brother Paul
Member
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
[_ Old Earth _] What do you guys think?
- Thread starter brother Paul
- Start date
Milk-Drops
Member
The first 5 minutes where MR. Jackson talks about his credentials and puts forth that Christians should not be afraid to address issues and speak their minds. I think that is admirable and have no problem with that.
His first major point from the 5 minute mark onward about finding soft dinosaur tissue is a very old story about finding blood vessels in a dinosaur fossil. Instead of citing a paper from a journal Mr. Jackson references a popular science magazine. Magazines are not scrutinized the same way a journal is. Plus he is making a big deal about this 2005 article when the actual discovery was in 1997. He didn't even fact check the article. Here is a summary from Talk Origins. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html
The big problem I'm having with Mr. Jackson is that we are only 10 minutes into the video and he has made up a bunch of stuff and insinuated that Dr. Schweitzer made claims and discoveries that Schweitzer didn't.
Schweitzer didn't find flexible protein and never claimed to have, the article didn't even state that. Mr. Jackson made these claims. Mr. Jackson read a sentence, went on a tangent about cell chemistry. The article is not claiming What Mr. Jackson is claiming its saying. Like I already mentioned, I'm only 10 minutes in and Mr. Jackson has already committed to distracting the audience from what the article is really saying, flat out lied to his audience, and yammered on about how he is an expert because he taught High school Biology and from what I can find of the man, entry level Biology and Chemistry in college. He is just smoke and mirrors.
My main point and the reason I dismiss the majority of people toting creation science is not because I think that they are stupid or fools. Its not because I have anything against their religion. Its not because I'm a snob. Its simply because most of the people I see doing these lectures rely on their audience not knowing thing one about the subject at hand. Or trying to play word games or misdirection. If what you have to say relies on cheap tricks and trying to confuse the audience, chances are it doesn't hold water.
When I read an actual science book the information is explained why its interpreted the way it is and how the scientists came to their conclusions. The speculation in their is not to hid anything, but to make it clear that more study needs to be done. Mr. Jackson is trying really hard to take what is actual honesty and integrity, and turn it into a big joke.
Its sickening because it doesn't teach anyone anything, instead it just distracts people and encourages ignorance. I don't care if people except the theory of evolution, the big bang, common descent, etc. But I do care about charlatans trying to confuse people about the subject and flat out lie about it for money.
that is just my 2 cents.
His first major point from the 5 minute mark onward about finding soft dinosaur tissue is a very old story about finding blood vessels in a dinosaur fossil. Instead of citing a paper from a journal Mr. Jackson references a popular science magazine. Magazines are not scrutinized the same way a journal is. Plus he is making a big deal about this 2005 article when the actual discovery was in 1997. He didn't even fact check the article. Here is a summary from Talk Origins. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html
The big problem I'm having with Mr. Jackson is that we are only 10 minutes into the video and he has made up a bunch of stuff and insinuated that Dr. Schweitzer made claims and discoveries that Schweitzer didn't.
Schweitzer didn't find flexible protein and never claimed to have, the article didn't even state that. Mr. Jackson made these claims. Mr. Jackson read a sentence, went on a tangent about cell chemistry. The article is not claiming What Mr. Jackson is claiming its saying. Like I already mentioned, I'm only 10 minutes in and Mr. Jackson has already committed to distracting the audience from what the article is really saying, flat out lied to his audience, and yammered on about how he is an expert because he taught High school Biology and from what I can find of the man, entry level Biology and Chemistry in college. He is just smoke and mirrors.
My main point and the reason I dismiss the majority of people toting creation science is not because I think that they are stupid or fools. Its not because I have anything against their religion. Its not because I'm a snob. Its simply because most of the people I see doing these lectures rely on their audience not knowing thing one about the subject at hand. Or trying to play word games or misdirection. If what you have to say relies on cheap tricks and trying to confuse the audience, chances are it doesn't hold water.
When I read an actual science book the information is explained why its interpreted the way it is and how the scientists came to their conclusions. The speculation in their is not to hid anything, but to make it clear that more study needs to be done. Mr. Jackson is trying really hard to take what is actual honesty and integrity, and turn it into a big joke.
Its sickening because it doesn't teach anyone anything, instead it just distracts people and encourages ignorance. I don't care if people except the theory of evolution, the big bang, common descent, etc. But I do care about charlatans trying to confuse people about the subject and flat out lie about it for money.
that is just my 2 cents.
Barbarian
Member
The issue is that "tissue" has a colloquial meaning, and a proper scientific meaning. In this case, some magazine writers supposed that some biological molecules amounted to "tissue."
It had long been known that biological material could exist for millions of years. Amber, for example, or certain proteins from marine invertebrates. "Tissue", properly named, is a collection of cells organized to a certain function. The dermis of your skin, for example. Heart muscle. The cerebral cortex. This was not found. However, there are now a number of proteins such as heme, that are known to survive under rare conditions for millions of years.
It's not a problem for chemistry; some of the reactions in our bodies, absent the proper enzymes, have rates in the millions of years.
I agree with you that many IDers and YE creationists seem to have no idea of the damage they do to their cause by being less than honest. And I should say that my observation does not apply to all of them; there are certainly honest and well-meaning people in those groups.
It had long been known that biological material could exist for millions of years. Amber, for example, or certain proteins from marine invertebrates. "Tissue", properly named, is a collection of cells organized to a certain function. The dermis of your skin, for example. Heart muscle. The cerebral cortex. This was not found. However, there are now a number of proteins such as heme, that are known to survive under rare conditions for millions of years.
It's not a problem for chemistry; some of the reactions in our bodies, absent the proper enzymes, have rates in the millions of years.
I agree with you that many IDers and YE creationists seem to have no idea of the damage they do to their cause by being less than honest. And I should say that my observation does not apply to all of them; there are certainly honest and well-meaning people in those groups.
brother Paul
Member
Schweitzer didn't find flexible protein and never claimed to have
You are misrepresenting the point Jackson made (and Talk Origins is the AnswersinGenesis of the EB –ers) what he said was the vein-like tissue was still flexible, not “the Proteins”. If 80,000,000 years old it should have become brittle at best and all the proteins entirely denatured (a biochemical fact). Plus the whole popularized propaganda was pushed on the inquiring minds of the masses as if this was something new (while really an issue ignored until they SIMPLY COOULD NOT)
yammered on about how he is an expert because he taught High school Biology
Again a misrepresentation…he did not say he was “an expert” but that with his credentials he knows what he is talking about )especially about what he was taught to teach). Like we learned in the Junk DNA fiasco, 10s of 20s of Mas and Ph.D.s can stand opposed to the propaganda being imposed from many camps (even other EBs) and your camp twists and denies and discredits and mischaracterizes until finally they SIMPLY CANNOT deny the truth….
the reason I dismiss the majority of people toting creation science is not because I think that they are stupid or fools.
Creation science? What? Yes he is a creationist but he was talking science not “Creationist” science as if there is a new kind of science.
Secondly you know what they say about people who have to result to name calling to make an impression or allegedly win an argument! In the science of rhetoric, “name calling” is implanted cognitive bias, and is a technique used to promote propaganda (to promote distrust of some accused source)…the person cannot actually defeat the person or groups argument or point made so attempt to destroy their character in the eyes of the masses (we see this all the time in political campaigns)
Its sickening because it doesn't teach anyone anything, instead it just distracts people and encourages ignorance.
Yes it does a few very important things. It teaches that the core of real science is to question and that what you are told you should believe is not necessarily ”the truth” (and this goes for all areas of knowledge)
…it teaches to always look beyond what you are told by the so-called “experts” (the appeal to authority fallacy) because often there are those (also experts) that see things differently.
And secondly, just because a bunch of people (alleged experts and others) from the same school of thought agree and insist on ONLY their interpretation being accepted (argumentum ad populum) you must understand they are “interpreting” through a lens (in any school of thought). This is no more apparent than in theology and philosophy…but it is also rampart in modern biology.
We MUST BE free to ask questions and expect dialogue and answers, and alternative explanations MUST NOT BE just dismissed because of the opinions of the pedegoguery…
Thirdly, and I believe an important point, is why is this the ONLY scientific “school of thought” that has offered so many intentional frauds over and over, and even must be protected by law and made exclusive by LAW?
Geobel’s said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
We do not see this principle of propaganda being used by Physics or Chemistry, or even Biology in general,…only in this area….so what do you suppose the political, economic, or military consequence could mean for the masses?
You are misrepresenting the point Jackson made (and Talk Origins is the AnswersinGenesis of the EB –ers) what he said was the vein-like tissue was still flexible, not “the Proteins”. If 80,000,000 years old it should have become brittle at best and all the proteins entirely denatured (a biochemical fact). Plus the whole popularized propaganda was pushed on the inquiring minds of the masses as if this was something new (while really an issue ignored until they SIMPLY COOULD NOT)
yammered on about how he is an expert because he taught High school Biology
Again a misrepresentation…he did not say he was “an expert” but that with his credentials he knows what he is talking about )especially about what he was taught to teach). Like we learned in the Junk DNA fiasco, 10s of 20s of Mas and Ph.D.s can stand opposed to the propaganda being imposed from many camps (even other EBs) and your camp twists and denies and discredits and mischaracterizes until finally they SIMPLY CANNOT deny the truth….
the reason I dismiss the majority of people toting creation science is not because I think that they are stupid or fools.
Creation science? What? Yes he is a creationist but he was talking science not “Creationist” science as if there is a new kind of science.
Secondly you know what they say about people who have to result to name calling to make an impression or allegedly win an argument! In the science of rhetoric, “name calling” is implanted cognitive bias, and is a technique used to promote propaganda (to promote distrust of some accused source)…the person cannot actually defeat the person or groups argument or point made so attempt to destroy their character in the eyes of the masses (we see this all the time in political campaigns)
Its sickening because it doesn't teach anyone anything, instead it just distracts people and encourages ignorance.
Yes it does a few very important things. It teaches that the core of real science is to question and that what you are told you should believe is not necessarily ”the truth” (and this goes for all areas of knowledge)
…it teaches to always look beyond what you are told by the so-called “experts” (the appeal to authority fallacy) because often there are those (also experts) that see things differently.
And secondly, just because a bunch of people (alleged experts and others) from the same school of thought agree and insist on ONLY their interpretation being accepted (argumentum ad populum) you must understand they are “interpreting” through a lens (in any school of thought). This is no more apparent than in theology and philosophy…but it is also rampart in modern biology.
We MUST BE free to ask questions and expect dialogue and answers, and alternative explanations MUST NOT BE just dismissed because of the opinions of the pedegoguery…
Thirdly, and I believe an important point, is why is this the ONLY scientific “school of thought” that has offered so many intentional frauds over and over, and even must be protected by law and made exclusive by LAW?
Geobel’s said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
We do not see this principle of propaganda being used by Physics or Chemistry, or even Biology in general,…only in this area….so what do you suppose the political, economic, or military consequence could mean for the masses?
Barbarian
Member
I don't think it's a problem that people don't accept the science. It's a problem if they want to make science change to fit their unorthodox beliefs.
This happened in Stalin's Soviet Union, when Darwinism was outlawed. Russia was one of the leaders in biology; they still haven't recovered fully.
This happened in Stalin's Soviet Union, when Darwinism was outlawed. Russia was one of the leaders in biology; they still haven't recovered fully.
Milk-Drops
Member
I think the debate persists because so many people just view parts of science as trying to attack their faith. Many people have been told a lot of misinformation about science and science is something that is hard for people that don't keep up with it to understand. Its just a huge mess.
brother Paul
Member
The issue is that "tissue" has a colloquial meaning, and a proper scientific meaning. In this case, some magazine writers supposed that some biological molecules amounted to "tissue."
Besides seeing the photos for myself, another case where muscle tissue was found does not constitute "some biological molecules" (a statement meant to downplay as if irrelevant)...NO 80,000,000 year old "tissues" should still exist (unless perhaps when trapped very quickly in ice, or sediment, or even amber) let alone like the remains of fish muscle tissue (380 million years old) found in Australia (at least 20 years ago).
No! He used the word appropriately in this sense (an aggregate of similar cells and cell products forming a definite kind of structural material with a specific function in a multi-cellular organism)....I like how he pointed out how a whole slew of "explanations" would come forth to explain the problem away...
(pardon this sidebar, but this is like how they scampered to explain away how fossils of struggling fish could be trapped in layers that allegedly took thousands of years to form...or how radio halos could be trapped in granites that we were told over and over for years that took millions of years to form....)
Besides seeing the photos for myself, another case where muscle tissue was found does not constitute "some biological molecules" (a statement meant to downplay as if irrelevant)...NO 80,000,000 year old "tissues" should still exist (unless perhaps when trapped very quickly in ice, or sediment, or even amber) let alone like the remains of fish muscle tissue (380 million years old) found in Australia (at least 20 years ago).
No! He used the word appropriately in this sense (an aggregate of similar cells and cell products forming a definite kind of structural material with a specific function in a multi-cellular organism)....I like how he pointed out how a whole slew of "explanations" would come forth to explain the problem away...
(pardon this sidebar, but this is like how they scampered to explain away how fossils of struggling fish could be trapped in layers that allegedly took thousands of years to form...or how radio halos could be trapped in granites that we were told over and over for years that took millions of years to form....)
Barbarian
Member
That is the point, Schweitzer didn't say it was tissue. And it wasn't. Jackson lied about that. Or was dumb enough to let someone else lie to him.
Show us the numbers on that one. As I pointed out, there are biochemical reactions have reaction rates of millions of years. Show us the reaction and the rate at which it has to happen.
He didn't even know what "tissue" means. That's not "expert" in any sense.
They go on the creationist circuit as a money making venture.
And yet, this guy, when faced with the fact that biological molecules can last for many millions of years, simply denies the fact. He inserts findings into scientific papers that the author did not intend. He's declaring the end of Darwinian evolution this year (last year) when it's now stronger than ever, due to an increasing number of findings confirming predictions of the theory. I can show you some more of the recent ones, if you like.
And he trotted out his credentials as an "expert"; but the facts don't support his beliefs.
It's not. The courts merely ruled that religion can't be taught as science. Neither can unsupported beliefs about science. It has the same effect in geology (YE, being a religious doctrine can't be taught in Geology) , physics ("Electric Universe" being inconsistent with observed phenomena, can't be taught in physics), and so on. ID, being by its own admission, a religious belief, is also not legal to teach in public school science classes. It's perfectly O.K. to teach them in religous or philosophy classes, however.
His "Darwinism will die this year" doesn't seem to be working. Here's another quote:
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Which, I suppose, is why no one with any sense thinks Darwinism died this year.
No need. As you see from the threads on this board, the evidence is continuing to come in and support the theory. ID and YE creationism us "the principal", because it's all they have.
When Stalin outlawed Darwin (Lysenko merely repeated his lies over and over, but with state enforcement) biology crashed. Any scientist who could emigrate, did so, and the rest were unable to teach unless the did Lysenko's version.
We saw a bit of this not long ago, when officials in the Bush administration tried to force scientists to rewrite their conclusions indicating global warming. If can happen here. In Texas, a staffer for the TEA was fired when she was suspected of accepting evolution, by creationists appointed to the state board.
Such repression never works in the long run. But it can damage science in the short run, as the Soviet experience shows. In the case of the Dover School Board, a few teachers were brave enough to stand up and refuse to teach creationism, although some board members sought to fire them. The resulting court case reaffirmed that religion can't be taught in science classes.
Milk-Drops
Member
Sorry Paul I misspoke but there is still a big problem here, Dr. Schweitzer never said she found what Mr. Jackson claims. She never claimed to have found a vein like tissue that was still flexible. There is no article, paper, or journal entry that makes that claim. So Mr. Jackson's argument would be true if what claimed actually happened. Mr. Jackson is the one spreading propaganda.
Yes he does Paul, one minute into the video he stands up and says he is an expert. I'm not misrepresenting anything. Mr. Jackson said it himself 55 seconds onward in the video he makes the claim that he is an expert and that he has a doctorate which makes him an expert. Which is actually an outright lie because I looked up his credentials and his highest 2 degrees is a Masters in Secondary Science Education and a Masters in Environmental Science. That is why I have been referring to him as Mr. Jackson.
Yeah, I'm not touching this with a ten foot poll. Lets keep this on the original topic.
I'm guessing you didn't google this man's credentials. He works for the Creation Science Institute. He is honored as a Hall of Famer for defending Creation Science.
I'm not name calling him, or anyone names. He calls himself one and has accepted Awards under the name, he works for the Creation Science Institute. I see you have to play the same tricks Paul to avoid any criticism. You asked for our opinions, and when we give them you misrepresent us.
Paul, no one is trying stop you from asking questions, no one is stopping Science from asking questions. The only problem this entire debate has had since day one is that just because you have a question, doesn't mean it deserves equal consideration. Trying to disprove evolution doesn't make their theory or idea true. You theory has to stand on its own. Until ID or Creation science figures this out, it won't be taken seriously as science.
Good day Paul.
Barbarian
Member
That was just a dishonest misrepresentation of what science says. Sediment is laid down in varying ways and rates. So a sudden underwater landslide can bury organisms in meters of mud, when then are overlaid by slower accumulations. In a lake near my house, "polystrate" fossils are forming by trees drowned by the rising reservoir.
It does indeed take a very long time to form. The differential solidification of different mineral in granite must happen over long ages in order to have visible crystals. But Gentry's radiohalo belief crashes on one simple fact:
Gentry claims these rocks are primordial, created in place by God at the beginning. And yet the granite he has so designated as primordial, is intrusive into faults in sedimentary rock, some of them bearing fossils. By definition, the granite cannot be primordial.
There are a lot of technical problems with his claims as well, which have led some creationist groups to reject his beliefs.
http://paleo.cc/ce/halos.htm