The fact that he is a scientist with a PhD in paleontology does not make him right. It does, however, make it a much more serious matter if he isn’t. J Random Creationist in your Bible study group can be excused on the grounds of ignorance if he or she starts making claims that are untrue, inaccurate, or incoherent. Scientists with PhDs in paleontology such as Kurt Wise do not have the luxury of that excuse.
In any case, to accept what Kurt Wise says just because he is a scientist with a PhD in paleontology means that we must reject what hundreds of thousands of other scientists with PhDs in paleontology have to say, because they all tell us in no uncertain terms that he is wrong. If this were the case, then having a PhD in paleontology would not be a legitimate reason for listening to anyone talking about the subject, Kurt Wise included. As such, your appeal to his PhD in paleontology is self defeating.
Let’s recap…
Evolution does not attempt to explain how the big bang originated. The fact that we do not know where the energy and matter that started the big bang came from does not change the fact that it happened 13.8 billion years ago and not six thousand, and nor does anything to do with evolution for that matter.
I’ve made this point already to you Adam. The fact that there are things that we do not know does not mean that the things that we do know could be wrong.
I think it would probably help if you actually understood what accepted scientific research methods are and how they work.
Accepted scientific research methods work on the basis of something called measurement. They also have to be subjected to something called quality control. If young earth scientists want to claim to be “consistent with accepted scientific methods,” they must demonstrate a commitment to accurate and honest weights and measures (Deuteronomy 25:13-16 again), and they must also demonstrate a commitment to meeting the same standards of quality control as everybody else.
As it stands, YEC “science” sets standards for their own research that are so low that if you applied those same standards to any other area of science, you would kill people. At the same time, they set standards for anything that contradicts their own research that are so unrealistically high that if everyone applied those same standards to every other area of science, we would still be stuck in the Stone Age.
I explain it here if you need me to remind you where I’m coming from:
Thanks for quoting timestamps Adam. At least you’re acting on something that I’ve said to you.
Kurt’s claim is indeed huge as you say. But that means that it needs to be substantiated. Where is he getting that figure of 95% from? And when he says that “95% of fossils do not fit with the evolutionary timeframe in the record,” what exactly does he mean by that?
When I’ve seen such claims in the past by science deniers, it’s usually turned out that the claimed inconsistencies are (a) small at most, (b) inaccurately portrayed, and (c) only out of kilter with a garbled misunderstanding of evolution that thinks that if we evolved from monkeys that means there shouldn’t still be monkeys. If he’s talking about proverbial Precambrian rabbits, then that’s news to me.