IN ANY EVENT you refuse to bind God to a fixed revelation. There is nothing to prove or disprove for you -- your revelation only exists for you, and only as you feel like accepting. It doesn't matter if Christ himself handed you a volume of revelation, it still wouldn't be possible for you to accept it -- because the notion of a fixed revelation is anathema to you, it's simply not metaphysically possible from your prespective.
Right. dmz, when you talk about 'revelation' do you mean something that was revealed to you - the kind of stuff you simply can't argue with?
Really not trying to pick a fight here, honestly trying to make sure I understand.
Well, it's pretty obvious this thread is going to hell, but what the heck, I'll throw some more facts into the mess and see what happens.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, humphreys is a HUGE joke. It's like citing Richard Hoagland: it doesn't even dignify a explanation.
As I said but you apparently ignored:
please, take the time to look up why he's wrong.
Edit: Here, I'm nice enough to even point you to a paper by christians astrophysists. And they only focus on a portion of his junk science. Other examples would include his total crackpot attempt to explain away the CMB (which, obviously, proves him wrong from a number of angles that he simply ... ignores).
Giant, I don't think you get the concept of research. You don't just go looking for evidence to support your claim, you also try and refute it.
Let's look at this quote from your paper:
Quote:
"The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines."
He works in fields that are exquisitely related to quantum and relativity theory. Read this about Dr. Humphreys curriculum vitae:
Quote:
"Dr. Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist._ For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company._ Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project._ Dr. Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico._ He is also the author of the book ?Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe,? Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory."
Some crackpot, eh?
Also picking apart your material, don't you think that acknowleding possible faults in any model is a good idea? It is bullheaded individuals that close their eyes and don't critically analyze their models that are the poor scientists.
Additionally, you are criticizing him for collaborating with other scientists. Wow, if that's a crime then the entire scientific community is in trouble. What kind of scientist would you be if you didn't collaborate with other individuals.
Going further, I still find it ironic that you dismiss christians as so dumb, right up until they disagree with another christian that has evidence supporting a young earth. You then hold them up as bastions of scientific thinking. Don't you think that's...oh...a bit hypocritical?
But this is all words. Let's look at the science, shall we?
In particular, let's investigate the main point that your source (and the others like it) pound away upon the most: Bounded vs. unbounded universes. If you know anything about relativity, this is the key issue upon which these arguments turn.
First, I will define the two paradigms, and how they differ.
Naturalists believe in a "big bang", in which matter exploded outward. However, physicists also believe that space itself expanded with the matter. This would result (obviously) in a more or less equal-dense universe. Now, relativity theory states that this "space wall" or universe boundary is curved, which would basically mean that it is turned in upon itself. (like a klein bottle). The trick is, you can't measure it. As a matter of fact, you can't measure how large space is, because no matter how far you go, you would eventually loop around and start right back where you started.
Dr. Humphreys model postulates that matter is expanding into space that already exists, which would allow for localized density changes. Now, since the very nature of our experiments would (by necessity) be limited to spacetime (here all cosmologists and physicists would exhale a big "duh"), it would be impossible to measure the "end" of space. It is for this reason, that if at some time we actually did see that the universe was expanding into otherwise "empty" space, Dr. Humphreys model could be proved. Until then, neither axiom upon which the two theories are built can be proved or disproved. It all boils down to what I've said several times, if you start with different axioms, you will end up with different results. It's up to the person to decide what results fit best.
Quote:
Stoo
Evolution is not inextricably linked to abiogensis
Not directly no. It is linked inextricably, however, to naturalism.
The main reson is, life either evolved, or it didn't. (i.e. was created, or came from somewhere else). As I stated sometime ago, descartes believed that science would lead you to God, and the bible would lead you to Christ. In this thread, I am only working on the former.
If anyone has a theory about how life came to be through any other means other than abiogenesis,panspermia, or creation, let me know. I am more than interested.
Quote:
aquatic
Wait, we still didn't get to the part about why Christians are right and, say, the Aztecs' Creation theory was wrong. Benzene please explain. Oh and don't forget to use science.
Aquatic, pay attention: I am calling naturalism on the carpet. Not creation origins. I have given my personal views on the bible, and biblical creation, but that is it.
Case in point, I am going to state a fact that I have already stated, but some members have evidently forgotten.
Quote:
segovius
Tired or not the interpretation is accepted by the foremost academics and Biblical scholars in the world today and in their opinion - which is after all, the one that counts - that the book of Genesis is an amalgamation of pre-existing tradition and is the work of more than one hand.
Moses has been pointed out several times as the person who compiled genesis, most likely from the massive library at alexandria. (He was an eqyptian prince, remember). He would be similar to an editor compiling historical documents to explain an ancient civilization. What is there to get hung up on? Keep it cool DMZ, we've got them on the run.
Quote:
MarcUK
If Benzene or anyone can provide the evidence of, I'm quite prepared to accept the theory of evolution is wrong, and that all other religions are diabolical mimicry planted by Satan to fool me. But Benzene can't even provide a definition of 'information' yet he tells us information cannot increase.
Well actually, I've gotten people to back away from stating evolution as pure fact. That's enough for me. As for a definition of information, I guess I overestimated the capabilities of certain members in the AI community. Here's a link.
For those who don't read links, here's generally what I had in mind, given the fact that DNA has been compared to the "hard drive" of organisms:
"Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data."
Therefore, when I say "new information", that would equal "new data", not "copied data". Do you all get it now?
Quote:
No evidence of Genesis
No evidence of Divine Inspiration
No evidence of a real Jesus
Well, for reasons I've made painfully clear before, I'm only going to cover the first point: If it's not abiogenesis, what is it? I'm all ears.
Quote:
Evidence of Evolution (possibly with minor problems)
Wow. We've gone from infallible fact to "(possibly with minor problems)". Progress has been made!
[edit]
I'm serious about the other hypothesis for life on earth. If it wasn't God, and it wasn't abiogenesis, or little green men, what was it?
It's only impossible until you can provide the evidence that you're correct and I am wrong. I see no evidence of the evolution Theory. I see alot of lies and falsehoods. I don't believe lies lead to truth .
Giant, I don't think you get the concept of research.
I don't get the 'concept of research?'
Quote:
your paper:
NO! Not 'my' paper.
I gave it to you to show that even christians know he's a crackpot.
Quote:
He works in fields that are exquisitely related to quantum and relativity theory.
I can't tell if you are serious or consciously trying to pull a slight of hand (aka, lie). The quote was he 'is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory.' We aren't talking about quantum anything, which is what his experience is in, as verified by what you posted.
Quote:
Some crackpot, eh?
UFO nuts play the same game. Junk science always has its crackpot PHD.
Quote:
Additionally, you are criticizing him for collaborating with other scientists.
Where did that happen other than in your own imagination?
Quote:
Going further, I still find it ironic that you dismiss christians as so dumb, right up until they disagree with another christian that has evidence supporting a young earth.
You are delusional. How much of this post are you going to pack with your own hallucinations? Let me know when you can have a discussion about what my posts actually say.
Quote:
Let's look at the science, shall we?
I'd love to, if there was actual science in anything you just posted there. Instead, you just demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of relativity and how it works, in the same way you earlier demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of newton's law of universal gravitation.
As for humphreys' 'science,' check out this piece of total garbage. In it, he ignores everything that makes the CMB so significant. It's obviously written for people like you that don't know what those things are. Do you want to know? TAKE A CLASS AND STOP USING CRACKPOT JUNK SCIENCE. You are at a university, enroll in a class and learn. There are a number of reasons (all conveniently ignored by Humphreys in that article) why the CMB EXACTLY fits the predictions, but you won't understand them until you understand the basics, which you CLEARLY do not right now.
BTW: You need to understand at least basics, and idealy a whole lot more, before you start challenging an entire field. And don't bitch about me not explaining it to you. After the back and forth with you over the 'law of gravity,' it's pretty clear to me that even if I do detail the reasons you still won't understand. You clearly need to be eased into the subject from the beginning.
Right. dmz, when you talk about 'revelation' do you mean something that was revealed to you - the kind of stuff you simply can't argue with?
Really not trying to pick a fight here, honestly trying to make sure I understand.
I think more than revelation, it has to do with what 'facts' are and if we can, in theory, truly receive them. If you start with the human mind as such then I don't it can be proven, although not for a lack of trying. The other alternative is to start from faith in the Bible as a system of truth with Christ being truth -- truth as a person, but in history. That His incarnation is basically being the revelation as an event.
I think I'm begining to confuse myself -- but I think that's basically right. I probably need to shutup and finish looking into this.
I don't see where Creationists break the "laws" of science except that they do not demand things have always been as they are now.
Isn't that a little too convenient? Why even bother? Really, why even bother?
Tartarus, all you need to do is claim that God created the universe as is 6000 years ago. The light was already on its way, the universe was already expanding, the Sun already fusing, the Earth already formed with evidence for plate tectonics, the fossils already buried, the flora and fuana already existing. There is nothing you can to prove what I just said is wrong. Your ideas about "laws" of science not being constant through time is so obviously fallacious compared to what I just said.
It's an ultimate fallback. Turtles all the way down. There is nothing that can be done to disprove God or a belief in God.
Going further, I still find it ironic that you dismiss christians as so dumb, right up until they disagree with another christian that has evidence supporting a young earth. You then hold them up as bastions of scientific thinking. Don't you think that's...oh...a bit hypocritical?
I might get back to some other stuff in this thread later, but this little gem deserves special attention.
Do you honestly think the above represents an example of hypocrisy, or are you dishonestly using the all-to-common bad debate tactic of trying to find any way you can to call your opponent a "hypocrite" for some trumped-up reason?
Let's say a bunch of Tin Foil Hat Wearers (TFHWs) are standing around about to drink the Special Koolaid because they believe The Comet is coming to take them away, hah hah.
As the moment of the koolaid drinking approaches, a few TFHWs start to have misgivings. TFHW Joe says to TFHW Sally, "Maybe this isn't such a great idea."
I would firmly believe that all of these people were nuts. If, however, I overhear this conversation and say "Hey, Sally, perhaps you should listen to Joe. He's one of your group, and even he has his doubts"... am I suddenly a hypocrite??? Would this point to some terrible logical inconsistency on my part, or some dishonesty in my original assessment that the TFHWs were all nuts, just because I ask one TFHW to consider that even a fellow TFHW has doubts?
The situation is exactly the same here with Giant. He's pointing out that even by the standards of Humphrey's fellow creationists, Humphrey's science is bad. Do you really, really think that this reveals some sort of hypocrisy, some sudden inconsistent elevation of the status of creationist credentials on Giant's part?
That someone even has to point out to you such simple matters of reasoning and understanding context is quite sad. If you can't even grasp this, or are dishonest enough to pretend not to grasp such simple things for tactical reasons, how can you at all be trusted to deal intelligently and/or honestly in a conversation with as many complexities as this one?
Isn't that a little too convenient? Why even bother? Really, why even bother?
Tartarus, all you need to do is claim that God created the universe as is 6000 years ago. The light was already on its way, the universe was already expanding, the Sun already fusing, the Earth already formed with evidence for plate tectonics, the fossils already buried, the flora and fuana already existing. There is nothing you can to prove what I just said is wrong. Your ideas about "laws" of science not being constant through time is so obviously fallacious compared to what I just said.
It's an ultimate fallback. Turtles all the way down. There is nothing that can be done to disprove God or a belief in God.
That's pretty good bait -- and a pretty good misreprentation too.
Bezene, instead of blindly latching onto junk science, why not spend time focusing on possible biblical astronomical events that are actually cool, interesting and verifiable, like the conjunctions of venus and jupiter in leo during 3 and 2 BC?
That's pretty good bait -- and a pretty good misreprentation too.
It wasn't meant as bait. It was an illustration of your position. It isn't possible to prove your Creationists belief as wrong because you can resort to the supernatural.
So, when is the campaign going to start for a warning label on plate tectonics, stellar formation, cosmological origins (galaxy formation, big bang et al), radioactivity? Are Creationists going to put a warning label on the theory of where oil comes from? They all undermine the Bible too.
My earlier statement still stands. Creationists have no other agenda than to impugn any sort of scientific theory that says the universe is billions of years old. It is FUD. All in the hope that they can keep their fantastical beliefs alive. If you want to prove it wrong, formulate the hypotheses, gather the evidence, test it, submit it for review, have others replicate the results, and gather more evidence. The community will always welcome it as long as the evidence is there.
Yet all the action goes towards preventing the school kids from learning to think in a scientific way. Preventing them from learning the prevailing theories in science properly. If successful, it will only spell the doom of American scientific prowess.
It wasn't meant as bait. It was an illustration of your position. It isn't possible to prove your Creationists belief as wrong because you can resort to the supernatural.
So, when is the campaign going to start for a warning label on plate tectonics, stellar formation, cosmological origins (galaxy formation, big bang et al), radioactivity? Are Creationists going to put a warning label on the theory of where oil comes from? They all undermine the Bible too.
My earlier statement still stands. Creationists have no other agenda than to impugn any sort of scientific theory that says the universe is billions of years old. It is FUD. All in the hope that they can keep their fantastical beliefs alive. If you want to prove it wrong, formulate the hypotheses, gather the evidence, test it, submit it for review, have others replicate the results, and gather more evidence. The community will always welcome it as long as the evidence is there.
Yet all the action goes towards preventing the school kids from learning to think in a scientific way. Preventing them from learning the prevailing theories in science properly. If successful, it will only spell the doom of American scientific prowess.
I think you are missing the point here -- how much of plate tectonics, star formation, etc, are acutally able to test?
I'm about half way through The Sacred Cosmos, a good book on this subject by a GASP old earther. Your certainty of the origins of the universe isn't well founded as there are many issues which are completly up in the air. You should at least be honest about that.
But again, were back to "proving" what can't be proven -- going nowhere fast.
The scientific community needs to open it's mind, to look at things with ALL possibilities open, to test things as objectivly as possible and stop cutting off their noses to spites their faces simply to defend their cosmic hermuntic. Theories need destructive testing. Test Run Debug, Test, Run, Debug --- does it have a weakness? hmmmmm.... lets try to break it -- not prop it up for no other reason than it fits an agenda.
Evolution is an example of this, while starlight and KAr dating (I am vexed to admit) is not.
Your certainty of the origins of the universe isn't well founded as there are many issues which are completly up in the air.
A consumer christian book really isn't the best place to find out detailed, objective information on this.
There also seems to be this tendency with psuedoscience devotees to disregard everything just because they think thing like 'scientific truths sometimes get proven wrong' or because a given theory doesn't *yet* explain every detail. While this tendency obviously shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the fields it attacks, as well as the scientific process itself, perhaps the worst tendency among these folks is to throw out the observations as well. For some things, like cosmology, we have abundant data. While we certainly will get more and refine our understanding of what that data means, there are certain things that a whole lot of unrelated data points to, like the big bang. The big bang is a great example of multiple very deep lines of direct evidence surrounded by a halo of very deep circumstantial evidence.
Quote:
The scientific community needs to open it's mind, to look at things with ALL possibilities open, to test things as objectivly as possible and stop cutting off their noses to spites their faces simply to defend their cosmic hermuntic.
The scientific community is always open to testable hypotheses. The genesis story is not a testable hypothesis. Nor is the existence of god, by default. These are thus rationally excluded from "science".
I think you are missing the point here -- how much of plate tectonics, star formation, etc, are acutally able to test?
So you are recommendating a warning label for the theories?
In plate tectonics, the crustal plates are recorded to move x inches per year, mountains are recorded to increase in height y inches a year. Their movements are traced back in time through radiometric dating, common chemical composition, and common flora and fauna fossils. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
There is zero evidence for catastrophic movement of the plates as proposed by Creationists. I even remember being taught that catastrophism was one of the two big theories in the history portion of the course. It obviously fell by the wayside because all the evidence was pointing towards slow movements of the crustal plates.
Stellar formation is observed at various stages through observation. Their composition is verified through observation. Their age is modelled on basic physical forces. Their fusion processes are verified through the observation of fusion byproducts. The models are verified through further observations. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
Answers in Genesis essentially has no answer but "God did it" for the apparent age and process for the Sun or stars.
What would you have taught as a competing theories in science class?
Quote:
Your certainty of the origins of the universe isn't well founded as there are many issues which are completly up in the air. You should at least be honest about that.
I don't have certainty over anything. I do see a lot of evidence in support of said theories while there is zero evidence for Biblically-based assertions. If there is evidence against biological evolution, I would and everyone else, would love to see it. But the last hundred years of research has only supported and refined it.
Am I 100% certain, no. There is always the possibility of countervailing evidence. That is taught in every science class - to have doubt about what you do and believe is right, that everything must be supporting through evidence.
Since there is really no counter-evidence so far, biological evolution is pretty much it. I remember that there were 2 or 3 theories of the origin of the universe in class: steady state and big bang. All evidence supported big bang, and steady state fell away. My beliefs will change when and if there is evidence supporting a better theory.
Will your beliefs in Creationism change?
Quote:
The scientific community needs to open it's mind, to look at things with ALL possibilities open, to test things as objectivly as possible and stop cutting off their noses to spites their faces simply to defend their cosmic hermuntic. Theories need destructive testing. Test Run Debug, Test, Run, Debug --- does it have a weakness? hmmmmm.... lets try to break it -- not prop it up for no other reason than it fits an agenda.
Evolution is an example of this, while starlight and KAr dating (I am vexed to admit) is not.
Evolution has had over a century of test, run and debug cycles. The vast majority of research over that time has only supported it.
In plate tectonics, the crustal plates are recorded to move x inches per year, mountains are recorded to increase in height y inches a year. Their movements are traced back in time through radiometric dating, common chemical composition, and common flora and fauna fossils. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
And you would know that these are all assuming the rates of movement of the stated plates have stayed the same. As for radiometric dating, same exact preconception. Even the calibration curves for radiometric dating fall back on a naturalisitic dating scheme. It's a nice little tautological package.
Quote:
There is zero evidence for catastrophic movement of the plates as proposed by Creationists. I even remember being taught that catastrophism was one of the two big theories in the history portion of the course. It obviously fell by the wayside because all the evidence was pointing towards slow movements of the crustal plates.
Yeah...like local floods can account for all of the fossils we see, which were obviously formed very rapidly. Also, given the rates of mountain uplift, their suface formations would have eroded long ago. If you're trying to prove millions of years, you will construe the evidence to fit your model. An example of this would be varves, where it is assumed each change in striations corresponds to annual rings. This is erroneous, because research by Guy Berthault, and Pierre Julien at colorado state university has pointed out. As a matter of fact, the vertical striations are actually caused by the sorting by size of flowing water.
It's very convenient to count these striations as years, if that supports your hypothesis, even if it files in the face of fact.
Btw, do you know about the fundamental problems about C14 dating past 50k years?
Stellar formation is observed at various stages through observation. Their composition is verified through observation. Their age is modelled on basic physical forces. Their fusion processes are verified through the observation of fusion byproducts. The models are verified through further observations. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
Actually, the theory about stars "condensing" is far from perfect. link. Even so, there is nowhere in the bible that says this can't hapen. How exactly did you think that stars forming would support your position?
Quote:
Answers in Genesis essentially has no answer but "God did it" for the apparent age and process for the Sun or stars.
Actually, you have lots of problems if the sun is millions of years old, and especially if it's always been acting like it is now. Additionally, reference my statements about starlight and time.
Quote:
What would you have taught as a competing theories in science class?
I'd start at the very beginning and explain the paradigms of both camps, and then present the interpretation of the evidence from both sides. Let the students decide.
Quote:
I don't have certainty over anything. I do see a lot of evidence in support of said theories while there is zero evidence for Biblically-based assertions. If there is evidence against biological evolution, I would and everyone else, would love to see it. But the last hundred years of research has only supported and refined it.
Actually, as I pointed out, you can't do research on evolution. The best example any evolutionist has every presented is bacteria adapting to a new environement, and then they make the jump and say that proves that pond scum eventually would walk around on two legs.
Quote:
Am I 100% certain, no. There is always the possibility of countervailing evidence. That is taught in every science class - to have doubt about what you do and believe is right, that everything must be supporting through evidence.
To even speak of possible problems with evolution has been grounds for dismissal, at least on the high school level. Contrary to popular opinion, that actually what the Ohio state school board was trying to do, not teach creationism (or even intellegent design).
My wife thinks I should respond to these request for the historical accuracy for the bible. I stumbled upon the christianswers site today while looking up some archaelogical questions. Ergo:
Since there is really no counter-evidence so far, biological evolution is pretty much it.
This is the core of your error. You simply are not open to ANY other worldview other than one that by definition MUST excluded God -- and delcares revelation IMPOSSIBLE. Materialism is the only mechanism you will accept, even at the cost of insiting on uniformity over millions of years --even though you must speculate as to that possibility. You can even look at the structures and systems that surround you, but still insist that order is the child of chaos -- even though the world you see and test has none of those qualities.
This is your center -- ultimate contingency with the sufficiency of the human intellect.
(BTW, Astronomy is mostly theory -- as to what is happening in stars, let alone what we still theorize about the planets in our own solar system.)
This is the core of my error. I am simply are not open to ANY other worldview other than one that by assumption MUST be God did it-- and declares evolution IMPOSSIBLE. Literalism is the only mechanism I will accept, even at the cost of insisting on gross stupidity over tens of years --even though I must speculate as to that possibility as to appear intelligent. I can even look at the structures and systems that surround me, but still insist that selective randomness is the child of GOD -- even though the world I see and test has none of those qualities.
This is my center -- ultimate contingency with the ignorance of the human stupidity.
(BTW, God is all theory -- as to what is happening in my head, let alone what we still theorize about the ignorance of my own consciousness.)
FUCK ME. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT GOD DIDN'T DO IT.
Comments
Originally posted by THT
Of course, the assumptions break many a "law" of science, let alone good scientific practices.
I don't see where Creationists break the "laws" of science except that they do not demand things have always been as they are now.
Originally posted by dmz
IN ANY EVENT you refuse to bind God to a fixed revelation. There is nothing to prove or disprove for you -- your revelation only exists for you, and only as you feel like accepting. It doesn't matter if Christ himself handed you a volume of revelation, it still wouldn't be possible for you to accept it -- because the notion of a fixed revelation is anathema to you, it's simply not metaphysically possible from your prespective.
Right. dmz, when you talk about 'revelation' do you mean something that was revealed to you - the kind of stuff you simply can't argue with?
Really not trying to pick a fight here, honestly trying to make sure I understand.
Originally posted by giant
Yeah, humphreys is a HUGE joke. It's like citing Richard Hoagland: it doesn't even dignify a explanation.
As I said but you apparently ignored:
please, take the time to look up why he's wrong.
Edit: Here, I'm nice enough to even point you to a paper by christians astrophysists. And they only focus on a portion of his junk science. Other examples would include his total crackpot attempt to explain away the CMB (which, obviously, proves him wrong from a number of angles that he simply ... ignores).
Giant, I don't think you get the concept of research. You don't just go looking for evidence to support your claim, you also try and refute it.
Let's look at this quote from your paper:
"The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines."
He works in fields that are exquisitely related to quantum and relativity theory. Read this about Dr. Humphreys curriculum vitae:
"Dr. Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University in 1972, by which time he was a fully convinced creationist._ For the next 6 years he worked in the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric Company._ Since 1979, he has worked for Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project._ Dr. Humphreys is an adjunct professor of Geophysics and Astrophysics at the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, a Board member of the Creation Research Society and is president of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico._ He is also the author of the book ?Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe,? Master Books, 1994 (ISBN 0-89051-202-7) which details his white hole cosmology theory."
Some crackpot, eh?
Also picking apart your material, don't you think that acknowleding possible faults in any model is a good idea? It is bullheaded individuals that close their eyes and don't critically analyze their models that are the poor scientists.
Additionally, you are criticizing him for collaborating with other scientists. Wow, if that's a crime then the entire scientific community is in trouble. What kind of scientist would you be if you didn't collaborate with other individuals.
Going further, I still find it ironic that you dismiss christians as so dumb, right up until they disagree with another christian that has evidence supporting a young earth. You then hold them up as bastions of scientific thinking. Don't you think that's...oh...a bit hypocritical?
But this is all words. Let's look at the science, shall we?
In particular, let's investigate the main point that your source (and the others like it) pound away upon the most: Bounded vs. unbounded universes. If you know anything about relativity, this is the key issue upon which these arguments turn.
First, I will define the two paradigms, and how they differ.
Naturalists believe in a "big bang", in which matter exploded outward. However, physicists also believe that space itself expanded with the matter. This would result (obviously) in a more or less equal-dense universe. Now, relativity theory states that this "space wall" or universe boundary is curved, which would basically mean that it is turned in upon itself. (like a klein bottle). The trick is, you can't measure it. As a matter of fact, you can't measure how large space is, because no matter how far you go, you would eventually loop around and start right back where you started.
Dr. Humphreys model postulates that matter is expanding into space that already exists, which would allow for localized density changes. Now, since the very nature of our experiments would (by necessity) be limited to spacetime (here all cosmologists and physicists would exhale a big "duh"), it would be impossible to measure the "end" of space. It is for this reason, that if at some time we actually did see that the universe was expanding into otherwise "empty" space, Dr. Humphreys model could be proved. Until then, neither axiom upon which the two theories are built can be proved or disproved. It all boils down to what I've said several times, if you start with different axioms, you will end up with different results. It's up to the person to decide what results fit best.
Stoo
Evolution is not inextricably linked to abiogensis
Not directly no. It is linked inextricably, however, to naturalism.
The main reson is, life either evolved, or it didn't. (i.e. was created, or came from somewhere else). As I stated sometime ago, descartes believed that science would lead you to God, and the bible would lead you to Christ. In this thread, I am only working on the former.
If anyone has a theory about how life came to be through any other means other than abiogenesis,panspermia, or creation, let me know. I am more than interested.
aquatic
Wait, we still didn't get to the part about why Christians are right and, say, the Aztecs' Creation theory was wrong. Benzene please explain. Oh and don't forget to use science.
Aquatic, pay attention: I am calling naturalism on the carpet. Not creation origins. I have given my personal views on the bible, and biblical creation, but that is it.
Case in point, I am going to state a fact that I have already stated, but some members have evidently forgotten.
segovius
Tired or not the interpretation is accepted by the foremost academics and Biblical scholars in the world today and in their opinion - which is after all, the one that counts - that the book of Genesis is an amalgamation of pre-existing tradition and is the work of more than one hand.
Moses has been pointed out several times as the person who compiled genesis, most likely from the massive library at alexandria. (He was an eqyptian prince, remember). He would be similar to an editor compiling historical documents to explain an ancient civilization. What is there to get hung up on? Keep it cool DMZ, we've got them on the run.
MarcUK
If Benzene or anyone can provide the evidence of, I'm quite prepared to accept the theory of evolution is wrong, and that all other religions are diabolical mimicry planted by Satan to fool me. But Benzene can't even provide a definition of 'information' yet he tells us information cannot increase.
Well actually, I've gotten people to back away from stating evolution as pure fact. That's enough for me. As for a definition of information, I guess I overestimated the capabilities of certain members in the AI community. Here's a link.
For those who don't read links, here's generally what I had in mind, given the fact that DNA has been compared to the "hard drive" of organisms:
"Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data."
Therefore, when I say "new information", that would equal "new data", not "copied data". Do you all get it now?
No evidence of Genesis
No evidence of Divine Inspiration
No evidence of a real Jesus
Well, for reasons I've made painfully clear before, I'm only going to cover the first point: If it's not abiogenesis, what is it? I'm all ears.
Evidence of Evolution (possibly with minor problems)
Wow. We've gone from infallible fact to "(possibly with minor problems)". Progress has been made!
[edit]
I'm serious about the other hypothesis for life on earth. If it wasn't God, and it wasn't abiogenesis, or little green men, what was it?
Originally posted by MarcUK
It's only impossible until you can provide the evidence that you're correct and I am wrong. I see no evidence of the evolution Theory. I see alot of lies and falsehoods. I don't believe lies lead to truth .
Fixed your post.
Originally posted by benzene
Giant, I don't think you get the concept of research.
I don't get the 'concept of research?'
your paper:
NO! Not 'my' paper.
I gave it to you to show that even christians know he's a crackpot.
He works in fields that are exquisitely related to quantum and relativity theory.
I can't tell if you are serious or consciously trying to pull a slight of hand (aka, lie). The quote was he 'is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory.' We aren't talking about quantum anything, which is what his experience is in, as verified by what you posted.
Some crackpot, eh?
UFO nuts play the same game. Junk science always has its crackpot PHD.
Additionally, you are criticizing him for collaborating with other scientists.
Where did that happen other than in your own imagination?
Going further, I still find it ironic that you dismiss christians as so dumb, right up until they disagree with another christian that has evidence supporting a young earth.
You are delusional. How much of this post are you going to pack with your own hallucinations? Let me know when you can have a discussion about what my posts actually say.
Let's look at the science, shall we?
I'd love to, if there was actual science in anything you just posted there. Instead, you just demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of relativity and how it works, in the same way you earlier demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of newton's law of universal gravitation.
As for humphreys' 'science,' check out this piece of total garbage. In it, he ignores everything that makes the CMB so significant. It's obviously written for people like you that don't know what those things are. Do you want to know? TAKE A CLASS AND STOP USING CRACKPOT JUNK SCIENCE. You are at a university, enroll in a class and learn. There are a number of reasons (all conveniently ignored by Humphreys in that article) why the CMB EXACTLY fits the predictions, but you won't understand them until you understand the basics, which you CLEARLY do not right now.
BTW: You need to understand at least basics, and idealy a whole lot more, before you start challenging an entire field. And don't bitch about me not explaining it to you. After the back and forth with you over the 'law of gravity,'
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Right. dmz, when you talk about 'revelation' do you mean something that was revealed to you - the kind of stuff you simply can't argue with?
Really not trying to pick a fight here, honestly trying to make sure I understand.
I think more than revelation, it has to do with what 'facts' are and if we can, in theory, truly receive them. If you start with the human mind as such then I don't it can be proven, although not for a lack of trying. The other alternative is to start from faith in the Bible as a system of truth with Christ being truth -- truth as a person, but in history. That His incarnation is basically being the revelation as an event.
I think I'm begining to confuse myself -- but I think that's basically right. I probably need to shutup and finish looking into this.
Originally posted by dmz
I don't see where Creationists break the "laws" of science except that they do not demand things have always been as they are now.
Isn't that a little too convenient? Why even bother? Really, why even bother?
Tartarus, all you need to do is claim that God created the universe as is 6000 years ago. The light was already on its way, the universe was already expanding, the Sun already fusing, the Earth already formed with evidence for plate tectonics, the fossils already buried, the flora and fuana already existing. There is nothing you can to prove what I just said is wrong. Your ideas about "laws" of science not being constant through time is so obviously fallacious compared to what I just said.
It's an ultimate fallback. Turtles all the way down. There is nothing that can be done to disprove God or a belief in God.
Originally posted by benzene (to giant)
Going further, I still find it ironic that you dismiss christians as so dumb, right up until they disagree with another christian that has evidence supporting a young earth. You then hold them up as bastions of scientific thinking. Don't you think that's...oh...a bit hypocritical?
I might get back to some other stuff in this thread later, but this little gem deserves special attention.
Do you honestly think the above represents an example of hypocrisy, or are you dishonestly using the all-to-common bad debate tactic of trying to find any way you can to call your opponent a "hypocrite" for some trumped-up reason?
Let's say a bunch of Tin Foil Hat Wearers (TFHWs) are standing around about to drink the Special Koolaid because they believe The Comet is coming to take them away, hah hah.
As the moment of the koolaid drinking approaches, a few TFHWs start to have misgivings. TFHW Joe says to TFHW Sally, "Maybe this isn't such a great idea."
I would firmly believe that all of these people were nuts. If, however, I overhear this conversation and say "Hey, Sally, perhaps you should listen to Joe. He's one of your group, and even he has his doubts"... am I suddenly a hypocrite??? Would this point to some terrible logical inconsistency on my part, or some dishonesty in my original assessment that the TFHWs were all nuts, just because I ask one TFHW to consider that even a fellow TFHW has doubts?
The situation is exactly the same here with Giant. He's pointing out that even by the standards of Humphrey's fellow creationists, Humphrey's science is bad. Do you really, really think that this reveals some sort of hypocrisy, some sudden inconsistent elevation of the status of creationist credentials on Giant's part?
That someone even has to point out to you such simple matters of reasoning and understanding context is quite sad. If you can't even grasp this, or are dishonest enough to pretend not to grasp such simple things for tactical reasons, how can you at all be trusted to deal intelligently and/or honestly in a conversation with as many complexities as this one?
Keep it cool DMZ, we've got them on the run.
Not been on the Internet long, have we?
Wow. We've gone from infallible fact to "(possibly with minor problems)". Progress has been made!
What is this "science" they speak of?
Originally posted by THT
Isn't that a little too convenient? Why even bother? Really, why even bother?
Tartarus, all you need to do is claim that God created the universe as is 6000 years ago. The light was already on its way, the universe was already expanding, the Sun already fusing, the Earth already formed with evidence for plate tectonics, the fossils already buried, the flora and fuana already existing. There is nothing you can to prove what I just said is wrong. Your ideas about "laws" of science not being constant through time is so obviously fallacious compared to what I just said.
It's an ultimate fallback. Turtles all the way down. There is nothing that can be done to disprove God or a belief in God.
That's pretty good bait -- and a pretty good misreprentation too.
Originally posted by dmz
That's pretty good bait -- and a pretty good misreprentation too.
It wasn't meant as bait. It was an illustration of your position. It isn't possible to prove your Creationists belief as wrong because you can resort to the supernatural.
So, when is the campaign going to start for a warning label on plate tectonics, stellar formation, cosmological origins (galaxy formation, big bang et al), radioactivity? Are Creationists going to put a warning label on the theory of where oil comes from? They all undermine the Bible too.
My earlier statement still stands. Creationists have no other agenda than to impugn any sort of scientific theory that says the universe is billions of years old. It is FUD. All in the hope that they can keep their fantastical beliefs alive. If you want to prove it wrong, formulate the hypotheses, gather the evidence, test it, submit it for review, have others replicate the results, and gather more evidence. The community will always welcome it as long as the evidence is there.
Yet all the action goes towards preventing the school kids from learning to think in a scientific way. Preventing them from learning the prevailing theories in science properly. If successful, it will only spell the doom of American scientific prowess.
Originally posted by THT
It wasn't meant as bait. It was an illustration of your position. It isn't possible to prove your Creationists belief as wrong because you can resort to the supernatural.
So, when is the campaign going to start for a warning label on plate tectonics, stellar formation, cosmological origins (galaxy formation, big bang et al), radioactivity? Are Creationists going to put a warning label on the theory of where oil comes from? They all undermine the Bible too.
My earlier statement still stands. Creationists have no other agenda than to impugn any sort of scientific theory that says the universe is billions of years old. It is FUD. All in the hope that they can keep their fantastical beliefs alive. If you want to prove it wrong, formulate the hypotheses, gather the evidence, test it, submit it for review, have others replicate the results, and gather more evidence. The community will always welcome it as long as the evidence is there.
Yet all the action goes towards preventing the school kids from learning to think in a scientific way. Preventing them from learning the prevailing theories in science properly. If successful, it will only spell the doom of American scientific prowess.
I think you are missing the point here -- how much of plate tectonics, star formation, etc, are acutally able to test?
I'm about half way through The Sacred Cosmos, a good book on this subject by a GASP old earther. Your certainty of the origins of the universe isn't well founded as there are many issues which are completly up in the air. You should at least be honest about that.
But again, were back to "proving" what can't be proven -- going nowhere fast.
The scientific community needs to open it's mind, to look at things with ALL possibilities open, to test things as objectivly as possible and stop cutting off their noses to spites their faces simply to defend their cosmic hermuntic. Theories need destructive testing. Test Run Debug, Test, Run, Debug --- does it have a weakness? hmmmmm.... lets try to break it -- not prop it up for no other reason than it fits an agenda.
Evolution is an example of this, while starlight and KAr dating (I am vexed to admit) is not.
Anyway.
Originally posted by dmz
Your certainty of the origins of the universe isn't well founded as there are many issues which are completly up in the air.
A consumer christian book really isn't the best place to find out detailed, objective information on this.
There also seems to be this tendency with psuedoscience devotees to disregard everything just because they think thing like 'scientific truths sometimes get proven wrong' or because a given theory doesn't *yet* explain every detail. While this tendency obviously shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the fields it attacks, as well as the scientific process itself, perhaps the worst tendency among these folks is to throw out the observations as well. For some things, like cosmology, we have abundant data. While we certainly will get more and refine our understanding of what that data means, there are certain things that a whole lot of unrelated data points to, like the big bang. The big bang is a great example of multiple very deep lines of direct evidence surrounded by a halo of very deep circumstantial evidence.
The scientific community needs to open it's mind, to look at things with ALL possibilities open, to test things as objectivly as possible and stop cutting off their noses to spites their faces simply to defend their cosmic hermuntic.
I find this ironic.
Originally posted by dmz
I think you are missing the point here -- how much of plate tectonics, star formation, etc, are acutally able to test?
So you are recommendating a warning label for the theories?
In plate tectonics, the crustal plates are recorded to move x inches per year, mountains are recorded to increase in height y inches a year. Their movements are traced back in time through radiometric dating, common chemical composition, and common flora and fauna fossils. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
There is zero evidence for catastrophic movement of the plates as proposed by Creationists. I even remember being taught that catastrophism was one of the two big theories in the history portion of the course. It obviously fell by the wayside because all the evidence was pointing towards slow movements of the crustal plates.
Stellar formation is observed at various stages through observation. Their composition is verified through observation. Their age is modelled on basic physical forces. Their fusion processes are verified through the observation of fusion byproducts. The models are verified through further observations. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
Answers in Genesis essentially has no answer but "God did it" for the apparent age and process for the Sun or stars.
What would you have taught as a competing theories in science class?
Your certainty of the origins of the universe isn't well founded as there are many issues which are completly up in the air. You should at least be honest about that.
I don't have certainty over anything. I do see a lot of evidence in support of said theories while there is zero evidence for Biblically-based assertions. If there is evidence against biological evolution, I would and everyone else, would love to see it. But the last hundred years of research has only supported and refined it.
Am I 100% certain, no. There is always the possibility of countervailing evidence. That is taught in every science class - to have doubt about what you do and believe is right, that everything must be supporting through evidence.
Since there is really no counter-evidence so far, biological evolution is pretty much it. I remember that there were 2 or 3 theories of the origin of the universe in class: steady state and big bang. All evidence supported big bang, and steady state fell away. My beliefs will change when and if there is evidence supporting a better theory.
Will your beliefs in Creationism change?
The scientific community needs to open it's mind, to look at things with ALL possibilities open, to test things as objectivly as possible and stop cutting off their noses to spites their faces simply to defend their cosmic hermuntic. Theories need destructive testing. Test Run Debug, Test, Run, Debug --- does it have a weakness? hmmmmm.... lets try to break it -- not prop it up for no other reason than it fits an agenda.
Evolution is an example of this, while starlight and KAr dating (I am vexed to admit) is not.
Evolution has had over a century of test, run and debug cycles. The vast majority of research over that time has only supported it.
Originally posted by THT
In plate tectonics, the crustal plates are recorded to move x inches per year, mountains are recorded to increase in height y inches a year. Their movements are traced back in time through radiometric dating, common chemical composition, and common flora and fauna fossils. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
And you would know that these are all assuming the rates of movement of the stated plates have stayed the same. As for radiometric dating, same exact preconception. Even the calibration curves for radiometric dating fall back on a naturalisitic dating scheme. It's a nice little tautological package.
There is zero evidence for catastrophic movement of the plates as proposed by Creationists. I even remember being taught that catastrophism was one of the two big theories in the history portion of the course. It obviously fell by the wayside because all the evidence was pointing towards slow movements of the crustal plates.
Yeah...like local floods can account for all of the fossils we see, which were obviously formed very rapidly. Also, given the rates of mountain uplift, their suface formations would have eroded long ago. If you're trying to prove millions of years, you will construe the evidence to fit your model. An example of this would be varves, where it is assumed each change in striations corresponds to annual rings. This is erroneous, because research by Guy Berthault, and Pierre Julien at colorado state university has pointed out. As a matter of fact, the vertical striations are actually caused by the sorting by size of flowing water.
It's very convenient to count these striations as years, if that supports your hypothesis, even if it files in the face of fact.
Btw, do you know about the fundamental problems about C14 dating past 50k years?
link.
Stellar formation is observed at various stages through observation. Their composition is verified through observation. Their age is modelled on basic physical forces. Their fusion processes are verified through the observation of fusion byproducts. The models are verified through further observations. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
Actually, the theory about stars "condensing" is far from perfect. link. Even so, there is nowhere in the bible that says this can't hapen. How exactly did you think that stars forming would support your position?
Answers in Genesis essentially has no answer but "God did it" for the apparent age and process for the Sun or stars.
Actually, you have lots of problems if the sun is millions of years old, and especially if it's always been acting like it is now. Additionally, reference my statements about starlight and time.
What would you have taught as a competing theories in science class?
I'd start at the very beginning and explain the paradigms of both camps, and then present the interpretation of the evidence from both sides. Let the students decide.
I don't have certainty over anything. I do see a lot of evidence in support of said theories while there is zero evidence for Biblically-based assertions. If there is evidence against biological evolution, I would and everyone else, would love to see it. But the last hundred years of research has only supported and refined it.
Actually, as I pointed out, you can't do research on evolution. The best example any evolutionist has every presented is bacteria adapting to a new environement, and then they make the jump and say that proves that pond scum eventually would walk around on two legs.
Am I 100% certain, no. There is always the possibility of countervailing evidence. That is taught in every science class - to have doubt about what you do and believe is right, that everything must be supporting through evidence.
To even speak of possible problems with evolution has been grounds for dismissal, at least on the high school level. Contrary to popular opinion, that actually what the Ohio state school board was trying to do, not teach creationism (or even intellegent design).
My wife thinks I should respond to these request for the historical accuracy for the bible. I stumbled upon the christianswers site today while looking up some archaelogical questions. Ergo:
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html
http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/
http://christiananswers.net/abr/home.html
http://christiananswers.net/menu-at1.html
Actually, you have lots of problems if the sun is millions of years old, and especially if it's always been acting like it is now.
How about if it's billions of years old and hasn't always been the same?
To even speak of possible problems with evolution has been grounds for dismissal, at least on the high school level.
I certainly agree that science shouldn't form an orthodoxy.
Originally posted by THT
Since there is really no counter-evidence so far, biological evolution is pretty much it.
This is the core of your error. You simply are not open to ANY other worldview other than one that by definition MUST excluded God -- and delcares revelation IMPOSSIBLE. Materialism is the only mechanism you will accept, even at the cost of insiting on uniformity over millions of years --even though you must speculate as to that possibility. You can even look at the structures and systems that surround you, but still insist that order is the child of chaos -- even though the world you see and test has none of those qualities.
This is your center -- ultimate contingency with the sufficiency of the human intellect.
(BTW, Astronomy is mostly theory -- as to what is happening in stars, let alone what we still theorize about the planets in our own solar system.)
Originally posted by dmz
This is the core of my error. I am simply are not open to ANY other worldview other than one that by assumption MUST be God did it-- and declares evolution IMPOSSIBLE. Literalism is the only mechanism I will accept, even at the cost of insisting on gross stupidity over tens of years --even though I must speculate as to that possibility as to appear intelligent. I can even look at the structures and systems that surround me, but still insist that selective randomness is the child of GOD -- even though the world I see and test has none of those qualities.
This is my center -- ultimate contingency with the ignorance of the human stupidity.
(BTW, God is all theory -- as to what is happening in my head, let alone what we still theorize about the ignorance of my own consciousness.)
FUCK ME. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT GOD DIDN'T DO IT.
Oh yeah "FIXEDYAPOST"