How good are those young Earth arguments? - Page 1

This is one of the most comprehensive, well written articles I've read about the "proof" for creation "science".  If you have lots of time, it's a good read, but then, once you start reading, you may not be able to stop.

The Talk Origins Archive - Exploring the Creation/Evolution controversy

"0. This magic bullet mentality, the tendency to rely on a single, isolated argument to win all the chips, has gotten creationists into more trouble than possibly anything else. Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not give little, gold ribbons to certify the accuracy of our proofs! Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that one's proof is foolproof. One can always dream up possible scenarios that will contradict even the best scientific models. (The better the model, the more farfetched the loopholes are.) If you crave the certainty of a real "proof," the final word as it were, then you had better stick to mathematics or logic! Those are the only arenas where absolute proof plays any serious role.

Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their credibility; as more and more data support a scientific hypothesis, the greater our confidence in it. If that hypothesis fits into a common pattern, successfully interlocking with established theories, then it gets another big plus. If that hypothesis has no credible competition, despite much work in the area, then our confidence in it begins to soar. If that hypothesis also supplies us with numerous insights into nature, which are confirmed by further observation and testing, then it might attain the status of a "scientific theory." (Note that a scientific theory ranks very high in credibility, has been tested repeatedly, and serves as a successful framework for integrating and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena; it must not be confused with the layman's use of "theory" which refers to half-baked speculation or guesswork. Consequently, the complaint that evolution is merely a (scientific) theory is a little like saying that an athlete is merely a gold-medal winner!)

If there is one thread running through the scientific world, it is an emphasis on the total picture. Great care is taken to survey all the relevant literature and to arrive at a balanced judgment of the known facts. Scientists are trained to overcome a one-shot, "cowboy" mentality. When great scientific ideas do fall, on rare occasions, they do so of many grievous wounds followed by the rethinking of the total picture. The idea, literally worshiped in creationist circles, that you can disprove a theory by whipping out some cute, isolated "proof" that settles everything at once and for all, is not scientific. Even if such a "proof" were technically correct, it would likely shoot down only a weak model of the theory. Deep truths are seldom grasped whole; early models are often flawed in some of their particulars. Furthermore, isolated data, even if correct, are often misleading. Consequently, scientists must evaluate the total picture and avoid being fixated on specific points.

Facts successfully explained do carry weight and cannot be ignored; facts that don't fit are not necessarily fatal to the central ideas behind a hypothesis. Good scientific judgment is the art of weighing all these variables and properly evaluating the big picture. Contrary data and isolated arguments are important in that they carry the potential for bringing down a theory or hypothesis. That grand potential is seldom realized in the light of further investigation.

The one thread running through "scientific" creationism is a fixation on particular arguments or "proofs" to the exclusion of all else. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific process by people who should know better. Dr. Hovind, for example, is blissfully ignorant of the relevant literature surrounding his "proofs." Consequently, his audience is given no hint of what the "competition" has to say. Nor does he discuss the weaknesses in his arguments. (By comparison, Darwin was always mindful to point out potential problems and acknowledge the strongest opposing arguments.) In short, Dr. Hovind has made no attempt to grapple with the BIG PICTURE. As a result, his arguments carry no scientific weight.

Not one of Dr. Hovind's 30 isolated "proofs" holds any water. Meanwhile, an avalanche of burgeoning data continue to increase our confidence in an ancient Earth and cosmos. I will refute every last "proof" of a young Earth listed in Dr. Hovind's Seminar Notebook (c. 1994). I will also supply two or three examples which have no reasonable interpretation save that our Earth is old."

Wow Travels what a read...............I am about halfway through it--had to take a little break but I am going to get back to it in a minute. That sort of thing is right up my alley--thanks for posting this............

I guess it all depends on what you believe and who you believe. I say that because I was taught in college that humans evolved from Lucy and on up through the chain so there was no way humans and neandrethals could be here at the same time.  Now last weekend I was watching either the History2 or Science channel--it was about Richard Leake and his quest for the missing link. Anyway the gist is according to him, his discoveries and research, humans are not related to the neandrethals. Something about their DNA was totally different and no way could we be related.

Now what do I believe? Well I'm not sure at this point--what I was taught in school and then what I saw on that program makes one go hmmmm. I always liked Dr Leake--so if it is true we are not evolved from them, then they must be taken out of the chain, so to speak. But somehow I still don't think they were here when humans--or the next link in the chain was here on earth. Myself I don't think we were humans like we are now 47,000 yrs ago. Another thing that was said on the program was the Adam and Eve story could very well be so BUT they were not in a human form like people today. If you read Genesis and the creation story, it never says anything about their looks or any of that. What color hair they hair, what color were their eyes, skin and so on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Anyway just my thoughts.

As they gain more information, a theory may evolve, that's science.  DNA mapping has changed the thinking on a lot of things, and it's still advancing.  If it leads to findings that weren't expected, they'll test it again and go in the direction of the evidence.

Yeah, but any minute now someone will insist that Earth is only 6,ooo years old and was created in 7 days ...

Oh great, I just read about the last act of Human-Neanderthal sex, before I finished my coffee. I've got too many one liners pinging around my cranium just now, I am at a loss as to deciding where to go from here.....!

Hundmutter you were reading my mind last night when I was posting that--LOL....

OK now let me share this. I used to go to this non denominational church--when I would miss the pastor would send me a cassette tape of the sermon. The other day I was going through some stuff and walla there was one of them. I relistened to it. Basically what it says is somewhere way out in this desert this fossil was found of a perfect palm leaf which proves his theory and makes this story "true". OK his theory is at one time the earth was covered by a canopy, sort of like a giant greenhouse. There were all kinds of lush plants, anumals grew bigger, people were giants and on and on. You get the pic. But all the time this condensation is collecting on top of the canopy. It finally collected so much that it caused the canopy to fall in, creating the big flood....................what do you guys think? I know the whole thing was very interesting and I sorta got into it. Now I have heard on those programs I watch that the scientists believe there was a big big flood at one time and they have the evidence to prove it. Also as far as the creation story goes, I am almost sure in the Bible it says something about how those days were measured--was it every day was a thousand years? I'm really not sure. But where I am going is I know the 6 days the earth was created in, according to the book of Genesis were not the same days as we experience today. In other words not 24 hour days.
Bee I am like you, I have so much info stored in my head and am constantly adding more so at times it gets kind of hard to know what to believe. Or which way to lean toward. That's where I am on this creation thing. I really like the story of the earth having some sort of canopy and IMO it could be true. But Genesis and Adam and Eve, I am real skeptical about that.
The reason I believe the deal about the flood is because there are several tribes' creation stories that have to do with people coming up out of mud. Our creation story is one like that--I don't know it word by word but I do know this crawdad went down into the earth and brought up these little balls of mud and they turned into the Chickasaw people. Do I believe that? Well it's as possible as anything else.

Have you two read the Jean Auel "Clan of the Cave Bear" series of novels ?

Hundmutter I read those a long time ago and saw the movie--that tall blonde girl played her--Dana something--was that her name? Can't remember. Was Hannah her last name? Anyway I haven't read them in a long long time so if you have anything to share about them please do.

OK I have been looking for that creation story but I can't find it. I had it on a brochure but not sure where that is at. Went to the website, they didn't have it. But I did find this about the great flood which I am going to give the link and then copy and paste the story--pretty interesting. I had forgotten about it. http://www.chickasaw.net/history_culture/index_747.htm
Long ago, perhaps in the days when Chickasaws still resided in the land of the setting sun, their Great Spirit, Ababinili, sent rain. Soon water covered all the Earth. Some Chickasaws made rafts to save themselves. Then, creatures like large white beavers cut the thongs that bound the rafts. All drowned except one family and a pair of each of all the animals. When the rain stopped and the flood began receding, a raven appeared with part of an ear of corn. The Great Spirit told the Chickasaws to plant it. The Great Spirit also told them that eventually the Earth would be destroyed by fire, its ruin presaged by a rain of flood and oil.

The Chickasaws are not the only North American Indian Tribe who has a legend of the flood. Almost every other ancient people, from the Chinese to the Mayans and Incas, had their own version which told of destruction of the world by water.

We always joke about we are all related but if there was only one family left think of the inbreeding. Same as Noah--I guess God wasn't against incest or inbreeding. Ah that's a good arguement LOL.................
Hundmutter by to the books--they portray those people as sort of neandethal cave people like. What do you think they were?