I’ve yet to see a piece of ‘supporting evidence’ that wasn’t as crumblingly poor as this one.
Mangetout
To be more fair one could say this describes belief in liberal Christianity every bit as much as it applies to YEC.
I’m not going to play your game badchad
Sure your not, cause you know I’m right.
Couldn’t possibly be anything else, could it?
Has badchad been added to the SDMBOTPCAMS yet, Fenris?
Apparently not. I’m sure you have ample motivation to show my reasoning errant. I think you just lack the reasoning. Though I welcome you to try.
I expect you to see this as a sign of weakness, but entering into a religious dialogue with you is one brick wall I don’t particularly desire to slam my head against; that’s all there is to it.
Sorry – different pic. The fossil I saw definitely crossed the strata. As did the petrified trees.
Why hasn’t he submitted this remarkable discovery to any kind of peer review?
hit sumbit too soon.
The trees were of course in a different location, different pic. Sorry, I can’t remember the cites. Otherwise I would provide links.
It’s kind of hard for us to respond to the pics if they can’t be cited or linked to. I do know that this guy has been notoriously dishonest in his representations before and that the world of geology does not seem to be shaken by this incredible new evidence. If we could actually get a look at the pics or access some info about their geological context I have no doubt that we could debunk them in short order.
This is kind of like you saying that you saw a lecture where a guy showed photos of a live dinosaur but you have no cite or link.
I believe you but I don’t believe that the photos showed what he claimed they showed…in fact, i know they didn’t.
Fair enough DTC. And I wouldn’t normally play so loose in a discussion like this. But since this OP was on whether to see John I thought it relevant.
Do play by the rules Diogenes. Otherwise your prejudice may show.
I don’t think it’s going out too far on a limb to say that I know there hasn’t been any radical, explosive new evidence which would undermine evolutionary theory. If such evidence existed it would be front page news, believe me.
If you go to Mackay’s website (http://www.creationresearch.net/) You will learn that his mission is to FIND evidence for creationism to glory in God’s work. He also believes that Satan is behind the theory of evolution (http://www.creationresearch.net/basics.htm). He is not an intelligent design theorist, i.e., a quasi-rational person with a theory that life was created by some kind of creator, but a fundie who believes his work is divine and that the opposition is being controlled by Satan. Expect a fair and balanced presentation.
However, it is not good science to point to some bits of evidence and yell, “Look, a mystery! Praise the Lord!”
Oh, on the so called “polystrate trees”
This is exactly what makes him so suspect. If I had some incredible new theory of economics that shows that you can fix recessions instantly in all cases simply by printing more paper money, I guarantee I could sell it to a popular audience.
The reason is simply that the audience isn’t equipped to then and there contradict me. They haven’t studied economics, or are rusty on the subject. And they don’t have access to the research materials that underlie all my purported evidence. All they see is what I show them, and I don’t show them enough to let them seriously understand what they are being shown.
It’s the same way with creationist speakers. They address audiences who do not have backgrounds in geology or biology. These audiences are not dumb in any sense, but they simply have no context or background with which to understand what is being argued… and what elements of proof are missing.
Nice to see that you are confident of your position. I wouldn’t expect anything less from you. However I am not going to let you get away with that.
Firstly, current evidence is enough to cast a shadow on evolution. Nothing explosive or new is required. Of course you will no doubt say that about most creationist theories. (So would I.) It is a matter of examining the evidence and determining which of the proposed theories matches it best. Making up your mind beforehand is simply not fair play and you would be the first to jump on any creationist who did that if the shoe was on the other foot.
Secondly, I hope you are not about to say that the popular media (or even the scientific literature) is unbiased. You would be climbing up a tree backwards to do that. It is the nature of this subject that it is emotive and there are very few who approach it without prejudice.
For myself, I acknowledge that there is a lot of evidence around to support evolution – and for good reason: it is not a dumb theory. But I have yet to have anyone actually demonstrate that it is mechanistically feasible. For that reason I am interested in anyone who presents any evidence which might promote alternative explanations. For that reason, our friend John is worth a visit.
I have undoubtedly just stirred a hornets’ nest with that last paragraph and my expression of doubt on the feasibility of evolution. Please don’t respond just yet. I intend to start a thread in mid January where I will outline the specific problems I see and invite dopers to supply concrete evidence on the argument. I won’t do it now because I want to take the time to examine cites given and do the appropriate research.
And I value your knowledgeable opinion DTC, and would like you to participate. Which is why I am not prepared to let you get away with a casual fob-off. There is a truckload of bad science around when it comes to this debate and I am keen to avoid it.
It’s too late for that, j_sum1. Bad science is what creationism is all about.
Maybe. But then I have heard some shocking stuff from evolutionists too. I would hope that by the time I get to posing my argument there will be a few dopers who are prepared with me to sift through the dross and to treat my questions seriously.