[_ Old Earth _] Preconceived notions

[Heidi]

When evolutional archeologoists go out into the field, they are looking for items to veryify their theories and will discard all other items that don't fit their theories. If I had a preconceived notion that man came from birds, for example, then I could go into a cave and see a line on the wall and claim that the beak of a bird formed that line. Then if I found feathers on the ground, I could go into my lab and test the age of the feathers. If they were found to be very old, I could claim that the bird dropped those feathers as it was forming into a man. And if I had a Ph.d. and enough money to do more research, I would get believe to believe me. It really isn't very hard to do. You have to remember that the theory of evolution wasn't accepted in the scientific community until 50 years after it was postulated. But with enough time and zeal, scientists can convince the public of anything.

 

[cubedbee]

When evolutional archeologoists go out into the field, they are looking for items to veryify their theories and will discard all other items that don't fit their theories.

Um, neither an evolutionist nor a archeologist would do this, because their job is on the line, and if they were found out discarding evidence they would lose their jobs.

If I had a preconceived notion that man came from birds, for example, then I could go into a cave and see a line on the wall and claim that the beak of a bird formed that line. Then if I found feathers on the ground, I could go into my lab and test the age of the feathers. If they were found to be very old, I could claim that the bird dropped those feathers as it was forming into a man.

Yes, Heidi, you’re free to do any of this. But it’s not science, this is not how scientists practice, and if you did this and tried to claim it was science you would be instantly revealed as a fraud by the scientific community.

And if I had a Ph.d. and enough money to do more research, I would get believe to believe me.

You might be able to get gullible non-educated people on the internet, like yourself, to believe you. You would not get other scientists to believe you, because that is not how the scientific community operates. Please reference the news to see the PHD in Korea being totally discredited for falsifying stem cell research. That is what would happen to you.

It really isn't very hard to do. You have to remember that the theory of evolution wasn't accepted in the scientific community until 50 years after it was postulated.

1) No, it didn’t take that long for most scientists to accept it 2) It should, by the very nature of science, take time for scientists to verify a new theory for themselves and accept it. If they instantly accepted it, then they wouldn’t be practicing science. But of course, since you don’t know what science is, you wouldn’t understand this.

But with enough time and zeal, scientists can convince the public of anything

Wow, what a completely silly statement. 1) The public does not accept evolution. Look at a pollâ€â€over 50% of the American public rejects evolution 2) Science has nothing to do with convincing the public---quantum mechanics is true whether the public understands it or accepts it, scientists know this, and our technology only exists because this theory is true. Likewise with evolution.

 

[army_of_juan]

When evolutional archeologoists go out into the field, they are looking for items to veryify their theories and will discard all other items that don't fit their theories. If I had a preconceived notion that man came from birds, for example, then I could go into a cave and see a line on the wall and claim that the beak of a bird formed that line. Then if I found feathers on the ground, I could go into my lab and test the age of the feathers. If they were found to be very old, I could claim that the bird dropped those feathers as it was forming into a man. And if I had a Ph.d. and enough money to do more research, I would get believe to believe me. It really isn't very hard to do. You have to remember that the theory of evolution wasn't accepted in the scientific community until 50 years after it was postulated. But with enough time and zeal, scientists can convince the public of anything.

You couldn't be more wrong.

In the 1830s, creationist scientist went out to find evidence of a global flood. The evidence they found showed that there was no flood and that the Earth was older than originally thought. They already had a preconceived notion the Earth was young and that there was an actually flood but being true scientist they couldn't ignore the evidence (much like you do) and had to conclude that they were wrong.

If your OP was even remotely correct then we'd be teaching YEC stuff in school (in the US anyway, they rest of the world isn't as nutty).

 

[Heidi]

When evolutional archeologoists go out into the field, they are looking for items to veryify their theories and will discard all other items that don't fit their theories. If I had a preconceived notion that man came from birds, for example, then I could go into a cave and see a line on the wall and claim that the beak of a bird formed that line. Then if I found feathers on the ground, I could go into my lab and test the age of the feathers. If they were found to be very old, I could claim that the bird dropped those feathers as it was forming into a man. And if I had a Ph.d. and enough money to do more research, I would get believe to believe me. It really isn't very hard to do. You have to remember that the theory of evolution wasn't accepted in the scientific community until 50 years after it was postulated. But with enough time and zeal, scientists can convince the public of anything.

You couldn't be more wrong.

In the 1830s, creationist scientist went out to find evidence of a global flood. The evidence they found showed that there was no flood and that the Earth was older than originally thought. They already had a preconceived notion the Earth was young and that there was an actually flood but being true scientist they couldn't ignore the evidence (much like you do) and had to conclude that they were wrong.

If your OP was even remotely correct then we'd be teaching YEC stuff in school (in the US anyway, they rest of the world isn't as nutty).

Sorry but it is you who are in error. There definitely is evidence of a flood in the sedimentary layers of rock which scientists can't explain. There have been as many theories about this as there are people on earth. Dinosaurs were also wiped out and scientists still don't know why.

But my point is that when a preconceived notion exists in any scientist, creationist or otherwise, then his findings will always be tainted. And that is why we cannot consider archeological findings as evidence of anything. The bible tells us what the truth is. But those who think they are more omniscient than God will always color their findings in whatever way suits their fancy and they will always look foolish in the process. And if they don't see their foolishness while they're on earth, I can guarantee they will when they die. ;-)

 

[army_of_juan]

Sorry but it is you who are in error. There definitely is evidence of a flood in the sedimentary layers of rock which scientists can't explain. There have been as many theories about this as there are people on earth. Dinosaurs were also wiped out and scientists still don't know why.

They have pretty good ideas, don't try to imply they don't have any clue.

But my point is that when a preconceived notion exists in any scientist, creationist or otherwise, then his findings will always be tainted. And that is why we cannot consider archeological findings as evidence of anything. The bible tells us what the truth is. But those who think they are more omniscient than God will always color their findings in whatever way suits their fancy and they will always look foolish in the process. And if they don't see their foolishness while they're on earth, I can guarantee they will when they die. ;-)

That's why we have the scientific method and peer-review. It's design to weed out things like preconceived notions and bias by challenging all findings and leaving nothing to mere assumptions. Everything need to be supported by evidence that can be verified before it's accepted.

The Bible is not a science book.

 

[peace4all]

hah excuse me, but umm, preconceived notions? discarding evidence because it doesn't fit.


THat sounds like a young earth creationists way of doing things. Considering they totally ignore everything from basic physics, to dinosoars, to macro evolution, ice ages, position of earth in our solar system etc...

Heidi, your arguments have gone from weak, to, well, not even arguments, To me, this looks like you just lit yourself on fire.

 

[Heidi]

hah excuse me, but umm, preconceived notions? discarding evidence because it doesn't fit.


THat sounds like a young earth creationists way of doing things. Considering they totally ignore everything from basic physics, to dinosoars, to macro evolution, ice ages, position of earth in our solar system etc...

Heidi, your arguments have gone from weak, to, well, not even arguments, To me, this looks like you just lit yourself on fire.

Sorry, but whenever people disagree with God they will always be wrong which is evidenced by scientists constantly changing their minds about their old theories. Now carbon dating isn't considered that reliable any more even though it once was. There is simply no way to know for sure how old the earth is, how old fossils are, etc. Those are simply based on calculations wihich contain a myriad of variables such as how much radiation or heat is in the atmophere at any given time. Therefore, they will never be accurate. When man believes in his own omniscience, he is in trouble which Nazi Germany should have taught us well, but it hasn't.

 

[ArtGuy]

Therefore, they will never be accurate. When man believes in his own omniscience, he is in trouble which Nazi Germany should have taught us well, but it hasn't.

I will just mention that I find your constant comparisons between evolutionists and Nazis to be completely inappropriate and reprehensible. It means that you either have a pathetic grasp of history, or else you delight in embellishing in dispicable hyperbole. Whether evolution is correct or not - and I, for the record, don't think it is - it takes a truly awful or ignorant person to compare a scientist who believes in evolution to a jackbooted thug participating in the extermination of an entire race.

Shame on you, Heidi. This is not the sort of behavior that Jesus encouraged.

 

[peace4all]

hah excuse me, but umm, preconceived notions? discarding evidence because it doesn't fit.


THat sounds like a young earth creationists way of doing things. Considering they totally ignore everything from basic physics, to dinosoars, to macro evolution, ice ages, position of earth in our solar system etc...

Heidi, your arguments have gone from weak, to, well, not even arguments, To me, this looks like you just lit yourself on fire.

Sorry, but whenever people disagree with God they will always be wrong which is evidenced by scientists constantly changing their minds about their old theories. Now carbon dating isn't considered that reliable any more even though it once was. There is simply no way to know for sure how old the earth is, how old fossils are, etc. Those are simply based on calculations wihich contain a myriad of variables such as how much radiation or heat is in the atmophere at any given time. Therefore, they will never be accurate. When man believes in his own omniscience, he is in trouble which Nazi Germany should have taught us well, but it hasn't.

Heidi, I see no reason why you should EVER debate. your mind is closed. Wether it is right or wrong you refuse to even acknowledge anything.
Of course evolutionary theories and such change, as humans are able to discover more, we improve ideas, or fix them.

When religion is wrong, it is "ohh, well, that must be a mis translation. Ooops, that umm, that part of the bible doesnt count anymore, or umm, ya. God can do mircales, so their is no reason to explain, it is God's will that humans remain ignorant."

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:D

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Religions another matter, there are many religions and many god's. Don't go there! But a few people in history said science without religion and vice versa is bigger nonsense.

 

[protos]

Heidi, I see no reason why you should EVER debate. your mind is closed. Wether it is right or wrong you refuse to even acknowledge anything.
Of course evolutionary theories and such change, as humans are able to discover more, we improve ideas, or fix them.

When religion is wrong, it is "ohh, well, that must be a mis translation. Ooops, that umm, that part of the bible doesnt count anymore, or umm, ya. God can do mircales, so their is no reason to explain, it is God's will that humans remain ignorant."

There's a difference between being closed-minded and rejecting lies and indoctrination. Science modifies or discards a theory when it doesn't fit observations. Evolution has been continually modified to no avail.

Example 1: 20 years after Darwin published his "Origin of Species" Gregor Mendel shattered darwinism with the discovery of genetics. In 1941 three scientists invented neo-Darwinism which claimed that genetic mutations transmuted species.

Example 2: After the three nutbags proposed their modification, DNA was discovered and how complex it was in 1953. Technically, when the RNA synthase system was discovered and realized how it work, the evolutionist and creationist debate should have come to a stop, because they realized that cells could not emerge from simple mud as they previously thought.

 

[reznwerks]

When evolutional archeologoists go out into the field, they are looking for items to veryify their theories and will discard all other items that don't fit their theories.
Who says? Can you show the basis of your claim? I think you are wrong.


If I had a preconceived notion that man came from birds, for example, then I could go into a cave and see a line on the wall and claim that the beak of a bird formed that line.
You have a preconcieved notion of how evolution and those that study it work. I think you are wrong.

Then if I found feathers on the ground, I could go into my lab and test the age of the feathers. If they were found to be very old, I could claim that the bird dropped those feathers as it was forming into a man.
Then you would have to show the logical path on how that happened. That is why no one has done as you suggest.


And if I had a Ph.d. and enough money to do more research, I would get believe to believe me.
It takes more that a PHD to get noticed. It takes evidence of which so far you have none.

It really isn't very hard to do. You have to remember that the theory of evolution wasn't accepted in the scientific community until 50 years after it was postulated.
Just 50 years? Imagine that! Christianity was "truth" for 2000 years and in just 50 it was undermined. What was that Christian "truth" about "sinking sands"?

But with enough time and zeal, scientists can convince the public of anything.
No, its not zeal and time it facts facts facts. On the other hand it is creationists without any proof that keep doing as you suggest. How do you sleep at night knowing how dishonest their intentions are?

 

[armed2010]

Heidi, I see no reason why you should EVER debate. your mind is closed. Wether it is right or wrong you refuse to even acknowledge anything.
Of course evolutionary theories and such change, as humans are able to discover more, we improve ideas, or fix them.

When religion is wrong, it is "ohh, well, that must be a mis translation. Ooops, that umm, that part of the bible doesnt count anymore, or umm, ya. God can do mircales, so their is no reason to explain, it is God's will that humans remain ignorant."

There's a difference between being closed-minded and rejecting lies and indoctrination. Science modifies or discards a theory when it doesn't fit observations. Evolution has been continually modified to no avail.

Example 1: 20 years after Darwin published his "Origin of Species" Gregor Mendel shattered darwinism with the discovery of genetics. In 1941 three scientists invented neo-Darwinism which claimed that genetic mutations transmuted species.

Example 2: After the three nutbags proposed their modification, DNA was discovered and how complex it was in 1953. Technically, when the RNA synthase system was discovered and realized how it work, the evolutionist and creationist debate should have come to a stop, because they realized that cells could not emerge from simple mud as they previously thought.

Wait, what? How did genetics and DNA shatter The ToE? It built upon the idea of decent with modification and further PROVED it to be correct, as we know that offspring have slightly modified genes differing from their parents.

 

[protos]

Wait, what? How did genetics and DNA shatter The ToE? It built upon the idea of decent with modification and further PROVED it to be correct, as we know that offspring have slightly modified genes differing from their parents.

Because Darwin based his theory on his presupposition that physical impacts upon a living thing are passed down. ToE (theory of evolution) hasn't proven anything correct.

How has ToE been proven? Offspring have a variation of the genes of their parent/parents. This doesn't prove evolution this proves speciation which is accepted by creationists. You're confusing macroevolution, the one that changes ants to birds, supposedly, with microevolution, speciation such as all dogs coming from one kind of dog, but whatever happens they remain dogs with 36 chromosomes.

Gregor Mendel disproved Darwin with his darwinism where cows whose left food got chopped off started giving birth to 3-legged calves. This basically disproved any "evidence" Darwin had. Then in 1941 as I said, those scientists proposed that living things changed by genetic mutations. Yet those mutations do not provide an increase in information.

 

[peace4all]

heres the problem

evolutionists state that evolution occurs over tens of thousands of years, if not more.

creationists just refuse to believe it, because they still don't believe the earth is any older than 6000 years.

creationists want to see an iquana give birth to a pelican, and it WON'T happen in our lifetime, our childrens lifetime, or a long time after. Hence the reason we rely on the fossil record

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:-D

 

[armed2010]

Wait, what? How did genetics and DNA shatter The ToE? It built upon the idea of decent with modification and further PROVED it to be correct, as we know that offspring have slightly modified genes differing from their parents.

Because Darwin based his theory on his presupposition that physical impacts upon a living thing are passed down. ToE (theory of evolution) hasn't proven anything correct.

How has ToE been proven? Offspring have a variation of the genes of their parent/parents. This doesn't prove evolution this proves speciation which is accepted by creationists. You're confusing macroevolution, the one that changes ants to birds, supposedly, with microevolution, speciation such as all dogs coming from one kind of dog, but whatever happens they remain dogs with 36 chromosomes.

Gregor Mendel disproved Darwin with his darwinism where cows whose left food got chopped off started giving birth to 3-legged calves. This basically disproved any "evidence" Darwin had. Then in 1941 as I said, those scientists proposed that living things changed by genetic mutations. Yet those mutations do not provide an increase in information.

Erm, what? Where was it said, or even supposed, that a cow with a leg chopped off would give birth to a 3 legged calf? Please cite your source.