Hi all, I posted an evolution video I made on my blog. Some good arguments. tell me what you think.
http://www.sodahead.com/blog/...

You said, "The problem arises when creationist groups try and undermine the work of scientists or mislead the public ..."
> I'm fairly safe in claiming that the creationists are undermining proper science, rather than the other way around, as Creationism (pseudoscientific creationism at least) masquerades as science spreading claims that are demonstrably false and academically useless.

Well, from the creationist point of view, we see the other side of the argument, that [some] scientists have an agenda
> Most scientists are Christian, it must be a fairly messed up agenda

to try and undermine the work of creationist and mislead the public
> Claims made by the Scientific side of the C/E debate are actually science; supported by evidence and falsifiable. The scientists can hardly be described as 'misleading the public' while they're putting forward testable evidence and the creationists put forward (mostly) already debunked arguments, arguments from incredulity, and mislead the public with the view that there's a genuine controversy within the scientific community, when in reality there isn't at all.

, even pressuring other scientists to their views.
> The only pressure a scientist would exert on a creationist would be to produce evidence, if that's an unwanted pressure the creationists should bow out of the arena and let the men with /real/ white coats get back to work.

Do you remember Immanuel Velikovsky? He wrote books from a multi-discipline point of view and was criticised by [some] scientists for publishing his views. They even bullied his publisher into not printing them because the publisher also printed Science textbooks.
> There was pressure put upon him because the celestial mechanics he used in his books were physically impossible.

He predicted that Venus was very hot when we all thought it was covered in an ocean. He predicted argon in Mars' atmosphere before scientists found it there.
> Just because some of his predictions were correct does not mean they all were.

He talked about past catastrophes before the iridium layer was found and now, in spite of the laughter at his collisions theories,
> Which were known at the time to contradict practically everything known about orbital mechanics.

we hear all about celestial collisions and are (hopefully) preparing for a possible collision with earth.
> Collisions with comets, not planets. If a planet was coming our way we'd be effed in the aye.

As to the age of the earth, there are different creationist views on that subject. In the spirit of scientific inquiry, I believe it should be left open for discussion on all sides.
> In the scientific arena, yes, if they can substantiate any of their claims. In the classroom, no. If we were to 'teach the (non-existent) controversy' teachers would be obliged to learn about and teach currently ascientific concepts such as Cold Fusion, Alchemy, Astrology, not to mention the veritable plethora of creation myths. The best and most useful decision in this situation is to conduct research and have the ideas run the gauntlet of the academic arena, and teach kids only the theories that science finds to best explain the evidence.

How would you have God create the earth so it didn't have an appearance of age? We humans have a tendency in all areas to try to read between the lines, or as Dan Brown wrote in "The DaVinci Code" to "see meaning where there is none."

I believe there are assumptions made in dating the earth by radiological methods that are not sound. For instance, how do we know what ratio each isotope had to the others when we start the clock?
> This criticism doesn't fly with a number of radiometric dating methods. Which specific methods are you talking about?

As to the truthful verifiable measure of age, we have His word.
> The Christian God? The Hindu God(s)? Allah? The Flying Spaghetti monster (who, ironically, provides the best explanation for observed phenomena of all the creation myths).

Men have spoken with God for thousands of years at least.
> With often contradictory messages.

Some of your scientists probably fall into this category.
> Ken Miller is a chap whose work I'd recommend to you.

I know I do. Not that I hear His voice every day, the few times I heard it, it was clearly His, and it was enouhg to know that His written word, the word of His messengers though history, can be relied upon.
> But that's not science. The purpose of this group is to refute pseudoscientific creationism, if you have faith-based creationism that's fine, nobody can touch you, but if you're bringing "no fossils" or "no extra information" creationism to the table that's what we're here to refute.

And that's how I see it : )
> And there's no harm in it ; )

Hope to hear back from you.
> 4 1/2 months later >.>

It's been 4-1/2 months since I last left a comment with no reply to it. Creationism is still strong in my head and heart. You guys are doing a lousy job, it seems.

Thanks for the notice on the Atheist and Agnostics group. How could I not join when the group owner has suck great taste in Avatars