spelling in the two posts above. I reread them and it’s a lot worse then usual. In my defense, English is a second language for me.

The question still stands though, What ‘proof’ of Young Earth Creationism do you (where “you” can be anyone feeling up to it) think is so irrefutable it must be true. All of the points on the drdino.com site, for example, can be easily disproven and I will gladly do so, as long someone will select a few as there are to many to disprove all of them. (at least, more then I have spare time for)

There is no civilisation older then 6000 years, and no geologic feature older then 6000 and every method that shows there is must be wrong.

It’s like saying:
“There is no object in this house older then 5 years, therefore the house must be 5 years old.” “What about this plaqua saying ‘build in 1980′?” “That was put there to discredit my irrefutable thruth”

The point simply is this:
Scientific theories recognise they might not be perfect, but adapt to suit more recent observation and is thus constantly improving and providing better understanding of the universe. The present theory represents the epitomy of discovered knowledge, it fits ALL observable evidence, or it recognises the evidence as deviating and recognises that there is an anomaly.

So yes, scientific Theory is not absolute thruth, it is merely the best possible model of reality.

Creationism, on the other hand, starts with the claim that they are right. When new evidence is found, creationism doesn’t change to reflect new findings, but seeks to discredit them..

———————

Please, tell me how the bible is full of observable things that actually matter. Because Moby Dick is full of observable things to, but that doesn’t make it less finctional.

Also, seeing how that drdino.com website is rather long, and refuting every single point would be a LOT of work, why don’t you pick some of the best points showing why Young Earth Creationism is true, and I’ll pick the apart. Please note how a LOT of articles don’t even make a point, their purpose seems to be simply to discredit to scientif explanation of the universe by used harsh language.

“No. No. And for the third time, no. Evolution says absolutely nothing about God. It hasn’t had found a reason to. There’s a difference between that and assuming God doesn’t exist. Science looks for explanations given what can be analyzed. God is not analyzed, and the current system sees no need for him. God, then, has no place in evolution.”

The difference I’m describing here is this: evolution starts with observable things, not with assumptions about what may or may not cause them. So God is simply not brought up. This, as I said above, does not mean evolution assumes God has no intervention. It doesn’t assume anything does or does not. It simply goes from the observable, to an explanation that connects all the dots in the most sensible way (hypothesis) and that, upon examination, manages to explain other phenomena and make successful predictions (theory). So far, this has been done without God.

By the way, why do you react so hostile and condescendingly to every post that doesn’t mesh with yours?

I decided I would take a minute of my time to investigate drdino.com and see what was there. I found an interesting tidbit called “Creationism Isn’t Science” under a section called “Answering Critics.” Let’s take a look, shall we?

“Both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical assumptions. Evolutionists (traditionally) start with the assumption that God has no intervention in this world.”

No. No. And for the third time, no. Evolution says absolutely nothing about God. It hasn’t had found a reason to. There’s a difference between that and assuming God doesn’t exist. Science looks for explanations given what can be analyzed. God is not analyzed, and the current system sees no need for him. God, then, has no place in evolution. It needs to be noted that this can change, if evidence that points to a God is considered strong enough. It also needs to be noted that evolution doesn’t disqualify God’s existence, since evolution says nothing regarding “ultimate” origins. Evolution, like anything in science, starts with what’s observed; Creationism does not.

“As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises. There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also. For instance, the Bible states that earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1, in six literal days2. Evolutionism claims that the earth came into existence some 3-5 billion years ago3, over a very long and tedious process of formation. Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent. It’s important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.

When man inspects the earth, the biosphere, the world around us, we formulate hypothesis as to how things came to be as they are today. After data is brought in and analyzed, we can test our hypothesis and see what outcomes we’re given. Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).”

Let’s take a closer look, shall we?

“As you can see, both Creation and Evolutionism start with philosophical premises.”

I’ve already said what I will regarding this.

“There are many aspects of the Creation Theory that are indeed testable also…Both of these teachings can be tested to some extent.”

Indeed. But then we go to the next sentence…

“It’s important to also emphasize the knowledge difference between fallible man (who is a fallen creature), and the Omniscient God, Creator and sustainer of all.”

Well, now, this is assuming quite a bit, isn’t it? Also, what does this have to do with man testing a hypothesis? We’re talking about physical evidence, right? If you pull out a Bible and call it evidence, I don’t see why I (or any non-Christian, whether he or she believe in evolution or not) should listen.

“Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).”

Here’s a fun one. Creationists already have the truth; so why even talk about data? Of course, there’s also that whole assumption thing. As for that last sentence, well, that’s not what I hear from most scientists. And since there’s no citation for that sentence or sources given that aren’t Biblical, why should I believe it again? Oh yes; the Scriptures. How scientific.

“Now, we can see that both Creation and Evolutionism have non-testable aspects about them…”

Right, already spoke on this one, but I’m pointing out how important this assumption is to these guys. Remember, scientists, your theories are faith!

(This is such a common argument. I don’t feel like going to far into it, but in short, either evolution is faith, or theories are just theories. Decide.)

(Actually, I will go further. Science is a system that attempts to describe observable existence. It changes as the data changes. Science has been wrong and, importantly, has admitted it and subsequently changed; I find this a reason to trust it, not to doubt it. If there are any assumptions, they are conditional and noted: Assuming the world is as we experience it, and various other theories are true… Creationism just skips this and says, “We are right.” That’s rather non-scientific and frankly stubborn, don’t you think?)

“voodoo-science”

Oh no children! Those Drosophilia are going to ruin you minds! Next they’ll tell you about zombies!

“Material such as the gill slits, the horse evolution, the human evolution, the evolution of the giraffe, and so much more are still presented to children as facts, and done so dogmatically.”

This I find I can agree with to an extent. Many people, including scientists, are not always scientific. Science doesn’t make claims to ultimate truth, but as I said before, follows from a set of conditions that may or may not be the case. (The things mentioned above are, however, considered facts in that they are the best solutions we have that seem to meet all conditions and are observable.) Dogmatism is generally bad no matter who does it. What puts science in a better situation here than Creationism is that science ultimately is expected to bow to empirical fact, whereas Creationism is not, and is if fact inclined to dogmatism (the infallible word of God, right?). Science is made to be correctable, putting even the dogmatists of science in an improved position over time, whereas Creationism leaves people wherever they think they should be.

The rest basically reiterates that evolution is evil indoctrination and that God is great.

I’m not really sure why I put this. I don’t expect to change any minds, since no one is willing to do so. As for debating, I’ll say that generally scientists aren’t made for debate; however, an enthusiastic Christian is (I could elaborate if anyone wanted me to). Now I’m going to walk away slowly.

irishthunder Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
“For the record, evolutionists stopped debating him long before he made a stand against paying taxes”
Thats because long before he stopped paying taxes he was making ignorant claims without any scientific fact, no one was going to waste their time with him.