Fossils are not used to date strata, except for extremely recent history in places where the strata may be mixed up, and vice versa, for example around At present fossils are used to date the strata. The strata are used to stone age to iron age civilizations.
DDHv wrote:
Appeal to authority is a classic logical mistake.
the fossils. Circular reasoning is another logical error. For decades I've made a hobby of testing theories by evidence, with NO theory accepted as evidence.
Josh McDowell was bugged by some Christians at his college. They kept insisting he had a choice between changing his mind and trusting God or being judged by Him. So he set out to document the errors he had been assured were in the Bible. It didn't work out the way he expected. Have you ever studied "Evidence that Demands a Verdict?" His later book updates it. "More evidence that demands a verdict." Fair warning, neither of these is suitable for "Evidence For Dummies."
Have you ever sat down with a copy of "What Is Creation Science? by Henry M. Morris and a notebook and tried to find one error of fact in it?
No, but I have no need. Looking at the synopsises printed on the backs of books such as this show logical and scientific errors. If they cant even get it right on the outside, on the bit to convince you to read it, what hope has the inside of being error free?
For example:
http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/ talking about a book there makes numerous errors regarding 'facts; about the proof of the bible by scientific evidence, that is only conducive to creationist claims for those who havent been in a science class room for over 40 plus years, and made every attempt to ignore the science while in the classroom.
It makes claims that the only way underground salt beds, coal and oil could from is due to a great flod, but conveniently forgets to mention that evidence shows these beds are tens of millions of years old, so not in the human time period, ignores the known existance of underground oceans, or the possibility of geologic sinking of a salt lake bed, which is then covered by mud and sediment to leave it underground, or the fact that swamoy areas would tend to form perfect areas for the collection of biomass to form coal.
And thats from one line of the synopsis.
The basic problem with a paradigm error its support by theory. A paradigm can only be tested by facts.
The wikipedia article on the archeologist, William Mitchell Ramsay says "The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay, skeptical, fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years after the event—this is, when Acts was then supposed to have been written." By the end of his career, his research had convinced him that Luke was a very accurate historian.
SO you are refering to a page with one semi valid reference, back to his own book, and when cheking the page history, is found to have been written by his son? I have no confidence in anything displayed on that page.\
To refer back to this thread's primary question:
Job chapter 38:31 mentions four constellations. Each of them, from doppler measurements, has stars with like velocity. One is so visually spread out that there is no other known method of determining they are truly one star group. A number of other constellations are visual only, with their stars having different velocities.
Where is your experimental or observational evidence for slow differentiation? the house sparrow was first introduced to North American in 1852, and again several more times. Wikipedia says, "In North America, house sparrow populations are more differentiated than those in Europe." Depending on who you quote get from twelve subspecies to 35 species. The Hebrew Baramin seems to equate primarily to the family level, not species or even genera, based on ability to interbreed (with some sterile offspring - mules, etc.)
Depends qhether you want to look at the fossil record, genetic record, physiological record, and how you want to look through them. Phylogeny trees with branch lengths and splits calculated by known, tested rates of genetic drift explain to within a few tens of thousands of years the time between species differentiation, and even allow us to work out how they differentiated, and work out what the two species differentiated from, and what it probably looked like those X million years ago.
Agreed. Now, please document a proven error of fact, not one based on theory. Except, of course, the theory that there is a real universe which should be used to test theories.
When I see one group, however respected, appealing to accepted theory, and another paradigm's supporters doing experiments and pointing to observations, I will doubt accepted theory.
Thomas Kuhn's book points out that although in theory, any fact that solidly contradicts that theory invalidates the theory, in practice, we strongly ignore evidence that doesn't support our current paradigm.
That may be that we ignore evidence not of our paradigm, but you forget Lakatos's work, which pointed out a few criticisms of Kuhn's work , and proposed the more workable research programs to replace paradigms. one of the defining points of research programs was the fact that they were either progressive or degenerative in their methods of explanation, and that degenerative programs were failing to explain the universe properly, as they were constantly trying to catch up to new evidence, not predict what we chould find next. The bible was one described as the most degenerative of all, due to its failure to predict, and constant rewriting or reinterpretation to merely explain observations.
Have you even studied the flume experiments on sediment depositing? Have you in detail looked at the dating method assumptions? Have you looked at any of the non-mineralized fossil discoveries and compared the assumed dates with experimental lifetimes of organic materials without bacteria? If so, please post where we can find those experiments or observations.
Yes I have. And unlike all creationism material, it is internally consistent, across multiple disciplines, has low deviation error, and continues to contradict any all and 'evidence' put up by creationists.
One of the reasons I like Institute for Creation Research is their article bibliographies. With Google, anyone willing to do the work can trace back to most of the experiments, observations, or assumptions.
I prefer to use sites such as the one provided to me by University, which gives me direct access to all the papers by reputable journals, their cited papers, and the papers that cite them, and the non bias of it as it only collates by providing access to journals, unlike an obviously biased institution such as the ICR. Their name gives you the bias immediately.
[quote[
I'm not saying anyone should change their mind. I'm saying we all should examine evidence pointed out by people with other paradigms. Presuppositions (Only with solid evidence will I change my mind.) is permitted. Prejudice (My mind is made up. Don't try to confuse me with facts.) is not.[/quote]
We have examined the evidence. Thousands of people with PHds have tried again and again to prove others work false. thats how peer review works. yet the papers that get proven to be not false are those that contradict creationism. So you are the one with prejudice, not us.
Several centuries later, the theorists (Aristotle said, etc.) were challenged on this basis of using testing, instead of referring to accepted authorities.
.