Biblical Flood: Actual Event or Myth

They claimed that her discovery of fossilized blood cells meant that actual soft tissue was preserved. Such a thing is impossible. Her data never said this. She did not say this in her paper. She said clearly that here data was misinterpreted and misused.

This is the risk you run when trying to find scientific data to support a conclusion not backed by science. It leads you to creationist websites full of pseudo science and non-science. You were correct when you say that science cannot prove or disprove matters of faith and vice versa. Yet you still try to suggest that science supports biblical creation, when in fact, it does not. Anybody can say that they are possessed by demons and there is little I can do but point out that delusion and hoaxes are also entirely plausible explanations.

But when you start citing scientific evidence, I am free to point out its factual faults and the authors lack of credentials. Scientists do this to each other all of the time. It is how science works. Nobody accepts anything on face value. Science is rigorous, frequently challenged and there are acceptable ways for scientists to prove their findings in the journals where they can be assed and challenged by others. But phony science degrees and easily disputable evidence on creationists websites have no scientific credibility. Not all science is good and proper, which is why it has to withstand scrutiny by experts to be accepted. Validity is everything. There are always dissenting opinions, which is good for science and keeps us on track and honest. But it is important to consider the consensus of scientific opinion, not cherry pick unpublished claims and declare it to be valid or to insist that the dissenting voice is "true" and the consensus is not.

I would not begin to debate theology with you. I care little about it and have no credentials at all to discuss matters of faith. But if you take on science, you must be prepared to defend what you say. I care very much and I am capable of discussing it confidently.

So do I. I sincerely would like to understand why some people believe that science supports religion, when it does not. I mean no insult, but sometimes it's like the child who keeps saying "why?" I have to keep explaining the same things over and over. It makes me feel like you really haven't read my responses.

No, you cited an anonymous blogger complaining at a person's paper was removed and not available for study and that this proved that science was not "fair". You didn't even offer the title. I don't know if this happened or not, or the real reason from somebody that was not anonymous. But I do know that the named author has published a number of papers that are widely available and some are controversial but have been through the legitimate journaled publication process and are taken seriously. I encouraged you to select one of those so I could point out the problems with it that other scientists have published. Or perhaps even to agree with it. Or perhaps to discover that, like Mary Schweitzer, he had been misquoted and misinterpreted.

You have not even read his work on thermodynamics and what he thinks this suggests about evolution. But it is available as well as the scientific work rebutting it. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

Red flag number 1 -- it is a creationist website, not a scientific journal.

​

I must tell you that this statement contains some nonsense and presents no evidence at all. Nuclear models are anything but "simplistic". There is no "ignorance" about isotopes among physicists. Results that are discordant with the geologic time scale are sometimes rejected because the geologic time scale is supported by overwhelming evidence and these objections have no validity. It takes more than a single dissent to discard a couple of centuries of proven science. And forums are widely available to object to the validity of any topic in any scientific discipline.

Are you kidding me? I do this for a living and I'm pretty good at it. It's not as easy as you suggest. It takes me hours to research some of these things and I am not going to do it if you don't read them and are willing to discuss the actual science instead of the creationist spin like the above comment. Go to respected international journals like Science and Nature. Yes they have fees for access. It takes money to publish a journal. But you can find them in the library for free. You can search their sites for free and sometimes find a author or article that is available elsewhere on the internet. Also there are free informal websites offering scientific information on evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Many others are in the public domain. Moreover there are many informal websites where valid scientific information can be found and supporting evidence cited. How about National Geographic? Easy to read, widely respected and balanced. Free registration to access some material.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/was-darwin-wrong/

 

Then we have nothing to discuss. Evolution is a biological process. If you wish to discuss the age of the earth, you must also discuss geology. The very crux of creationism is that they don't want to discuss the body of biological and geological evidence, as you are doing.

It doesn't happen often. As I have previously pointed out, Nobody uses C-14 to date ancient material because it does not exists for that long. But many other radioactive isotopes do and are accurate to within 5%. That is what is accepted. When somebody claims that a dinosaur bone has a C-14 ages of 60,000 years or less, he either has a contaminated sample or has a very recent actual bone instead of a fossil. No actual dinosaur bones exist, only fossils of them. If somebody claims such samples are legitimate bones and not contaminated samples, all he has to do is let somebody else examine them and publish those findings in a scientific journal. I do not know of any.

How do you propose to discuss the chronology of a thing without discussing the thing?

Evolution is accepted by science. I have no need to make a case for it unless it is challenged. You have challenged it here and I have rebutted it.

 

Sure, he is a scientist, just not a very respected one. The existence of dissent does not mean that the consensus of science is wrong. It just means that the consensus gets tested, which is good.

Despite his academic past, Berlinski now works at The Discovery Institute. From Wikipedia ...

The Discovery Institute is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscience "intelligent design". Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.

Although it often describes itself as a secular organization, critics, members of the press and former Institute fellows consider the Discovery Institute to be an explicitly Christian conservative organization, and point to the Institute's own publications and the statements of its members that endorse a religious ideology. Americans United for Separation of Church and State notes, "Though the Discovery Institute describes itself as a think tank 'specializing in national and international affairs,' the group's real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers." U.S. district court Judge John E. Jones III came to a similar conclusion about the Institute in his 2005 ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: "The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones."​

I won't debate a link. What does he say that you offer as evidence? I will discuss that. But be careful. People have been shooting Berlinski down for a long time.

 

The guy has some odd beliefs that he confuses with facts but he's not being a dick about it. Just obstinate, which is not itself a fault. He's kind of the anti-martin.

 

Poke away . . .