Why do creationists do things like this?

[River Jordan]

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a young-earth Christian creationist organization. Since creationism isn't at all relevant in the scientific world, these sorts of organizations spend much of their time looking for new articles in actual science journals, and commenting on them (usually negatively). Now to be clear, that by itself is fine. Reading through papers and spotting errors and such is part of how science is supposed to work. But as you'll see in the following case, that's not what the ICR did. Instead, they mostly just threw lots of rocks without any concern about accuracy or honesty at all.

Why creationists are out of time with history and science

Dr. Hone is a paleontologist who specializes in dinosaurs and pterosaurs (the flying reptiles usually portrayed in movies). Recently he wrote an article about pterosaurs for The Observer, and soon thereafter noticed that the ICR had written a response to his article in which they cited one of his papers. But as Dr. Hone describes in the article linked to above, the creationists at ICR got soooooo much wrong in terms of history and science, it staggers the mind. As he describes...

Collectively, then, the few simple lines of text quoted above from the creationist essay effectively misrepresent the timing of pterosaur discoveries, who was working on them, their then known age relative to birds, the scientific ideas of the time and how these aligned. The writer then tries to pass these errors off on “evolutionists”, who either didn’t actually exist at the time, or who weren’t involved, as it was the creationists who were making the running on pterosaur research. It’s quite an achievement, really, to be so wrong is so many ways on so simple a subject in so few words.

He also points out why it's difficult to chalk all this up to mere ignorance...

All of this information is freely available, much of it is in multiple books on pterosaurs (Wellnhofer, 1991), early dinosaur discoveries (Cadbury, 2000), and online sources (like Pterosaur.net ) and even in places that the author cited (Witton’s own book - Witton, 2013).

So the ICR not only got just about everything wrong, it was in a subject where all the information is easily attainable!

This makes me wonder.....why would a self-described Christian organization engage in such outrageous and blatant dishonesty? I've always believed that as Christians we are expected to be truthful in everything we do, yet here we see a Christian organization being so in-your-face dishonest, it really does make you wonder what they were thinking? Were they hoping no one would check what they claimed to be commenting on against the original? Or did they just not care?

Either way, Christians everywhere should be embarrassed at this sort of nonsense being done in the name of our faith. When we wonder why the youth is leaving churches at alarming rates, I don't think there's any doubt that this sort of thing is a definite factor.

 

[River Jordan]

No defense for these creationists?

 

[Trekson]

Hi River, As your article doesn't actually say what the creationists said, it's hard to judge. You just show the guys response to what was said. I did want to make a couple of observations on this evolution vs. creationism topic if you don't mind. This seemed like a good place to start.

I am a creationist but I'm also not a "young-earther". Sometimes we have to look at what the bible doesn't say on an issue to grasp a larger truth. For example, young-earthers want to believe that after God created Eve, they woke up the next morning and went straight to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The bible doesn't say that. I believe it's possible they could have lived thousands of years in the garden before the fall because they were created as eternal beings and death only came on the scene after the fall and even then it took a long time coming.

Our God is eternal so could this rock we call earth have been around for a few billion years before God decided to redesign it? Sure, I can live with that.
We know that Eve had children before the fall because as part of their judgment in Gen. 3:16, God changed the parameters of child birth. If she had never had children how would she know the difference? This also explains the 'others" that Cain was concerned about. The biblical record of childbirth just starts after the fall, when death entered into the equation and "time" began to matter.

If a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to God, could creation have taken 7000 years? I'm open to that possibility as well. We certainly can't deny the fossil record so where do I break from evolutionists? With their timeline and with their lack of evidence to support something that has really never gotten beyond the theory stage.

First problem I have is with carbon dating. I wonder what Carbon 1 said? We know it went to Carbon 7, then 14 the 21 I don't know what it's up to now but the problem is, imo, computers. They only give out info based on the data received in their beginning parameters. So if a scientist told a computer to examine this fossil that is 100 million years old then to judge other "samples" by these parameters, the whole process is flawed from the get-go. Man hasn't been around long enough to know if the "radiation record of half-life" they use is accurate or not.

The main problem I have with evolution is the simple truth of "like begets like". Evolution does not answer the question of how we got the vast variety we have in all forms of life whether it be plant, insect, reptile, aquatic or mammal. To go from an amoebic ooze to human and everything (insect, reptile, aquatic or mammal) in between takes way more faith to believe in then does intelligent design, imo. Two trout don't make a shark, two snakes don't make a lizard, two bears don't make a llama, two flies don't make a lady bug, a field of wheat won't change to corn, etc! and I don't care how many billions of years you want to give them it won't change. In a rare happenstance of a birth defect that may exhibit evolutionary tendencies in just about all species of life it would have been cast out of the nest or whatever and left to fend for itself. The odds of them finding another matching anamoly and starting a new species is so astronomical, that really the only reason someone would think of it is that they fear the concept of God and death and future judgment so much they cling desperately to straws of the unrealistic to comfort themselves.

Despite what scientists believe on almost every continent there is geological and historical evidence of mankind being around the same time as dinosaurs which means they were simply parts of God's original creation as well. At most, I'd say life on earth has been around for 100,000 years, at least 25,000 years. As to your point that evolution is an on-going process, I disagree. Adaptation is designed into all species and is a more fitting term than 'evolving". Anyways, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[River Jordan]

I am a creationist but I'm also not a "young-earther". Sometimes we have to look at what the bible doesn't say on an issue to grasp a larger truth. For example, young-earthers want to believe that after God created Eve, they woke up the next morning and went straight to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The bible doesn't say that. I believe it's possible they could have lived thousands of years in the garden before the fall because they were created as eternal beings and death only came on the scene after the fall and even then it took a long time coming.

Our God is eternal so could this rock we call earth have been around for a few billion years before God decided to redesign it? Sure, I can live with that.
We know that Eve had children before the fall because as part of their judgment in Gen. 3:16, God changed the parameters of child birth. If she had never had children how would she know the difference? This also explains the 'others" that Cain was concerned about. The biblical record of childbirth just starts after the fall, when death entered into the equation and "time" began to matter.

Fair enough.

If a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to God, could creation have taken 7000 years? I'm open to that possibility as well. We certainly can't deny the fossil record so where do I break from evolutionists? With their timeline and with their lack of evidence to support something that has really never gotten beyond the theory stage.

"It's only a theory" is a common creationist talking point, but like most others it really serves to expose the person making it rather than scoring any points against evolution.

I've found THIS PAGE to provide a pretty good explanation. I hope you read it and stop repeating this talking point.

First problem I have is with carbon dating. I wonder what Carbon 1 said? We know it went to Carbon 7, then 14 the 21 I don't know what it's up to now but the problem is, imo, computers. They only give out info based on the data received in their beginning parameters. So if a scientist told a computer to examine this fossil that is 100 million years old then to judge other "samples" by these parameters, the whole process is flawed from the get-go. Man hasn't been around long enough to know if the "radiation record of half-life" they use is accurate or not.

I honestly can't say that I've ever seen any scientist do what you describe. Do you have an example?

The main problem I have with evolution is the simple truth of "like begets like". Evolution does not answer the question of how we got the vast variety we have in all forms of life whether it be plant, insect, reptile, aquatic or mammal.

Actually, it does.

Two trout don't make a shark, two snakes don't make a lizard, two bears don't make a llama, two flies don't make a lady bug, a field of wheat won't change to corn, etc! and I don't care how many billions of years you want to give them it won't change. In a rare happenstance of a birth defect that may exhibit evolutionary tendencies in just about all species of life it would have been cast out of the nest or whatever and left to fend for itself. The odds of them finding another matching anamoly and starting a new species is so astronomical

You are carrying around a lot of misconceptions about evolution. Have you ever studied it from actual scientific sources? Or would you say you get most of your information about evolutionary biology from creationists?

the only reason someone would think of it is that they fear the concept of God and death and future judgment so much they cling desperately to straws of the unrealistic to comfort themselves.

Except that most "evolutionists" are theists.....by a lot. So your claim is contradicted by the data.

Despite what scientists believe on almost every continent there is geological and historical evidence of mankind being around the same time as dinosaurs which means they were simply parts of God's original creation as well. At most, I'd say life on earth has been around for 100,000 years, at least 25,000 years.

Such as?

As to your point that evolution is an on-going process, I disagree. Adaptation is designed into all species and is a more fitting term than 'evolving".

What is the difference between a population evolving and a population adapting?

Anyways, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

No matter what? IOW, are you at all open to the possibility that your arguments might be wrong?

 

[River Jordan]

Trekson,

I missed this the first time around. My bad...

As your article doesn't actually say what the creationists said, it's hard to judge. You just show the guys response to what was said.

Actually it does (5th paragraph). It also links to the ICR page where they say it (4th paragraph).

 

[Trekson]

Hi RJ, Yeah, I saw that (after the fact) but I didn't read it. I'm on vacation at the moment but will address our conversation when I get back next week. I just didn't want you to think I was leaving you hanging.

 

[River Jordan]

No worries!

 

[Trekson]

Hi River, I woke up early this morning so I have a little time.

Your words: "I've found THIS PAGE to provide a pretty good explanation. I hope you read it and stop repeating this talking point"

Fair enough, I'll rephrase, "With their timeline and with their lack of evidence to support something that has really never gotten beyond the hypothesis stage." Just as in a good murder mystery, the guilty party may have a substantiated alibi but it's not the whole truth. Evolution, in my estimate, is 95% postulation based on 5% observable fact. Yes, they have come up with a story that makes them feel good about themselves, satisfies their need to eliminate God and at times sounds logical but they really can't "prove" it, anymore than creationists can "prove" the existence of God. Is there a plausible creation hypothesis that can answer these questions? I believe there is.

Your words: "I honestly can't say that I've ever seen any scientist do what you describe. Do you have an example?"

Since computers are incapable of independent thought any "models" they come up with must start with humans inputting data which the computer then uses to arrive at whatever conclusions it does. These beginning parameters are what the computer bases its conclusions on but the info received from the computer is only as good as the info put in so all scientists in every field goes about this the same way.

Your words: "You are carrying around a lot of misconceptions about evolution. Have you ever studied it from actual scientific sources? Or would you say you get most of your information about evolutionary biology from creationists?"

Okay, here's the thing. I like to have a discussions not a scientific debates. I usually don't want proofs of anything you say, I'll just take your word for it that you've read it somewhere. No, I'm not very well educated in the science fields but I also won't regurgitate to you other things I've read or heard elsewhere, I like to use my own brain and my own thoughts, I'm just sharing what I believe and why I believe it. My goal isn't to dissuade you from your beliefs but to expand upon other logical creationist ideals that may have answers that evolutionists may not have considered yet.

Your words: "Such as?"

On almost every continent there is geological evidence of humans and dinosaurs on the same layers of strata. Plus cave drawings showing humans interacting with dinosaurs, something early humans supposedly would not have known about.

Your words: "What is the difference between a population evolving and a population adapting."

Evolution implies a completely different species and adaption, to me, means changes for whatever reason yet maintaining the same genus.

Your words:"No matter what? IOW, are you at all open to the possibility that your arguments might be wrong?"

Sure, because it's my personal hypothesis. Even though I had a christian upbringing, if I hadn't based on who I am I would still lean towards intelligent design over evolution because it simply makes more sense to me. Evolution is dependant upon billions of years of life on earth and that "fact" can't be proven, just postulated. Just as the old human evolution chart has very little evidence to back it up, it's mostly postulation based on a couple of skulls and bone fragments. Are you open to the possibility that your arguments might be wrong as well? I don't know what IOW means. I think there is a third possibility that neither evolutionists or creationists have considered to explain the varieties of life such as, while I am a creationist, somehow I don't think a T-Rex was in the garden of Eden.

 

[River Jordan]

Fair enough, I'll rephrase, "With their timeline and with their lack of evidence to support something that has really never gotten beyond the hypothesis stage." Just as in a good murder mystery, the guilty party may have a substantiated alibi but it's not the whole truth. Evolution, in my estimate, is 95% postulation based on 5% observable fact. Yes, they have come up with a story that makes them feel good about themselves, satisfies their need to eliminate God and at times sounds logical but they really can't "prove" it, anymore than creationists can "prove" the existence of God.

That's quite the series of claims about the state of evolutionary biology. But given what you say below about your lack of education in science, just how much do you think your claims are worth, especially given that they go directly against the views of the people who actually work in evolutionary biology?

I mean, basically what you're saying is "I don't know much of anything about the sciences....now, let me tell you what I think about evolutionary biology".

Is there a plausible creation hypothesis that can answer these questions? I believe there is.

And that would be?

Since computers are incapable of independent thought any "models" they come up with must start with humans inputting data which the computer then uses to arrive at whatever conclusions it does. These beginning parameters are what the computer bases its conclusions on but the info received from the computer is only as good as the info put in so all scientists in every field goes about this the same way.

You didn't answer the question I asked. You made some specific claims about how C-14 dating is carried out. Do you have an actual example of scientists dating something according to the methods you described?

Okay, here's the thing. I like to have a discussions not a scientific debates. I usually don't want proofs of anything you say, I'll just take your word for it that you've read it somewhere.

What does that mean exactly? Are you saying you want to have a discussion about science where anything goes? You can just say whatever you like with no expectations of evidence or support?

No, I'm not very well educated in the science fields but I also won't regurgitate to you other things I've read or heard elsewhere, I like to use my own brain and my own thoughts, I'm just sharing what I believe and why I believe it.

How do you think you not being educated in science affects what you believe about evolutionary biology?

My goal isn't to dissuade you from your beliefs but to expand upon other logical creationist ideals that may have answers that evolutionists may not have considered yet.

Such as?

On almost every continent there is geological evidence of humans and dinosaurs on the same layers of strata. Plus cave drawings showing humans interacting with dinosaurs, something early humans supposedly would not have known about.

Exactly where do we find human remains and/or artifacts mixed in with dinosaur remains?

Evolution implies a completely different species and adaption, to me, means changes for whatever reason yet maintaining the same genus.

Did you get those definitions from somewhere, or did you just make them up yourself?

Sure, because it's my personal hypothesis.

What do you think would contradict your personal hypothesis?

Even though I had a christian upbringing, if I hadn't based on who I am I would still lean towards intelligent design over evolution because it simply makes more sense to me.

How so?

Evolution is dependant upon billions of years of life on earth and that "fact" can't be proven, just postulated. Just as the old human evolution chart has very little evidence to back it up, it's mostly postulation based on a couple of skulls and bone fragments.

Again, have you ever considered that your lack of education in the sciences might be a factor here?

Are you open to the possibility that your arguments might be wrong as well?

Of course.

I don't know what IOW means.

"In other words"

I think there is a third possibility that neither evolutionists or creationists have considered to explain the varieties of life such as, while I am a creationist, somehow I don't think a T-Rex was in the garden of Eden.

What is that possibility?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Trekson

Prepare to be "quote-mined" to death with illogical and close-minded arguments. River is an expert on every subject and when she isn't, she uses the fallacy of appealing to authority. This is not a personal attack, I'm sure she cried when Harambe died.