Sources vs Science

[firedragon]

Belief in magic considerably predated Islam.
"Creationism," as commonly understood, entails a belief in magic; in the supernatural -- an area impervious to investigation and, hence, completely outside the purview of science.

Please tell me how the supernatural is in any way within the domain of science, and how a belief in magic in the face of a natural explanation does not conform to the definition of deluded?

This is what you think, but I have already pointed out a few things which if you read you may find out.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon

To give you an example of dishonest creationists...

...note that I am not talking about you, firedragon, because I don’t think I’ve ever talked to you about this example.

Every geologists, geophysicists, nuclear physicists, archaeologists and paleontologists know of the limitation of radiometric dating methods, especially the carbon 14 isotope method, which has a half-life of just 5700 years, and become increasingly of sample of over 50,000 years.

They know to use alternative methods of different isotopes that can accurately measure rocks, biological matters and fossils that are older than 60,000 years or more, such as argon-potassium (Ar-K), uranium-lead (U-Pb), etc, which can hundreds of millions of years, the later (U-Pb) can even measure samples of billions of years.

No paleontologists would ever use C-14 radiometric to date human remains/fossils or objects made by humans from the Middle Paleolithic period or earlier.

No paleontologists would ever use C-14 radiometric to date dinosaur fossils. They would one or more of the other isotopes.

Now one of the favorite claims that creationists like to point out is that science is no good at dating fossils, man-made objects or rocks, is that C-14 method failed to measure things older than 50,000 years old, thereby debunking evolution.

But when someone explain to them that C-14 isn’t the only possible isotopes that can be used in radiometric dating methods, then creationists should be “informed” of the alternative methods (eg U-Pb, Ar-K, etc).

Once they are “informed”, then they can learn more about alternative isotopes that can be used, to avoid repeating the same mistake in the future.

But I have noticed that some creationists will use the same arguments, again, again and again, repeating the same error, no matter how many times they were “”informed”, they won’t stop using C-14 tactics.

That’s dishonest and bias at play.

I agree with you 100%. There are many dishonest creationists, as well as many dishonest everyone else. I think it got worse with the petrodollar but that's beside the point.

I understand there are some who are absolutely dishonest and if you like I can give you more reasons to your point being a theist myself. But the debate so far has been "Not a single creationist with honesty and integrity exists or ever existed in this whole planet". Thats the debate. Later I learned this is purely due to the creationist vs evolutionist idea which I dont know who created or when it began. This began in my opinion with the petrodollar, but prior to that for 1000 years or more creationism has gone hand in hand with evolution.

In fact, evolution stops at the beginning of life. It does not touch the beginning of life or organic material arising naturally from inorganic material. Thats abiogenesis. So this whole idea of the divide between creationism and evolution is coming from ignorance. It is very difficult to find people who disagreed with evolution prior to the new era in the Middle East. The problem is, prior to making all creationists liars and idiots one has to make some study.

TO your point I give you the recognition because you are right. There are many creationists who are so dogmatic in their faith that evolution is demonic that they dont have a choice but to be dishonest in debating it. Especially the guy Kent Hovind who spoke utter nonsense against evolution was quite rich. Of course he was exposed to have had a Phd given by a house with three rooms, not a university. Many of these people have been exposed. But applying that to the whole of this kind called creationists is the fine definition of bigotry. This was the whole debate here. The fallacy of composition/division has been replete so far.

I honestly have never met anyone who believed that carbon 14 dating was used for fossils unless maybe if it was for a very young fossil. Maybe this person was absolutely ignorant but was arrogant enough to not accept when corrected so obviously that's dishonesty. But then, I saw a lot of dishonesty in this thread as well. But can I generalise to all? Nope. If I generalise, that is my dishonesty. Thats my prejudice. And will never happen.

But this cannot be generalised to the whole of maybe 3 quarters of humanity or even more. Its stupid to do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@firedragon

To give you an example of dishonest creationists...

...note that I am not talking about you, firedragon, because I don’t think I’ve ever talked to you about this example.

Every geologists, geophysicists, nuclear physicists, archaeologists and paleontologists know of the limitation of radiometric dating methods, especially the carbon 14 isotope method, which has a half-life of just 5700 years, and become increasingly of sample of over 50,000 years.

They know to use alternative methods of different isotopes that can accurately measure rocks, biological matters and fossils that are older than 60,000 years or more, such as argon-potassium (Ar-K), uranium-lead (U-Pb), etc, which can hundreds of millions of years, the later (U-Pb) can even measure samples of billions of years.

No paleontologists would ever use C-14 radiometric to date human remains/fossils or objects made by humans from the Middle Paleolithic period or earlier.

No paleontologists would ever use C-14 radiometric to date dinosaur fossils. They would one or more of the other isotopes.

Now one of the favorite claims that creationists like to point out is that science is no good at dating fossils, man-made objects or rocks, is that C-14 method failed to measure things older than 50,000 years old, thereby debunking evolution.

But when someone explain to them that C-14 isn’t the only possible isotopes that can be used in radiometric dating methods, then creationists should be “informed” of the alternative methods (eg U-Pb, Ar-K, etc).

Once they are “informed”, then they can learn more about alternative isotopes that can be used, to avoid repeating the same mistake in the future.

But I have noticed that some creationists will use the same arguments, again, again and again, repeating the same error, no matter how many times they were “”informed”, they won’t stop using C-14 tactics.

That’s dishonest and bias at play.

Finding dishonest creationists is child's play. And it is rather pointless since I claimed there is not one honest and informed creationist. My challenge was based upon observation A fact that @firedragon does not like. My challenge puts the burden of proof upon him since an endless list of dishonest or ignorant creationists does not prove that they are all dishonest or ignorant. Yet he won't even try. It appears that as much as he protests he knows that I am correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the debate so far has been "Not a single creationist with honesty and integrity exists or ever existed in this whole planet". Thats the debate.

Nope, that has not been the debate. For someone that falsely claims that others do not read you sure got that one wrong.

The debate has always been that there is not an honest and informed creationist. Creationists can be honest, and terribly ignorant. Or they can be informed, but terribly dishonest. Many are both dishonest and uninformed. But there is not one honest and informed one.

 

[firedragon]

Finding dishonest creationists is child's play. And it is rather pointless since I claimed there is not one honest and informed creationist. My challenge was based upon observation A fact that @firedragon does not like. My challenge puts the burden of proof upon him since an endless list of dishonest or ignorant creationists does not prove that they are all dishonest or ignorant. Yet he won't even try. It appears that as much as he protests he knows that I am correct.

Lool. Childs play.

Mate. Even if I quote yourself, just to show your prejudice you would deny it. You have asked some specific things about evolution and I have given you some information you never knew. But of course, you won't accept it because after all "creationists are all dishonest and are liars" in your dimension.

 

[firedragon]

Nope, that has not been the debate. For someone that falsely claims that others do not read you sure got that one wrong.

The debate has always been that there is not an honest and informed creationist. Creationists can be honest, and terribly ignorant. Or they can be informed, but terribly dishonest. Many are both dishonest and uninformed. But there is not one honest and informed one.

Nah. Please read again.

 

[firedragon]

The debate has always been that there is not an honest and informed creationist.

You just repeated what I said is the debate while saying it wasn't. This is strange.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lool. Childs play.

Mate. Even if I quote yourself, just to show your prejudice you would deny it. You have asked some specific things about evolution and I have given you some information you never knew. But of course, you won't accept it because after all "creationists are all dishonest and are liars" in your dimension.

The problem appears that you did not understand what was posted. Or have you forgotten how you screwed up on what the debate was supposedly about already? Again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nah. Please read again.

Oh you did. You screwed up and cannot admit it. It was my challenge so I should know what it was. You got it wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just repeated what I said is the debate while saying it wasn't. This is strange.

Nope, you got it wrong again. Do I need to explain your error to you?

 

[firedragon]

The problem appears that you did not understand what was posted. Or have you forgotten how you screwed up on what the debate was supposedly about already? Again.

mate. Your whole point has been so far, no creationist is honest, or informed on the basics of science. All creationists are by default dishonest and are liars. That’s your whole thesis.

Prove your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

mate. Your whole point has been so far, no creationist is honest, or informed on the basics of science. All creationists are by default dishonest and are liars. That’s your whole thesis.

Prove your claim.

Yes, you finally got it right. Earlier you made the error of saying "and" instead of "or". As I said it is an observation that I and countless others that accept the sciences have observed over the years. All I can do is to give example after example of dishonest or uninformed. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the word "or". If a creationist is honest but uninformed that would support me. If a creationist is informed but dishonest that would support my claim. The challenge to you was to find an honest and informed creationist. To date you have not been able to find one. That supports my claim.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, you finally got it right. Earlier you made the error of saying "and" instead of "or". As I said it is an observation that I and countless others that accept the sciences have observed over the years. All I can do is to give example after example of dishonest or uninformed. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the word "or". If a creationist is honest but uninformed that would support me. If a creationist is informed but dishonest that would support my claim. The challenge to you was to find an honest and informed creationist. To date you have not been able to find one. That supports my claim.

you think you can give example of every single so called "creationist" that ever lived and prove that "they are dishonest and ignorant of basic sciences"?

Please go ahead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you think you can give example of every single so called "creationist" that ever lived and prove that "they are dishonest and ignorant of basic sciences"?

Please go ahead.

I made it clear that I could not. Once again you are guilty of what you accuse others of. I stated several times that it was an observation. And a challenge. All you have to do to refute me is to find one honest and informed creationist. Yet you have not even tried. That indicates that you know that I am correct in my claim.

 

[firedragon]

I made it clear that I could not. Once again you are guilty of what you accuse others of. I stated several times that it was an observation. And a challenge. All you have to do to refute me is to find one honest and informed creationist. Yet you have not even tried. That indicates that you know that I am correct in my claim.

Right. Then why do you make a claim that "you make clear you could not" provide evidence of?

Your claim is "no creationist is honest or informed in basic sciences". So it is your burden of proof.

 

[firedragon]

I made it clear that I could not. Once again you are guilty of what you accuse others of. I stated several times that it was an observation. And a challenge. All you have to do to refute me is to find one honest and informed creationist. Yet you have not even tried. That indicates that you know that I am correct in my claim.

When someone makes a claim, then expects the other to provide evidence to the contrary, it is called the burden of proof fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right. Then why do you make a claim that "you make clear you could not" provide evidence of?

Your claim is "no creationist is honest or informed in basic sciences". So it is your burden of proof.

But I can provide evidence for my claim. Now you are back to not understanding the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When someone makes a claim, then expects the other to provide evidence to the contrary, it is called the burden of proof fallacy.

But since I can provide evidence for my claims that is not the case. In fact you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. This is why I so often like to try to first help creationists understand the concept of evidence.

 

[firedragon]

But since I can provide evidence for my claims that is not the case. In fact you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. This is why I so often like to try to first help creationists understand the concept of evidence.

Nah. You have to provide evidence to your claim. Thats bottomline. Otherwise they are obviously empty claims.

 

[firedragon]

But I can provide evidence for my claim. Now you are back to not understanding the concept of evidence.

Okay. So if you can, please go ahead and provide evidence to your claim.

Your claim : All creationists are dishonest and are ignorant in basic science.

Thats your claim, so provide evidence to your claim.