Okay, this is the quote I was referring to:

<Jan 28 2010

OhioChessFan: The conditions by which fossils would be preserved are limited. If I'm not mistaken, the presence of oxygen is paramount, though I am not sure where there isn't oxygen. I can't think of any situation a living or recently deceased organism wouldn't have oxygen present. Maybe it it was quickly buried or otherwise covered over by something, dirt, mud, water, who knows?>

Who knows indeed.

<Vague charge. Speicfics, please? >

Okay, let's deconstruct a remark from this very page:

<Somehow, the miracle of life from nonlife qualifies as testable and falsifiable in your mind. Or else it's not a theory.>

(1) The idea that life came from non-life is not a scientific theory at all. It is a fact, deduced from the following two trivial facts: (i) there was a time when there was no life, and (ii) there is now life.

(2) The idea that this can be accounted for naturally (i.e., not invoking any miracles) is not a scientific theory either. It is the central tenet of science that all observations can be naturally explained, and all scientific theories must be developed within this framework *by definition*. Theories which break this rule no longer fall within the ambit of science.

(3) The specific theory of how life generated from non-life is known as abiogenesis, and it involves the study of how the chemical structures associated with life might form from those already present. It has been the subject of many repeatable experiments, and been refined along the way based on the results of these experiments (i.e., certain elements of the theory have been undermined or supported).

<Push comes to shove and you fall back on vagaries. Specific claim I made to the charges laid against me?>

Example of you claiming to be sufficiently expert in the fossil record to determine whether it supports Genesis or not:

<OhioChessFan: <YouRang: What predictions does the creation model make by which scientists could test and affirm that model? >

An explosion of fossils in the archaeological record.>

Example of you claiming to be sufficiently expert in evolution theory to determine the degree of scientific support:

<OhioChessFan: <whatthefat: Any unnatural explanation is untestable, and thus outside the realm of scientific investigation.>

Right, like the untestable historical claims of Darwinism.>

And here's an example of both:

OCF: It wouldn't prove YouRangism is right, but if those people were willing to die for believing in YouRangism, it would as least prove they were sincere in their belief.>

And there you missed the point of the YouRangism example. It had nothing to do with challenging the sincerity of Christians.

The point is that YouRangism suffers from being untestable and unfalsifiable, just like the creation model that you think science should accept as being just as good as evolution theory.

At least that's MY claim. To be fair, I did ask you to challenge it with this question:

<What predictions does the creation model make by which scientists could test and affirm that model? If there are none, how can scientists claim that it works as well as evolution?>

If you expect me to spend untold hours reviewing a scientific literature that is freely available to all who are interested, I'm afraid you are mistaken. I've already spent more than enough time digging up examples for <OCF> and others along the way, and there are plenty of review papers already existing, written by people much more expert than myself. Like I said, it is not that hard to educate yourself, especially these days when even wikipedia has some decent information, and I should think it totally necessary before making judgments on how much evidence there is to support or undermine the theory.

<And why is the burden of proof on me to disprove Darwinism by discovering some unique life-form that can't possibly be related to any others?>

Well, I'm sorry if I offended you, I admit my wording was blunt. But if I'm unable to flag you on occasions where you repeatedly appeal to authority on subjects you are plainly ignorant about without me being threatened with moderation, then I don't see how this can progress as an honest debate.

<As for life coming from nonlife, that isn't science. It's alchemy. It's presuming a conclusion.>

The LORD has made his salvation known:
in the sight of the nations he has revealed his justice. He has remembered his kindness and his faithfulness
toward the house of Israel.

Compact display Versions: SSP SSP-Op SSP-Ref JUB EKU CHR ASV KJV VUL SEG RUS DAL L45 SSP3 WEB DHHE NBG51 GNB96 NBV RVR95E RVR95 RVR95n DHH DHHn BCI GNB-UK CEV-UK WLF JAP GNTWH RCB TAV CEV GNB EAB WV95 SV1977 SV-J VLC NBV-PDA HKS CVTEMPLATE SV1637 TRB GWHU DA1562

Language

The post in question was just one more. Think I am exagerating? Go back and list all your positive comments about the world of religion you've made in the past month. I'll list at least 20 times as many negative comments. >

Yes I think you are exaggerating. In fact JUST NOW you make it appear that this "mindless simpletons" comment was a quote from me. I never said it -- you just made it up. That's my claim, go prove otherwise.

Just to be clear, the negative comments I've made have not been directed at "the world of religion" per se, but specifically to that offensive subset that insists scientists are liars and that their religious views should be accepted by scientists.

Granted, I haven't explained that point *every time*, but I think anyone following this discussion -- and the would certainly include you -- should know that this is the context. On the contrary, I have previously described Christianity as a "worthy cause".

In fact, I would appreciate if you did a search using "user:YouRang Christianity", and see what I really said. You will find that I most frequently speak of Christianity in the context of wanting to defend it.

<OCF: I'll try to do better. I sometimes get silent when I would otherwise blast you. >

I suppose that getting blasted is a mild improvement over getting silence or sarcasm.

But even better, why not simply answer the question with a reasoned response? After all, you have claimed that you are willing to defend you views intellectually. I'm asking you to do it!

You could start with this issue for which you've so far given me sarcasm: I gave you an explanation of how scientists might, at some point in time express "no doubt" about a theory, and yet with recognition that the "no doubt" state is not guaranteed forever. I then asked:

<YouRang: Do you not understand this, do you disagree with it, or are you just unwilling to process it?>

I asked this because I'm trying to figure out why you keep bringing up the same argument that I believe I've explained.

<As for you getting silent, when push comes to shove, you do the same thing. I could predict which posts you won't respond to.>

Well then, if you think there is a post of yours that I haven't addressed, then you have an opportunity to call me on it! It's always possible that I missed something, or perhaps its a misunderstanding where I think I answered it. (Or, as you seem to believe, maybe I'm terrified of answering it.)

Wow, almost immediately, this parable popped into my head:

Matt 18:23-35 <Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn’t pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!’ The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you!’

He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done.

- Science must by definition leave room for contesting views, as Darwin himself proponed

- Intelligent explanations only dare to infer an explanation where current evidence is lacking

- The definition of science is inadequate since there are multiple falsifications to "ID-claims" from the scientific establishment itself. (Kenneth R Miller)

Academic Freedom should always rule over scientific intimidation, with R Dawkins as its prominent proponent.

I even have DAWKINS on tape admit to the viability of ID in a recent interview.

<YouRang: Ah, and how did you see that post as 'demeaning' to you?>

Over and over and over on this forum I get the impression your position is that scientists are of the highest intellectual integrity and religionists are mindless simpletons.

The post in question was just one more. Think I am exagerating? Go back and list all your positive comments about the world of religion you've made in the past month. I'll list at least 20 times as many negative comments.

<The pattern I see is that you get sarcastic (if not silent) when your only other choice is to admit that your argument is unsustainable.>

<The Father who dwells in me> is doing his works.

Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me,

or else, believe because of the works themselves.

<Amen, amen, I say to you,

whoever believes in me will do the works that I do,

and will do greater ones than these>,

because I am going to the Father.

And <whatever you ask in my name, I will do,

so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

No, I'm not. You cannot incorporate miracles into a scientific theory - by definition. Miracles are untestable, unfalsifiable, and unreproducible.

<- Science must by definition leave room for contesting views, as Darwin himself proponed>

Science of course does this already, both with regard to alternative *scientific* theories, and with regard to miracles (which is does not and can not attempt to contest).

<- Intelligent explanations only dare to infer an explanation where current evidence is lacking>

Intelligent "explanations" in fact offer no explanation at all, because they cannot be tested - see YouRangism, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, neither of which can be refuted, and yet perfectly "explain" creation.

<Academic Freedom should always rule over scientific intimidation, with R Dawkins as its prominent proponent. >

Dawkins is an atheistic populist, he's not a voice of scientific authority, and he has made plenty of ridiculous statements.

<I even have DAWKINS on tape admit to the viability of ID in a recent interview.>

OCF: Let's start then with the assumption of a worldwide flood. If there was a worldwide deluge, what would you expect to find in the first layer of the fossil record after such an event?>

I guess that would be a worldwide flood such as the one recorded in the Bible?

To answer you directly, as best <I> can...

- It may depend on where the water came from and how fast it came. Was it rain from above (i.e. rain), from below (i.e. underground springs), from the side (i.e. tsunami).

- It may depend on where the water went. I presume that since at one point the water completely covered the earth, but it doesn't now, that it went somewhere. Where did it go and with what force did it go there?

- It may depend on the soil conditions and its elevation from place to place.

- And there could be 100 other factors that I'm not thinking of.

- I would want to know about fossil studies done (if there are any) in areas where there was known prolonged flooding, but even then the conditions might easily be different from the 'worldwide' flood of Genesis.

But it sounds like an incredibly complex question, and I wouldn't presume to know the answer with any certainty. I don't know how anyone would.

~~~

If I were forced to *guess*, I would expect up to three different types of fossil layers:

The top one which is just recent fossils (from the past 4800 years or so) with evidence that it grew gradually over time.

Then perhaps (depending on a number of complex factors) below that would be a jumble of creatures with evidence that they were all fossilized together rapidly.

Maybe below that would be fossils from the pre-flood times, athough that could easily be destroyed by a worldwide flood.

Of course, there could be exceptions in various places due to geological activity and what-not, or I could be wrong for a bunch of reasons.

~~~~

The entire existence of ID has nothing to do with neutral scientific inquiry. It derives solely from a purely religious agenda.

This is one of the principle reasons why there is not a single proponent of ID theory who is not a believing Christian.

Not one.