Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Lisburn Council and the young-Earthers
More on the Lisburn Council young-Earthers, I’m sorry to say. Will Crawley points to Paul Taylor, a UK representative of Answers in Genesis, which is the US-based organisation behind such wonders as the $27m Creation Museum - as featured in the Guardian and, more recently, on the BBC [and excellently parodied here - Ed]. Mr Taylor claims mis-representation in media reports on the Lisburn Council motion, without references, and, more importantly, details his weekend of apparently well-attended meetings in Lisburn which ended on September 15th with a presentation and brief speech from the Lisburn Mayor, Councillor James Tinsley.
The [Lisburn Council] motion was likely given increased impetus because I had led a Creation Weekend in the city the previous week. My meetings were well attended—on Friday, September 14, 2007, for instance, I spoke to about a thousand people, half of whom were young people. On Saturday, September 15, I was presented with an attractive gift clock by the Mayor of Lisburn, Councillor James Tinsley, who made a brief speech welcoming Answers in Genesis to Lisburn as providers and preachers of biblical truth. (By the way, over the years, Ken Ham, AiG–U.S. president, has conducted several meetings in Northern Ireland which have drawn large crowds, and those seminars have helped create a groundswell of support for the deemphasizing of evolution as “fact” in govenment-run schools in the country.)
Meanwhile here’s a quote from the founder and President of Answers in Genesis - who not coincidentally are also purveyors of resources for teaching Creationism as science - and director of the Creation Museum, Ken Ham
I want to make it VERY clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.
First, select your conclusion..
Have those guidelines been issued here yet?!
Pete Baker @ 06:50 PM
Sam
Snakebrain
“There aren’t any other viable alternatives. ID and Creationism are religion. Evolutionary theory has observed phenomena as it’s basis.”
Evolution has no right to claim this any more than ID or even creationism so stop spinning what is clearly untrue. Evolution has a pre-suppositional framework behind it and evolutionists then try to use the evidence to fit into it. You really need to distinguish in your mind what science really is. Prof Nevins clearly can, and he is a lot smarter than you, so what is your basic problem?
Well yes, but I didn’t say that. Somebody else did. A little basic fact-checking seems to be your ongoing basic problem…
Further, you still haven’t addressed the question of whether you accept the fundamental principle of isotopic decay. It’s quite important because I think it provides a uniform time-action relationship over the periods of time we’re discussing and hence removes your central objection to isotopic dating techniques, i.e. that uniformitarianism is an assumption. If you accept that radioactive decay has been phenomenologically consistent over the duration of the decay of a currently active atom, then the Earth simply must be older than 6000 years.
Or God’s playing silly buggers, and we know he doesn’t approve of that..
Any further thoughts?
And please don’t tell me I’m stupid again.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 08:49 PMComrade Stalin,
I have been trying to stay out of the this debate as I regard it as completely circular and now fundamentally pointless.
Might I suggest one thing though. I am not directing this against you but in general.
None of us can be certain of one another’s qualifications nor their relevance. Indeed I do not know exactly who you are in the real world, nor you me. Might we agree to accept that Sam Hanna has a biology degree and indeed snakebrain has a Masters in Archaeology (both things I greatly respect and admire). Some of us may have strings of letters, doctorates etc. after our names. Some of us have very few. If you are suggesting that Sam’s approach of quoting famous clearly clever people like Prof. Nevin is flawed as a reason to believe in creationism (and I largely agree with you on this) then you should probably accept in good faith that he has a biology or biochemistry or whatever degree. Since he quotes a specific module on the philosophy of science from QUB, might I suggest it does not need a doctorate to work out his almer mater. Equally I think describing snakebrains’s degree as from a run down poly is highly inappropriate.
If people have no qualifications that does not make the stupid, ill educated nor their view irrelevant; and I know you agree with me on this.
I still feel the whole debate is a bit pointless now but attacking one anothers qualifications is just an even more pointless distraction from the general pointlessness.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 08:52 PMYou’re absolutely right Turgon. Qualifications mean precisely zilch.
I’m reminded of the story that hit the papers a few years ago of the VP of a large multi-national who was discovered, at the time of his application for the VP post, to have utterly fabricated all his academic credentials at the time of his original employment with the company, some 30 years previously. He had however started at the bottom of the company and made it to VP on his own merit. They considered the matter and gave him the promotion.
I didn’t want to look like I was showboating when I said that about my degree; merely that I do have some relevant knowledge. It was actually a former theological college....
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 09:04 PMsnakebrain,
I know you and I disagree a lot on this issue but I can assure you that I was not accusing you of showboating at all. In fact your qualifications do have significant relevance to the topic in hand since radio carbon dating is relevant to the age of things which are thousands of years old (is it less relevant when one gets to much older? Not an attack; a genunine question). Your MA/MSc sounds really interesting though I bet it was pretty tedious for you at times near the end with writing up and stuff.Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 09:11 PMTedious does not begin to describe it…
You’ve been very reasonable Turgon; a model disputant if I may say so, always a pleasure to deal with.
RC dating is only valid up till about 60000 years ago, because after that the radioactive isotope has completely decayed and is indistinguishable from ordinary background levels. Up till that cut-off point RC is startlingly accurate, often giving results within a 3-5 year range at 1000 years remove.
This level of hyper-accuracy is actually due to calibration of the RC scale with dendrochronological data (wood samples) which, with a lot of patience and lab time, can be dated to the exact year of growth. The RC scale is then calibrated with the more accurate dendro scale. Astounding stuff. N.B. RC is only viable with organic material, i.e. material that has been alive.
After the 60k year cut-off for RC there are other isotopic dating techniques which work in precisely the same way. For example, instead of comparing levels of C14 to C12, levels of Uranium 238 (the radioactive isotope) are compared to levels of U235 (non-radioactive), or levels of different radioactive isotopes are compared, for example Uranium-Thorium dating, which is viable over huge periods of time.
(The reason I was asking Sam about isotopic dating was that if an atom has been decaying at a constant rate for 20000 years, it must prove it’s own existence twenty thousand years previously, and hence the Earth’s existence.)
Hope that’s satisfied your curiosity for now. Anything else you’re wondering about, feel free to ask.
Again, always a pleasure.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 09:37 PMsnakebrain,
Just one thing before the usual nonsense resumes (or preferably the whole thread quietly becomes extinct). I can understand the living things taking it in bit and the decay but how does the C14 get made? Is it is the atmosphere from the action of sunlight or from rocks and stuff in the earth? I presume it must be “manufactured” in some way or there would be an exponentially decreasing amount of it in the world. No hidden agenda here just curiosity.Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 09:57 PMComrade Stalin
The reason I mention Prof Norman Nevin’s name in the debate is because the majority of people blindly assert here that ID is not science and that evolution is a fact. They also keep implying that anyone who cannot see that is some ignorant fundamentalist obscurantist who hasn’t advanced beyond a primary school education.
It is an extremely important fact that Prof Nevins, who is widely recognised as the greatest scientist in N.Ireland, and a world specialist in gentics. As I explained his specialisation is in the field of genetic variation which is at the very heart of the “evolutionary engine.” So, if evolution is a “fact” (that many claim here)why on earth is such an acknowledged expert sceptical about the claims that the key mechanism doesn’t even begin to meet the outlandish claims by evolution. Comparing him to you, with respect, is a bit like arguing that someone who knows about windscreen wipers is an equal authority on the performance of a car as a engine builder and mechanic. If the wipers guty is sceptical we may overlook it, but if the engine designer says the engine won’t even start the car then I have to be worried. You state that a person’s credentials are unimportant - they are very important as we obtain the vast majority of our evidence from which to frame this discussion from these men.
You cannot keep banging on about scientific journals as if that is the test of this argument - I have provided a long list of names of men who are ID advocates who regularly write in scientific journals and who are opposed to evolution.
You need to understand the difference between your personal preferences and factual realities. You may ignorantly think that evolution is the best explanation, but Prof Nevins is equally able (mosyt here would agree more able) to evaluate the evidence and come to the conclusion that it points to creation. You are never going to persuade anyone by blandly ignoring the facts just because you “think” you are right.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 10:00 PMSnakebrain
Hope your are enjoying your love in with Turgon - like the Chuckle Brothers in Stormont.
Isotope dating is a rather boring game to talk about and if you simply google you will come up with numerous answers to your conundrum from a Creationist standpoint.
Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:
(1)The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
(2)The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
(3)The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.
Read and enjoy
http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 10:10 PMMalcolm,
Why do I feel uncomfortable about such great intellects who know not that “it’s” and “its” are not the same,…
...and yet are qualified to pontificate about education?
This is Ireland; what did you expect? :0)
But I’m delighted you posted again because I wished to express my appreciation of your thoughtful and intelligent posts of 12.22 and 18.26 today. Beautiful.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 10:12 PMSam
has anyone besides sam hannah ever heard of profesor NevinAnd just for the record the fact that one suposed scientist agrees with your wackadoo ideas does not make him or his credentials extremely important. theres a thousand eminently more important scientist who think he is wrong
you dont provide any facts to back up your arguement except “I believe this..... these people agree with me”
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 10:13 PMAnd what a fitting note to wind up on:
“You are never going to persuade anyone by blandly ignoring the facts just because you “think” you are right.”
Thanks for that (hopefully) last word Sam - I think everybody can agree on that.
Good night, and as Mr Allen used to say, may your god go with you......
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 10:14 PMSam Hanna,
I really do not like disagreeing with you in public, I feel it is letting the side down. I think a lot of what you posted at the start (when we were all a lot younger) was very valid. You proposed a number of valid criticisms of evolution and it is correct there are many. The evolutionists’ answer is; as far as I can see essentailly, more research will sort it out which is, I agree not really that good an answer.A long time ago towards the end of thread 1 all that is useful had been said but it just kept on going.
As an aside I went to some of the creationist stuff in Lisburn / Hillsbourgh (one of Elenwe’s cousins orgainsed it). I have heard all this before and largely agree with many of the propositions they make but have neither time, motivation nor intelligence to get really into it.
On the issue of Norman Nevin, I know of him and he might once have just about recognised my face. It is Nevin not Nevins incidentally. He is as you state a famous geneticist, researcher and doctor, previously Professor of Genetics and Consultant Physician at the Belfast City Hospital. His work is not really related to evolution. One could easily research the genes involved in spina bifida etc. without getting very interested in evolution. I suspect one could practice medicine at almost any level without getting involved in any way at all in evolution or believe in it. I know a number of doctors who do not believe in evolution.
It is interesting that this gentleman is a creationist and it shows really clever people believe in creationism but yet again on this basis the walls of the towers of evolution do not at that point come crashing down, let alone those of atheism. With this fact you have not thrown Sauron’s ring into Orodruin and Barad-dur will not now come crashing down (sorry biazzare Tolkien reference).
I do not feel this whole debate is a very good advert for fundamentalist Christianity, is not critical to the continuance of my (or your) faith and will in no way assist in the salvation of the souls of our fellow debaters.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 10:29 PMSam Hanna,
“Hope your are enjoying your love in with Turgon”The last few posts crossed.
My only answer to that is “And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you” 1 Thessalonians 3:12.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 10:44 PMSam,
I am still bemused as to why you feel so certain that Professor Nevin “is widely recognised as the greatest scientist in N.Ireland”. Others have questioned your opinion on this too. It seems to me that you are only saying this because he shares some of your religious opinions.
I suggested previously that our most famous scientist is actually Jocelyn Bell Burnell. Using Google entries as a guide, I counted the numbers of referencees it gave for each of these persons.
“Jocelyn Bell Burnell” returned 42,300 entries.
“Norman Nevin” and “Norman C. Nevin” returned a total of 899 entries.
I think this is a reasonable guide to the extent of person’s fame or celebrity. No doubt you will not accept this a valid methodology.
By the way, I think that your refusal to accept that Jocelyn Bell Burnell is a “real” Christian, simply because her religious beliefs are tempered by her scientific observations and not by an adherence to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, is complete nonsense.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 10:47 PMciaran @ 11:47 PM:
Your bemusement would be less had you appreciated that Sam Hanna’s strings were manipulated by http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 10:56 PM“I still feel the whole debate is a bit pointless now but attacking one anothers qualifications is just an even more pointless distraction from the general pointlessness.” - Turgon
It sounds like a Beckett play.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 10:59 PMthere are so many counter arguments to creationism, most of them already canvassed here, that it would be pointless to start.
Yet, I feel compelled to say, from a personal viewpoint, that it is possible both to agree with the theory of evolution and to believe in God.
Proving evolution doesn’t for me disprove God. Religious belief is a mutable thing in this respect. I will always find God in the unknown and as humanity shrinks the unknown with its scientific advances, I will find still more “unknown” where I place God. This is because it is a belief, not a science - I get to change the goal posts in a most unscientific (and dare I say illogical?) way.Bishop of Ussher and ID really are just bunkum.
Sam Hanna, i do admire your tenacity in repeating your views, but tenacity does not mean correctness.
As turgon points out, pseudo-science claptrap turns people off religion rather than persuading them off it.As a side note, equating religious education with child abuse is tendentious. And mocking someone’s beliefs as being “skypixies and fairy tales” is also a little bit offensive.
I promise not to read these circular threads ever again.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 11:19 PMBollix,
“As a side note, equating religious education with child abuse is tendentious.”
I guess I’m the guilty one. But don’t you think that it’s religious education that’s tendentious? I mean to say, it’s hardly impartial, is it?
I do feel strongly about this filling of young heads with untruths at an age when opinions are being formed. It simply isn’t fair. Notions and viewpoints imbibed at, say, 4 or 5 will persist and will be all the harder to dismiss when the child has grown. But I suppose that’s the whole idea isn’t it?
I’m constantly grateful that my own parents were wise enough not to burden their offspring with religious beliefs. My siblings and I had far less to “unlearn” in later life. I do feel it’s the religious baggage that retards many a life and prevents an individual from achieving true fulfilment.
But perhaps I’m biased :0)
Posted by on Oct 05, 2007 @ 11:43 PMDo you know Turgon, I actually couldn’t give you an intelligent answer to that. My gut feeling is that inherent breakdown into component isotopes is a constantly ongoing process, that tends towards a fixed proportionality within any sample. I’ll dig out the books and have a look.
I liked the Thessalonians quote btw. I’m not remotely religious as you know, but sometimes the Good Book says it well…
I’ll be a little more contemporary:
It’s nice to be nice.
Posted by on Oct 06, 2007 @ 12:20 AMSam:
“You are never going to persuade anyone by blandly ignoring the facts just because you “think” you are right.”
Just when everyone though Mr Hanna had reached the bottom, he produced a shovel.
Posted by on Oct 06, 2007 @ 12:53 AMAnd mocking someone’s beliefs as being “skypixies and fairy tales” is also a little bit offensive.
that would be me
sorry but the bible is a fairy tale made up of the understandings of the people at the time. every primitive culture has a creationist fable and perhaps evolution will just be the most modern creatonist fable but until some one can explain it better than evolution I will believe
By the way how come if sam is so certain the bible is the literal word of god and the absolute truth it never mentions Asia, Australia or the Americas
believe if you must but other than a possible guide book to living a moderately moral life it serves no purpose sonce 1132ad
Posted by on Oct 06, 2007 @ 01:10 AMThe Dubliner,
To have anything I have written compared to Beckett is praise indeed.Posted by on Oct 06, 2007 @ 10:49 AMThis thread seems to have died from exhaustion, and I don’t intend to revive it. I just want to pass on some information that might interest some contributors.
There was an discussion a few pages back which dealt with population statistics or something - I found it difficult to follow. By an odd co-incidence I was reading another article today and found a link to the US Census website and a document that gives estimates for the World’s population at various times in the past. The dcument can be found here-
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
I don’t know how it affects the previous discussion, if at all, so I will just let you make of it what you will.
Posted by on Oct 06, 2007 @ 09:17 PM
