PDA

View Full Version : Creationism, geology and science (sf. Science stories)



Rincewind
15-06-2015, 04:53 PM
A lot of assumptions there, including uniformitarianism: presupposing that the temperatures have been at current levels for millions of years, then using that to prove the same. Dr Snelling, criticised on this blog, is more qualified in geology than the critic.

I assume this is the same Andrew Snelling who published the paper on the Koongarra uranium deposit where he documented deposits and processes taking place millions of years in the past.

Johns
18-06-2015, 04:41 PM
A lot of assumptions there, including uniformitarianism:

Are you saying uniformitarianism is an assumption like the Earth is flat is an assumption?

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2015, 01:00 AM
You did not try to find the real point of the article in the abstract. I have heard that called cherry picking. Maybe cherry picking is as you say common practise but I call it not truthful talking.
Complete crap. You have no clue about normal article-pasting etiquette: past the first few paragraphs is a very common practice. Cherry-picking includes taking a phrase out of context, for example.


Are you saying uniformitarianism is an assumption like the Earth is flat is an assumption?
Both false. The leading flat-earther is one of your fellow evolutionists:


“The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.” (Natalie Wolchover, Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map (http://www.livescience.com/14754-ingenious-flat-earth-theory-revealed-map.html), Live Science, 23 June 2011.)

Johns
19-06-2015, 03:30 PM
Complete crap. You have no clue about normal article-pasting etiquette:



I don"t want to read what some one else thinks. I want to know what you think and why you think it.





Both false. The leading flat-earther is one of your fellow evolutionists:


“The Flat Earth Society is an active organization currently led by a Virginian man named Daniel Shenton. Though Shenton believes in evolution and global warming, he and his hundreds, if not thousands, of followers worldwide also believe that the Earth is a disc that you can fall off of.” (Natalie Wolchover, Ingenious ‘Flat Earth’ Theory Revealed In Old Map (http://www.livescience.com/14754-ingenious-flat-earth-theory-revealed-map.html), Live Science, 23 June 2011.)

Shelton sounds may be he is mad. But can you answer me "Are you saying uniformitarianism is an assumption ?"

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2015, 03:05 AM
I don"t want to read what some one else thinks. I want to know what you think and why you think it.
I could cite only from my articles and books if you really want.


Shelton sounds may be he is mad.
No doubt. But the fact remains that the leading flat-earther is one of you guys.


But can you answer me "Are you saying uniformitarianism is an assumption ?"
Of course. In 1785, before examining the evidence, James Hutton (1726–1797), ‘the Founder of Modern Geology’, proclaimed:


‘the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle’ ( ‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785)

Rincewind
27-06-2015, 04:36 AM
I could cite only from my articles and books if you really want.

If any of your geology-related articles were published in scientific outlets or any of your book were published by academic publishers then perhaps they would be worth reading. However the vast majority of your articles are published on the web site of the church you work for and your books are published by pro-christian, non-scientific publishers. In essence you have free rein to write or copy whatever you like with little or no critical review. Makes being a "scientist" very easy.

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2015, 10:50 PM
Yes. we know that RW accepts only publications that explicitly or implicitly support his own faith of atheopathy.

Rincewind
01-07-2015, 12:06 AM
Yes. we know that RW accepts only publications that explicitly or implicitly support his own faith of atheopathy.

So are you saying there is a world-wide conspiracy of scientific publishing. Is that more likely or is it more likely your "articles and books" are just not up the standards required by the scientific community?

The world-wide conspiracy theory makes no sense since many of the supposed gate-keepers are people of various faiths including many, many Christians.

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2015, 06:13 AM
So are you saying there is a world-wide conspiracy of scientific publishing. Is that more likely or is it more likely your "articles and books" are just not up the standards required by the scientific community?
Doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a shared world view of materialism.


The world-wide conspiracy theory makes no sense since many of the supposed gate-keepers are people of various faiths including many, many Christians.
Even these professed adherence of "various faiths" have materialism as their real faith for all practical purposes. They are useful idiots (http://creation.com/useful-idiot-who-me) for the real materialists like you and Dawk.

Rincewind
01-07-2015, 11:03 AM
Doesn't need to be a conspiracy, just a shared world view of materialism.

But your worldview of "magic exists" makes no sense while "the universe behaves in a predictable way" has lead to all the techniological advances you now enjoy.


Even these professed adherence of "various faiths" have materialism as their real faith for all practical purposes. They are useful idiots (http://creation.com/useful-idiot-who-me) for the real materialists like you and Dawk.

So you think there is a conspiracy of materialists that control science? That's just too precious.

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2015, 07:15 AM
But your worldview of "magic exists" makes no sense while "the universe behaves in a predictable way" has lead to all the techniological advances you now enjoy.
My worldview denies that magic exists. And "the universe behaves in a predictable way" is itself a prediction from the biblical teaching of a divine Lawmaker who is a God of order not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/14-33.htm)). The premise does not arise from your atheopathic faith. See also The biblical roots of modern science (http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science) and Why does science work at all? (http://creation.com/science-biblical-presuppositions) and The Christian Roots of Science & Busting The Myths of Science:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQjM6ceYiX8


So you think there is a conspiracy of materialists that control science? That's just too precious.
You're the one who keeps bringing up conspiracies although I have disclaimed them. Evidently you are very conspiratorially minded :P

Rincewind
02-07-2015, 12:31 PM
The term "operational science" is a creationist invention. In simple terms there are claims which can be tested by experiment and there are claims which cannot. Some scientific disciplines deals more with the former sort of claim and other disciplines more with the latter. But all scientific disciplines deal with both sorts of claims. The idea that some disciplines are "operational" and others are historical is a false dichotomy. Furthermore historical claims can be studied and claims decided scientifically.

Regarding who is the real conspiracy theorist. You are the one claiming that the scientific literature is under the control of an atheist cabal lead my me and Richard Dawkins who are using scientists of faith as useful idiots to further our nefarious plans.

Patrick Byrom
02-07-2015, 01:37 PM
The term "operational science" is a creationist invention. In simple terms there are claims which can be tested by experiment and there are claims which cannot. Some scientific disciplines deals more with the former sort of claim and other disciplines more with the latter. But all scientific disciplines deal with both sorts of claims. The idea that some disciplines are "operational" and others are historical is a false dichotomy. Furthermore historical claims can be studied and claims decided scientifically.
I wonder what category basin modelling (http://oilandgasgeology.com/) is supposed to be in? As it is tested by experiment (ie used to find oil), it must be experimental. However, it relies on the age of the earth:

Geophysical, geological and geochemical data are often put together in a digital basin model, which simulates the development of a sedimentary basin through time. Important input is the depth and age of geologic layers, source rock properties and subsurface temperatures. The basin model should be calibrated against measured data, from wells or outcrops. The results from such analyses are evaluated in the context of the geological and thermal history of the sedimentary basin. By doing this, a basins petroleum system may be defined in time and space. This knowlegde is important when exploring for oil and gas.
Maybe it can be done using YEC geology, but I'm still waiting for a reply on that :hmm:

Basin modelling demonstrates that Rincewind is correct: There is no clear distinction between 'experimental' and 'historical' science.

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2015, 02:41 PM
The term "operational science" is a creationist invention.
More nonsense. Evolutionists have also acknowledged the difference between evolution as a historical science and observational science like physics:


“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.


“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”
—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.


Regarding who is the real conspiracy theorist. You are the one claiming that the scientific literature is under the control of an atheist cabal lead my me and Richard Dawkins who are using scientists of faith as useful idiots to further our nefarious plans.
You're the one talking about cabals and conspiracies; I am talking about a common shared faith in materialism, which you and Dawk also hold blindly.

Rincewind
02-07-2015, 03:01 PM
More nonsense. Evolutionists have also acknowledged the difference between evolution as a historical science and observational science like physics:


“For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”
—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.


“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”
—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simply a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Do you have any examples of the term "operational science" being used outside of the AiG bubble?


You're the one talking about cabals and conspiracies; I am talking about a common shared faith in materialism, which you and Dawk also hold blindly.

I'm talking about it because you imply it. My claim is that no such conspiracy exists and if your writings were worth anything at all the creationist "scientists" would be in line for several Nobel prizes. As I see it there are two possible hypotheses...

H0 : Creation science is pure applesauce.
H1: Creation science is scientifically valid but suppressed by a conspiracy of materialist gatekeepers.

Since H1 implies a worldwide conspiracy which is playing the thousands of christian, islamic, jewish, buddhist, etc scientists for dupes I find this quite unlikely and therefor prefer to retain H0.

Patrick Byrom
02-07-2015, 03:33 PM
More nonsense. Evolutionists have also acknowledged the difference between evolution as a historical science and observational science like physics: ...
But the study of evolution is not purely historical: (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VZTKFnkw_IU)

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait. And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Rincewind
02-07-2015, 05:08 PM
I would point that that not even History is a purely historical science and some claims can and are tested in experiments. For example historical reenactment can be used to inform prior probabilities for various competing hypotheses.

Capablanca-Fan
03-07-2015, 03:51 AM
But the study of evolution is not purely historical: (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VZTKFnkw_IU)

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait. And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
Oh, this boring old Lenski stuff that we answered at the time (http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli). The E. coli already have a mechanism to metabolize citrate, but because this is less efficient than aerobic respiration, this is switched off in the presence of free oxygen and left for anaerobic conditions. However, one strain of Lenski's bacteria had a mutation disabling this off-switch, so the citrate-digestion pathway remained on in aerobic conditions. Here is a summary from last month (unlike PB's 2008 source):


Except that's not true. Normal E. coli already have the ability to feed on citrate -- they just don't typically do it under oxic conditions (i.e., where oxygen is present). The interesting thing about Lenski's research is that his bugs evolved the ability to uptake citrate under oxic conditions. But did anything new evolve? Here's what the article says:


But a mutation in the citrate-eaters allowed them to make an "antiporter" protein, CitT, that allows citrate to cross the membrane and enter the cell. The gene for this protein already existed, but it's usually switched off when oxygen is present.
The antiporter is a kind of revolving door. It allows one molecule to be swapped for another. In this case, the citrate is imported into the cell in exchange for one of three smaller, less-valuable molecules: succinate, fumarate or malate.

What really happened? A switch that normally represses expression of CitT under oxic conditions was broken, so the citrate-uptake pathway got turned on. This isn't the evolution of a new molecular feature. It's the breaking of a molecular feature -- a repressor switch. Of course none of this is disclosed in the article.

Patrick Byrom
03-07-2015, 02:08 PM
Oh, this boring old Lenski stuff that we answered at the time (http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-lab-lenski-citrate-digesting-e-coli). The E. coli already have a mechanism to metabolize citrate, but because this is less efficient than aerobic respiration, this is switched off in the presence of free oxygen and left for anaerobic conditions. However, one strain of Lenski's bacteria had a mutation disabling this off-switch, so the citrate-digestion pathway remained on in aerobic conditions.
The fact that there is a discussion about an experiment in evolution on a creationist website demonstrates conclusively that evolution is not purely historical - I'm glad you agree with me (and Rincewind by implication).

antichrist
03-07-2015, 09:41 PM
I still appreciate when Capa gives up a chemistry lesson to show that he is really is into science

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2015, 02:34 AM
The fact that there is a discussion about an experiment in evolution on a creationist website demonstrates conclusively that evolution is not purely historical - I'm glad you agree with me (and Rincewind by implication).

Ah, here we are with the equivocation: evolution = change + evolution = goo-to-you-via-the-zoo.

Too all but the most fanatical evolutionists, it should be obvious that breaking an off-switch is not the same direction of changes needed to turn bacteria into biologists.

Patrick Byrom
09-07-2015, 01:34 PM
Ah, here we are with the equivocation: evolution = change + evolution = goo-to-you-via-the-zoo. Too all but the most fanatical evolutionists, it should be obvious that breaking an off-switch is not the same direction of changes needed to turn bacteria into biologists.
What happened to the bacteria fits the Oxford dictionary definition of "evolve (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evolve)": "(With reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection ...". The overwhelming majority of biologists would regard it as an example of evolution in action.

Rincewind
09-07-2015, 05:48 PM
Jono's complaint of equivocation here is nothing more than him committing a shifting of goal-posts fallacy. If the age of the evolution paper (2008) is really a problem I would point out that it has been 1994 since his last contribution to the scientific literature. Also Lenski's E coli experiments continue. See for example, Genetics June 1, 2015 vol. 200 no. 2 619-631

Adaptation, Clonal Interference, and Frequency-Dependent Interactions in a Long-Term Evolution Experiment with Escherichia coli
Rohan Maddamsetti, Richard E. Lenski and Jeffrey E. Barrick



Abstract
Twelve replicate populations of Escherichia coli have been evolving in the laboratory for >25 years and 60,000 generations. We analyzed bacteria from whole-population samples frozen every 500 generations through 20,000 generations for one well-studied population, called Ara−1. By tracking 42 known mutations in these samples, we reconstructed the history of this population’s genotypic evolution over this period. The evolutionary dynamics of Ara−1 show strong evidence of selective sweeps as well as clonal interference between competing lineages bearing different beneficial mutations. In some cases, sets of several mutations approached fixation simultaneously, often conveying no information about their order of origination; we present several possible explanations for the existence of these mutational cohorts. Against a backdrop of rapid selective sweeps both earlier and later, two genetically diverged clades coexisted for >6000 generations before one went extinct. In that time, many additional mutations arose in the clade that eventually prevailed. We show that the clades evolved a frequency-dependent interaction, which prevented the immediate competitive exclusion of either clade, but which collapsed as beneficial mutations accumulated in the clade that prevailed. Clonal interference and frequency dependence can occur even in the simplest microbial populations. Furthermore, frequency dependence may generate dynamics that extend the period of coexistence that would otherwise be sustained by clonal interference alone.

Clearly the study of evolution is both experimental and historical. Which is all the original claim was saying anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2015, 11:10 PM
What happened to the bacteria fits the Oxford dictionary definition of "evolve (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evolve)": "(With reference to an organism or biological feature) develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection ...". The overwhelming majority of biologists would regard it as an example of evolution in action.

Why argue that things change? Who denies that allele frequencies change over time? The problem is that this doesn't prove the idea, motivated by blind atheistic faith, that all living organisms evolved from a single-celled organism that itself came from non-living chemicals, aka the General Theory of Evolution (http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut).

Your proposed definition also presupposes that natural selection is always the driving force of evolution, but not all evolutionists agree.

Patrick Byrom
10-07-2015, 12:03 AM
Why argue that things change? Who denies that allele frequencies change over time? The problem is that this doesn't prove the idea, motivated by blind atheistic faith, that all living organisms evolved from a single-celled organism that itself came from non-living chemicals, aka the General Theory of Evolution (http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut).

Your proposed definition also presupposes that natural selection is always the driving force of evolution, but not all evolutionists agree.
It's not my "proposed definition" - it's the dictionary definition!

And you are the one who keeps bringing up this 'General Theory'. My claim was that you can conduct an experiment involving evolution (as defined in the Oxford Dictionary), which has now been proven. In this discussion, I haven't made any further claims about evolution.

Capablanca-Fan
11-07-2015, 01:15 AM
It's not my "proposed definition" - it's the dictionary definition!
Fine, but if that were the issue, there would be no anti-evolutionists!


And you are the one who keeps bringing up this 'General Theory'. My claim was that you can conduct an experiment involving evolution (as defined in the Oxford Dictionary), which has now been proven. In this discussion, I haven't made any further claims about evolution.
Blame evolutionist Kerkut for the term. And you know perfectly well that this is the issue of dispute.

MichaelBaron
11-07-2015, 12:59 PM
A bit confused what the meaning of ''Operational Science'' is. Is it same as ''Applied Science''?

antichrist
11-07-2015, 01:57 PM
A bit confused what the meaning of ''Operational Science'' is. Is it same as ''Applied Science''?

I checked it out here http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/a-critical-distinction-operational-science-vs-historical-science, it states that past events sort of cannot be proven. Only assumptions can be made for example for evolution. But don't Creationists used historical science or something when assuming that Biblical heroes lived to a thousand years? That JC ascended to Heaven etc.? Jono expects to accept it a priori coz God can do anything no question marks. (are you transmitting from the MCC?)

Patrick Byrom
11-07-2015, 03:05 PM
Fine, but if that were the issue, there would be no anti-evolutionists!
Did Augustine, Aquinas or Martin Luther believe that organisms: "develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection ..."? If they did, they certainly didn't make it clear in their writings. That implies that it is possible to reject the idea of natural selection, and until Darwin, almost everyone did.

The only reason there are (almost) no anti-evolutionists (using the Oxford definition) now is because everyone - even YECs - accepts Darwin's insight.


Blame evolutionist Kerkut for the term. And you know perfectly well that this is the issue of dispute.
Do you agree that - if we use the Oxford Dictionary definition - then Lenski's experiments are experiments in evolution? Until we agree on this, there is no point in discussing the 'General Theory'.

Johns
15-07-2015, 12:44 AM
I have read this thread and am sad. You are all attacking Capafan. This is not good. CapAfan has a problem with wieghing evidence. It is a brain fault where all statements and evidence must be fitting desired answer or they are not true. You cannot talk about photography with a person blind from child. Cappafan should have you be kind to him. Needs care not kicking.

Kevin Bonham
15-07-2015, 10:34 AM
I have read this thread and am sad. You are all attacking Capafan. This is not good.

This is coming from the poster who recently set up a whole thread called "Thus Spoke Capablanca-Fan #1" (which I have retitled "Income distribution") for the purposes of having a go at Capablanca-Fan, then bumped it (bump now deleted) when CF didn't reply, then spammed about it on an unrelated thread (that post now deleted) to try to further bait him into responding.

At best you are extremely inconsistent but more likely you are being a concern-troll.

Desmond
16-07-2015, 01:10 PM
CapAfan has a problem with wieghing evidence. It is a brain fault where all statements and evidence must be fitting desired answer or they are not true. Sounds about right.

Desmond
16-07-2015, 03:15 PM
The Urban Dictionary has an interesting definition (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=creation+science) of creation science:

n. A fundamentalist Christian outreach concept, in which the intent is to "debunk" science with the word of scripture. Its most vocal adherents are southern and mid-western U.S. evangelical protestants (see Bible Thumper.) Creation "scientists" try to convince "unsaved" people that the Earth was formed in a Creation that took place at the hands of Almighty God a few thousand years ago, and hope their evidence will convert a few of these "unsaved" people to the faith.

...
Unfortunately, unlike real scientists, Creation Scientists face a non-existent job market. Most find work in blue-collar manufacturing jobs, or else provide for their families by huntin' sqwirls, 'coons and o-possum. Their hobbies range from watching NASCAR, to whippin' the kids, to attending Klan and CCC rallies. Prrrraise Jesus!

Question: How old is this part of the Grand Canyon?

Scientist: This formation is about five million years old, according to our best uranium-lead dating...

Creation Scientist: Them there canyon ain't no more 'n' maybe 4000 years ole,' and if you done believe otherwise, you're a Hellbound sinner, praise the Lord! Now please op'n' all yawl's Bibles to Genesis, Chapter Six and let us remind ourselves of the word of God...

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2015, 10:51 AM
How moronic can you get (actually rr's post shows, quite a bit)? The KKK leader David Duke was a fanatical Darwinist (http://creation.com/darwinisms-influence-on-modern-racists-and-white-supremacist-groups-the-case-of-david-duke), and other KKK members attacked churches. And even though the American CMI is in Georgia, almost none of us come from the state.

Capablanca-Fan
07-08-2015, 10:55 AM
Did Augustine, Aquinas or Martin Luther believe that organisms: "develop over successive generations as a result of natural selection ..."? If they did, they certainly didn't make it clear in their writings. That implies that it is possible to reject the idea of natural selection, and until Darwin, almost everyone did.
Even Gould acknowledged that creationists before Darwin understood natural selection as a process to cull the weakest.


The only reason there are (almost) no anti-evolutionists (using the Oxford definition) now is because everyone - even YECs - accepts Darwin's insight.
More nonsense. YECs both before and after Darwin accepted variation and natural selection.


Do you agree that - if we use the Oxford Dictionary definition - then Lenski's experiments are experiments in evolution? Until we agree on this, there is no point in discussing the 'General Theory'.
Do you agree that - if we use the Oxford Dictionary definition - CMI would all be evolutionists?

Rincewind
07-08-2015, 10:59 AM
How moronic can you get (actually rr's post shows, quite a bit)? The KKK leader David Duke was a fanatical Darwinist (http://creation.com/darwinisms-influence-on-modern-racists-and-white-supremacist-groups-the-case-of-david-duke), and other KKK members attacked churches. And even though the American CMI is in Georgia, almost none of us come from the state.

Really???

So why is it the symbol for the Klan is a burning cross and why do they say a Christian Prayer to God (not the spirit of Charles Darwin) before they light the cross and sing hymns like "Onward Christian Soldiers" afterward?

For more detail of the Christian practices of the Klan see "The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America" By Wyn Craig Wade.

Patrick Byrom
07-08-2015, 01:31 PM
Even Gould acknowledged that creationists before Darwin understood natural selection as a process to cull the weakest.
Which is not the same thing as believing that species "develop over successive generations" due to natural selection.


More nonsense. YECs both before and after Darwin accepted variation and natural selection.
Did YECs before Darwin accept that species "develop over successive generations" due to natural selection? I'm not denying that there could be some, but can you name any? Of course, after Darwin published the idea of evolution quickly became widely accepted among scientists, and then the general population.


Do you agree that - if we use the Oxford Dictionary definition - CMI would all be evolutionists?
I have stated before (see below) that many YECs accept evolution. You just refuse to use that word to describe the process.


I think the word they're looking for (https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/) is "evolution" (my [italics]bold):

•The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2015, 03:28 AM
Really???
Yes really. Not a single prominent creationist has any connection with the KKK or speaks with a US southern drawl, for example.


So why is it the symbol for the Klan is a burning cross and why do they say a Christian Prayer to God (not the spirit of Charles Darwin) before they light the cross and sing hymns like "Onward Christian Soldiers" afterward?
Should be a clue: burning a Christian symbol like the cross, which goes well with the burning of churches. The KKK also lost badly when they tried to brawl with students of Notre Dame (http://www.amazon.com/Notre-Dame-Vs-Klan-Fighting/dp/0829417710), which thoroughly weakened the Klan.

Conversely, the über-left President Woodrow Wilson idolized the Klan (http://www.bu.edu/professorvoices/2013/03/04/the-long-forgotten-racial-attitudes-and-policies-of-woodrow-wilson/), and Margaret Sanger, the founder of the baby-part–selling business Planned Parenthood, addressed Klan meetings (http://spectator.org/articles/61552/reflections-roe-when-margaret-sanger-spoke-kkk).


For more detail of the Christian practices of the Klan see "The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America" By Wyn Craig Wade.
Why? The Publishers Weekly reviewer (http://www.amazon.com/The-Fiery-Cross-Klux-America/dp/0195123573)was not impressed:


This doggedly researched history of the American racist group is bloated with cliches, overstatements, colloquialisms, sensationalistic accounts of sexual atrocities and nonsensical connections (a detailed description of Grant's second inaugural ball that took place in an unheated building is followed by the observation that "over the next four years, the Republican ardor for civil rights would cool"). Wade's historical insights are often inane, as when he discusses Grant's suspension of habeas corpus in implementing the Ku-Klux Act: "Although it must be admitted that martial law is never pleasant, the effects of military occupation in South Carolina were far less dreadful than the picture anti-Reconstruction historians would popularize." And his psychological analyses are ludicrous: "Klan attacks on scalawags often involved some kind of sexual abuse. . . . as if the behavior of the scalawags represented a form of infidelity to the South, and Klansmen gladly assumed the role of vengeful spouses." Wade is the author of The Titanic: End of a Dream. Photos not seen by PW.

Capablanca-Fan
08-08-2015, 03:34 AM
Which is not the same thing as believing that species "develop over successive generations" due to natural selection.
I've also pointed out that evolution need not include natural selection. There are evolutionists who downplay the role of NS. Evolution is the change, natural selection is one proposed mechanism of the change.


Did YECs before Darwin accept that species "develop over successive generations" due to natural selection?
Since NS is not a prerequisite for evolution or change, it matters only that pre-Darwinian creationists understood that a process of variation, what we would even call speciation, had occurred to derive many varieties from comparatively few Ark animals.


I have stated before (see below) that many YECs accept evolution.
You stated wrongly. Then the likes of Dawkins state that 40% of Americans deny "evolution", just after he had defined this as mere change of allele frequencies.


You just refuse to use that word to describe the process.
Of course, because it has no bearing on the real dispute: goo to you via the zoo.

Rincewind
08-08-2015, 11:23 AM
Yes really. Not a single prominent creationist has any connection with the KKK or speaks with a US southern drawl, for example.

That's not what I was getting at. I was disagreeing with your ridiculous claim that the Klan is Darwinist and anti-Christian when they are patently self-identify as Christian and embed themselves is Christian symbolism and spiritualism.


Should be a clue: burning a Christian symbol like the cross, which goes well with the burning of churches.

The burning of the cross is not a sign of destroying a Christian symbol but decorating it with ardour. Somewhat like the flames on the sacred heart. As defenders of the Christian faith they might burn a church if they think it a false church (say if you consider Christian a faith for white anglosaxons and not people of african descent). In fact such minded individual are more likely to do so then say a group of Darwinists with no particular reason to pick on a church rather than say a Mosque or Synagogue.


Conversely, the über-left President Woodrow Wilson

... also a Christian ...


idolized the Klan, and Margaret Sanger,

... also a Christian ...


the founder of the baby-part–selling business Planned Parenthood, addressed Klan meetings (http://spectator.org/articles/61552/reflections-roe-when-margaret-sanger-spoke-kkk).

Fine but your two examples only reinforces the idea that the Klan had a Christian base.


Why? The Publishers Weekly reviewer (http://www.amazon.com/The-Fiery-Cross-Klux-America/dp/0195123573)was not impressed:

One bad review is not the end of the world and besides that reviewer was relatively positive on the research.

Patrick Byrom
08-08-2015, 04:06 PM
I've also pointed out that evolution need not include natural selection. There are evolutionists who downplay the role of NS. Evolution is the change, natural selection is one proposed mechanism of the change.And I don't disagree that species change can occur by processes other than natural selection. However natural selection is definitely the main process involved in evolution. So any standard (non-creationist) definition of evolution would include natural selection, either implicitly or explicitly.

If you have a living evolutionary biologist who believes that natural selection is not the most important part of evolution, perhaps you can supply a quote?

Remember that the original discussion was about a change in bacteria which was clearly the result of natural selection (and mutation). And you admit that natural selection is part of evolution ("need not include" - your words! - which imply it can be included). So the experiment involved evolution, as I claimed!


Since NS is not a prerequisite for evolution or change, it matters only that pre-Darwinian creationists understood that a process of variation, what we would even call speciation, had occurred to derive many varieties from comparatively few Ark animals.Again, can you supply a quote, or name one of these pre-Darwinian creationists?


You stated wrongly. Then the likes of Dawkins state that 40% of Americans deny "evolution", just after he had defined this as mere change of allele frequencies.Quote from Dawkins, please? In any case, my claim is based on the Oxford definition, which you appear to largely accept.


Of course, because it has no bearing on the real dispute: goo to you via the zoo.This is irrelevant to the Oxford definition. If you disagree with the Oxford definition, can you supply your own (non-creationist) dictionary definition?

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2015, 04:28 AM
Remember that the original discussion was about a change in bacteria which was clearly the result of natural selection (and mutation). And you admit that natural selection is part of evolution ("need not include" - your words! - which imply it can be included).
What's the big deal? Evolution is the claimed process of changes from goo to you, natural selection is the means by which most evolutionary biologists (at least Anglophone ones) think it occurs. The definition of evolution should not include natural selection. That's why Darwin talked about evolution "by means of natural selection."

Also, as I've pointed out, evolutionists don't have a monopoly on natural selection. Creationists before and after Darwin invoked it. So you can cite all the examples of change effected by natural selection that you like, and it will not make the slightest difference to creation v evolution.


So the experiment involved evolution, as I claimed!
The experiment involved change effected by natural selection, but since both creationist and evolutionist models accept change effected by natural selection, this experiment is not evidence against either.


Again, can you supply a quote, or name one of these pre-Darwinian creationists?
Already done (http://creation.com/cosmos-neil-degrasse-tyson-episode-2#Evolution_bait-and-switch).


Quote from Dawkins, please?
Must I argue your side as well as mine? But it's true that many misotheists don't actually know that much about evolution. Evolutionary science writer Gordy Slack in "What neo-creationists get right: An evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp" [The Scientist, June 2008]


Which leads me to a final concession to my ID foes: When they say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they’re right. A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn’t know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. They’re still correct when they say evolution happens. But I’m afraid they’re wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots. Ideological zeal isn’t incompatible with good science; its coincidence with a theory proves nothing about that theory’s explanatory power.

Anyway, Dawk in his The Greatest Show on Earth (2009):

…when there is a systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool, that is precisely what we mean by evolution. (p. 33)

This would mean that neither I nor any of my colleagues dispute "evolution", so why are you wasting my time arguing with me?


In any case, my claim is based on the Oxford definition, which you appear to largely accept.
What are you on about? I've explained why this is defective and not the issue at hand.


This is irrelevant to the Oxford definition. If you disagree with the Oxford definition, can you supply your own (non-creationist) dictionary definition?
Already provided Kerkut's definition (http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut), and he was an evolutionist. When will you admit that this is the issue at dispute rather than change, and quit your bait-and-switch?

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2015, 04:33 AM
That's not what I was getting at. I was disagreeing with your ridiculous claim that the Klan is Darwinist and anti-Christian when they are patently self-identify as Christian and embed themselves is Christian symbolism and spiritualism.
Klan intellectual David Duke is a Darwinian, continuing the racism that was rife among Darwinians in the first decades of the last century.

Woodrow Wilson was very much a liberal churchian, no more Christian than Spong is today. It's hard to take RW seriously when he calls Margaret Sanger a Christian, when she was awarded the 1957 Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association (http://www.ihumanism.org/2012/04/a-humanist-you-should-know-margaret-sanger.html).

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2015, 05:50 AM
This is coming from the poster who recently set up a whole thread called "Thus Spoke Capablanca-Fan #1" (which I have retitled "Income distribution") for the purposes of having a go at Capablanca-Fan, then bumped it (bump now deleted) when CF didn't reply, then spammed about it on an unrelated thread (that post now deleted) to try to further bait him into responding.

At best you are extremely inconsistent but more likely you are being a concern-troll.

Thanks for that.

antichrist
09-08-2015, 06:54 AM
Caps Fan is into supernatural selection

Rincewind
09-08-2015, 10:18 AM
Klan intellectual David Duke is a Darwinian, continuing the racism that was rife among Darwinians in the first decades of the last century.

David Duke is also a Christian (See for example his article here Should Christians Support Israel? (http://davidduke.com/evangelicals-who-serve-the-anti-christ-2/), which begins "I am a Christian...")


Woodrow Wilson was very much a liberal churchian, no more Christian than Spong is today.

No churchy enough for you of course but then again the 95% of Christian Germans (orthodox Lutherans and Catholics) are not Christian enough for you.


It's hard to take RW seriously when he calls Margaret Sanger a Christian, when she was awarded the 1957 Humanist of the Year by the American Humanist Association (http://www.ihumanism.org/2012/04/a-humanist-you-should-know-margaret-sanger.html).

Plenty of Christians have received awards from the American Humanist Association. Margeret Sanger self-identified as a Christian and and specifically an Episcopalian. (See: Margaret Sanger: Closeted Atheist Marxist? Probably Not (https://sangerpapers.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/margaret-sanger-closeted-athiest-marxist-probably-not/).)

Capablanca-Fan
09-08-2015, 10:25 AM
David Duke is also a Christian (See for example his article here Should Christians Support Israel? (http://davidduke.com/evangelicals-who-serve-the-anti-christ-2/), which begins "I am a Christian...")
And if he said "I am not a racist bigot," RW would logically have to accept that, because after all, people always identify themselves truthfully.


No churchy enough for you of course but then again the 95% of Christian Germans (orthodox Lutherans and Catholics) are not Christian enough for you.
Of course not, given that biblical Christianity was almost unknown then, except in the anti-Hitler Confessing Church.


Plenty of Christians have received awards from the American Humanist Association.
Like whom? Of course, RW's pseudo-definition of Christian is just as warped as his definition of faith, with no connection with reality. In most cases, it means anyone RW doesn't like, even if they believed or acted contrary to Christ.


Margeret Sanger self-identified as a Christian and and specifically an Episcopalian. (See: Margaret Sanger: Closeted Atheist Marxist? Probably Not (https://sangerpapers.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/margaret-sanger-closeted-athiest-marxist-probably-not/).)
Episcopalian in many cases in the 20th and 21st century just means an atheist in church, like Spong.

Rincewind
09-08-2015, 10:40 AM
Jono continues to fall back on the No True Scotsman fallacy to try and divorce Christianity from the Klan. But in truth they are almost 100% Christian and every witness he has called on as having even tangential connection with the Klan are all Christian as well. Not Christian enough for Jono obviously but luckily he is not the decider of who is Christian and who isn't or else the number of Christians in the world would probably be in single digits.

Patrick Byrom
09-08-2015, 10:25 PM
The experiment involved change effected by natural selection, but since both creationist and evolutionist models accept change effected by natural selection, this experiment is not evidence against either.I didn't say it was evidence for or against anything. As the 'evolutionist' model includes the possibility of change by natural selection (as you agree), therefore the experiment was testing part of the 'evolutionist' model (the possibility of change by natural selection). Therefore it was an experiment in evolution. You can argue that it was a test of part of the creationist model as well, if you wish - I never said it wasn't. But you can't deny that it was testing part of the 'evolutionist' model, which, as I said, is evidence that evolution was not purely historical, and can be tested experimentally:

The fact that there is a discussion about an experiment in evolution on a creationist website demonstrates conclusively that evolution is not purely historical - I'm glad you agree with me (and Rincewind by implication).
An experiment does not have to test an entire model, but can focus on a specific part of that model.

antichrist
10-08-2015, 07:09 AM
If you asked David Duke about Jonothan Safarti he may call him a Jew and not a Christian

Capablanca-Fan
10-08-2015, 08:08 AM
Jono continues to fall back on the No True Scotsman fallacy to try and divorce Christianity from the Klan.
It's a No True Scotsman reality in this case: If RW is to be believed, a someone could be a Scotsman although he has never been to Scotland, has no trace of Scottish ancestry, and has no interest in any Scottish culture. In RW's ivory tower, apparently even a leading secular humanist can be a Christian.


But in truth they are almost 100% Christian and every witness he has called on as having even tangential connection with the Klan are all Christian as well. Not Christian enough for Jono obviously
Obviously, because Christ and the Bible are anti-racist, which is why Darwin's ally Haeckel despised the Bible (http://creation.com/haeckel-hostile-witness-bible-truth).


but luckily he is not the decider of who is Christian and who isn't or else the number of Christians in the world would probably be in single digits.
I don't need an atheopathic Christ-myther telling me who my fellow Christians are.

Rincewind
10-08-2015, 12:17 PM
It's a No True Scotsman reality in this case: If RW is to be believed, a someone could be a Scotsman although he has never been to Scotland, has no trace of Scottish ancestry, and has no interest in any Scottish culture. In RW's ivory tower, apparently even a leading secular humanist can be a Christian.

As usual most of the rubbish you sprout is patently false. In the Klan's case the members self-identify as Christians, revere Christian symbols (like the cross), say prayers to the Christian God and sing Christian hymns.


Obviously, because Christ and the Bible are anti-racist

That's debatable. Some Christians are not racists but many are quite racist and use the Bible to justify that racism. In deciding with Christianity as a whole is a positive movement you cannot cherry pick only the Christians you are happy to be associated with. You have to take all the good and all the bad that has been done is the name of Christ.


I don't need an atheopathic Christ-myther telling me who my fellow Christians are.

But you see, yes you most definitely do. If you are left to cherry pick only the best and most selfless Christians then you get a rose-coloured view of the impact of Christianity on society. Unfortunately you have to take the good along with the bad and that includes Hitler, the Klan, the Crusades, the Inquisition and all the pogroms and other persecutions done in the name of Christianity.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2015, 12:31 AM
That's debatable. Some Christians are not racists but many are quite racist and use the Bible to justify that racism.
The absurd racist eisegesis, including appeals to a non-existent "curse on Ham", occurred when there was already widespread racism. So the racism caused the interpretation, not the other way round. Indeed, the racists were doing just what you want the church to do: read the prevailing fad into the Bible, i.e. evolution and leftism, just as the Church in Galileo's day read Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmology into Scripture (http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial). David Goldenberg analysed this in The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003). One review said:


Goldenberg is sufficiently persuaded of the importance of the case he is making- that the Bible does not measure people's worth by the color of their skin—not to encumber the main body of his book with the kind of extended academic argument in whose thickets most readers would soon be lost. … [He has a] conviction that a scholarly work, if it has something important to say, should not be just for scholars."—John Pridmore, Church Times (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7641.html)

… What color did the ancient Jews think that they were? Answer: like just about everyone else in antiquity, the right color, of course, which in the Mediterranean context would be someplace midway between too light and too dark. … It comes as no surprise to learn that growing insistence on the chimerical curse coincides with increasing numbers of black Africans taken as slaves, first in the Islamic East, then in the Christian West, and most perniciously in America. According to G, from the seventh century on the theme is common in Near Eastern sources (Arabic Muslim and Christian Syriac), surfacing in Western (Christian) writers in the fifteenth century and appearing in Jewish sources from the Islamic world a century earlier than in Jewish sources from the Christian west (fourteenth/ fifteenth century). … Goldenberg concludes that the ancient Jewish world was not racist in the modern sense of hierarchy, ideology, or social structure determined by biological difference. … Molly Myerowitz Levine, Chair of Classics, Howard University, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.02.53 (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004-02-53.html)


In deciding with Christianity as a whole is a positive movement you cannot cherry pick only the Christians you are happy to be associated with. You have to take all the good and all the bad that has been done is the name of Christ.
Nonsense: I pick what has been consistent with Christ's teachings, because Jesus himself said,


“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’


But you see, yes you most definitely do. If you are left to cherry pick only the best and most selfless Christians then you get a rose-coloured view of the impact of Christianity on society. Unfortunately you have to take the good along with the bad and that includes Hitler, the Klan, the Crusades, the Inquisition and all the pogroms and other persecutions done in the name of Christianity.
We've been through the christophobia and evolutionism of the Nazis (http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link) many times.


https://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DLiO_c5-6_Hw

But you just want to tar everyone you don't like with "Christian" regardless of whether they accepted Christian doctrine or followed Christian practices, just on their say so. Also discussed the Crusades (http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/01/20/on-the-crusades/) as justified responses to centuries of Islamonazi aggression, and the Inquisition (http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/01/20/on-the-spanish-inquisition/) as been more lenient than the secular justice system of the day so that some criminals uttered heresies to be transferred to the Inquisitorial courts.

antichrist
12-08-2015, 12:41 AM
....................
But you just want to tar everyone you don't like with "Christian" regardless of whether they accepted Christian doctrine or followed Christian practices, just on their say so. Also discussed the Crusades (http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/01/20/on-the-crusades/) as justified responses to centuries of Islamonazi aggression, and the Inquisition (http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/01/20/on-the-spanish-inquisition/) as been more lenient than the secular justice system of the day so that some criminals uttered heresies to be transferred to the Inquisitorial courts.

Now it is opposite, I utter heresies to get to the civil courts to expose who ridiculous the idea of heresies are - I put out a magazine called Blasphemer once

Rincewind
12-08-2015, 11:50 AM
The absurd racist eisegesis, including appeals to a non-existent "curse on Ham", occurred when there was already widespread racism. So the racism caused the interpretation, not the other way round. Indeed, the racists were doing just what you want the church to do: read the prevailing fad into the Bible, i.e. evolution and leftism, just as the Church in Galileo's day read Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmology into Scripture (http://creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial). David Goldenberg analysed this in The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003). One review said:


Goldenberg is sufficiently persuaded of the importance of the case he is making- that the Bible does not measure people's worth by the color of their skin—not to encumber the main body of his book with the kind of extended academic argument in whose thickets most readers would soon be lost. … [He has a] conviction that a scholarly work, if it has something important to say, should not be just for scholars."—John Pridmore, Church Times (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7641.html)

… What color did the ancient Jews think that they were? Answer: like just about everyone else in antiquity, the right color, of course, which in the Mediterranean context would be someplace midway between too light and too dark. … It comes as no surprise to learn that growing insistence on the chimerical curse coincides with increasing numbers of black Africans taken as slaves, first in the Islamic East, then in the Christian West, and most perniciously in America. According to G, from the seventh century on the theme is common in Near Eastern sources (Arabic Muslim and Christian Syriac), surfacing in Western (Christian) writers in the fifteenth century and appearing in Jewish sources from the Islamic world a century earlier than in Jewish sources from the Christian west (fourteenth/ fifteenth century). … Goldenberg concludes that the ancient Jewish world was not racist in the modern sense of hierarchy, ideology, or social structure determined by biological difference. … Molly Myerowitz Levine, Chair of Classics, Howard University, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.02.53 (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004-02-53.html)


Nonsense: I pick what has been consistent with Christ's teachings, because Jesus himself said,


“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’


We've been through the christophobia and evolutionism of the Nazis (http://creation.com/refutation-of-new-scientists-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions-nazi-darwin-link) many times.


https://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DLiO_c5-6_Hw

But you just want to tar everyone you don't like with "Christian" regardless of whether they accepted Christian doctrine or followed Christian practices, just on their say so. Also discussed the Crusades (http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/01/20/on-the-crusades/) as justified responses to centuries of Islamonazi aggression, and the Inquisition (http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/01/20/on-the-spanish-inquisition/) as been more lenient than the secular justice system of the day so that some criminals uttered heresies to be transferred to the Inquisitorial courts.

This whole debate sparked off by you claiming the Klan was Darwinian and not Christian. I note that that that was the only point you are no longer arguing. So tacit conceding of that point by you is accepted.

The rest of what you write is filled with errors but as they are tangential to the main issue of the undeniable Christian orientation of the Klan I'm not interested in dragging you over the coals on these points again.

antichrist
21-09-2015, 06:54 PM
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/44977731540/heroes-of-the-enlightenment

Capa Fan, special for you maybe you did not know what occurred a few hundred of years ago

Agent Smith
07-12-2015, 05:02 PM
I was wondering - how do creationists reconcile the age of the universe as evidenced by the time it takes light from distant stars to reach earth.
I can only think of three explanations.
1. When god created the stars, he also created light from them, already most of the way to the earth. ... Thus cunningly tricking everyone.
2. The speed of light is not constant after all - despite all of quantum mechanics , relativity , etc
3. The other stars and galaxies actually aren't so far away after all... laugh.

Rincewind
07-12-2015, 07:44 PM
I was wondering - how do creationists reconcile the age of the universe as evidenced by the time it takes light from distant stars to reach earth.
I can only think of three explanations.
1. When god created the stars, he also created light from them, already most of the way to the earth. ... Thus cunningly tricking everyone.
2. The speed of light is not constant after all - despite all of quantum mechanics , relativity , etc
3. The other stars and galaxies actually aren't so far away after all... laugh.

To paraphrase Arthur Conan Doyle, when you believe something without evidence (like creationism) and then attempt to reconcile scientific evidence then it is a matter of eliminating the impossible and then whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth. But the approach is not scientific since the same level of scrutiny is not applied to physical evidence then is applied to the "truth" as revealed in scripture.

Desmond
07-12-2015, 08:17 PM
To paraphrase Terry Pratchett ... creationists, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2015, 07:49 AM
I was wondering—how do creationists reconcile the age of the universe as evidenced by the time it takes light from distant stars to reach earth.
I can only think of three explanations.
1. When god created the stars, he also created light from them, already most of the way to the earth. ... Thus cunningly tricking everyone.
2. The speed of light is not constant after all—despite all of quantum mechanics , relativity , etc
3. The other stars and galaxies actually aren't so far away after all... laugh.

Just because you have thought of only three explanations, it doesn't follow that there are only three. You are right that they are all wrong, but this doesn't mean that there isn't an answer you didn't think of. See my old answer to Garrett re distant starlight (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=156052&postcount=156).

Patrick Byrom
10-12-2015, 03:40 PM
Just because you have thought of only three explanations, it doesn't follow that there are only three. You are right that they are all wrong, but this doesn't mean that there isn't an answer you didn't think of. See my old answer to Garrett re distant starlight (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=156052&postcount=156).
John Hartnett gives a useful summary of possible theories here (http://johnhartnett.org/2015/07/31/starlight-and-time-is-it-a-brick-wall-for-biblical-creation/#more-3872).

Interestingly, he seems to have abandoned his Carmeli cosmology:

The cosmology still has several unsolved problems. Unfortunately no general 5 dimensional cosmology exists. Carmeli never found such a theory. To date I have not found the required space-time-velocity theory, with an extra time-like dimension, that fits the Creation period, though I am continuing to search.

His current preferred explanation is significantly different:

In my model, ...all light left all galaxies about 6000 years ago as measured by earth clocks. All light arrived at Earth for the first time on Day 4 of creation week. Even if it travelled for billions of years under the ESC travelling at constant speed of light, c. Under the ASC it arrived instantly. No travel time. Remember: This is just a timing convention, nothing more. Events are timed-stamped when they are observed, or in this case when they could have been observed on Earth.
So the universe is really billions of years old (using the standard ESC), but appears to be only 6000 years old.

Rincewind
10-12-2015, 03:57 PM
Cosmology is easy when you can make shit up to suit whatever broken age of the universe you have to accept a priori. However it still fails the pub test. If the universe was such an age why does it appear to be so old? Less than one percent of experts in the age of the universe thinks is is 6,000 years, the vast majority think that it is older by several orders of magnitude. The only sensible creationist position is that God intentionally gave the universe the appearance of age to deceive scientists into concocting a naturalist world view and thus lead them down to the path to ruination.

Agent Smith
10-12-2015, 06:41 PM
John Hartnett gives a useful summary of possible theories here (http://johnhartnett.org/2015/07/31/starlight-and-time-is-it-a-brick-wall-for-biblical-creation/#more-3872).

Interestingly, he seems to have abandoned his Carmeli cosmology:

Laugh.

5. c-decay: speed of light decreased

c-decay was made famous both in and out of creationist circles in the 1980s, by Mr Setterfield, who I first met in 1980, here in Adelaide. He told me that God spoke to him and revealed to him that the speed of light was extraordinarily much faster at Creation 6000 years ago and since then has slowed down. If true that would solve the light travel time problem
If. If! Don't be a pussy man. Of course it's true.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2015, 01:24 AM
Cosmology is easy when you can make shit up to suit whatever broken age of the universe you have to accept a priori.
To solve the big bang's horizon problem, their own "light travel time" problem, they "make shit up" like the superluminal expansion of space called "inflation", with no physical mechanism of starting it, stopping it, and making gravity run in reverse (the Hartnett article cited by PB explains more). Or else João Magueijo proposed that the speed of light was 60 orders of magnitude just after the big bang.

Hartnett didn't say that he abandoned Carmelian cosmology, just that it was incomplete at present. I disagree with his new preferred model (http://creation.com/asc-cosmology).

I will never accept a model like Setterfield's just because he claimed that God revealed it to him personally. It violates Sola Scriptura.

Rincewind
11-12-2015, 08:53 AM
I will never accept a model like Setterfield's just because he claimed that God revealed it to him personally. It violates Sola Scriptura.

Exactly. Science is easy when you cling to inalienable truths without evidence while ignoring literally mountains of evidence for an ancient earth and cosmos.

antichrist
09-04-2018, 01:12 AM
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/e_war_on_science_anti-intellectualism_and_alternative_ways_of_knowing_in _21
At the start of the twentieth century, over 40 percent of Americans did not know that the Earth orbits the sun in a year-long cycle (Otto 2016, 224). Another 52 percent did not know that dinosaurs died before the appearance of humans, and 45 percent were unaware that the world is older than 10,000 years. It is unnecessary to mention the equally alarming numbers of people who believe in ghosts, space aliens, paranormal monsters, devil possession, angels, demons, miracles, and so forth (Smith 2010, 22–23).
--------------------------------------------------------------

I have only included the first para as to hopefully not breach copyright - a good read of course

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2018, 07:58 AM
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/e_war_on_science_anti-intellectualism_and_alternative_ways_of_knowing_in _21
At the start of the twentieth century, over 40 percent of Americans did not know that the Earth orbits the sun in a year-long cycle (Otto 2016, 224).
They should read my co-authored paper (https://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism) that explains why they should.

antichrist
09-04-2018, 10:12 AM
They should read my co-authored paper (https://creation.com/refuting-absolute-geocentrism) that explains why they should.

I thought the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth orbits the sun and even drew diagrams of how stars would appear on the other side of the Earth.

Patrick Byrom
09-04-2018, 11:55 AM
https://www.csicop.org/si/show/e_war_on_science_anti-intellectualism_and_alternative_ways_of_knowing_in _21
At the start of the twentieth century, over 40 percent of Americans did not know that the Earth orbits the sun in a year-long cycle (Otto 2016, 224)...
I assume he meant the "twenty-first" century, as he switches almost immediately to the present tense.

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2018, 03:22 PM
I thought the ancient Greeks knew that the Earth orbits the sun and even drew diagrams of how stars would appear on the other side of the Earth.

No, most believed in a geocentric universe, with a spherical earth at the centre. The main exception was Aristarchos, who showed that the sun is much bigger than the earth (https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth#sizes), so it should be at the centre. But most didn't agree with him, even if they accepted that the sun was bigger. The influential Syntaxis or Almagest by Ptolemy firmly set absolute geocentrism as the ruling paradigm for about 1,500 years.

antichrist
09-04-2018, 07:59 PM
No, most believed in a geocentric universe, with a spherical earth at the centre. The main exception was Aristarchos, who showed that the sun is much bigger than the earth (https://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth#sizes), so it should be at the centre. But most didn't agree with him, even if they accepted that the sun was bigger. The influential Syntaxis or Almagest by Ptolemy firmly set absolute geocentrism as the ruling paradigm for about 1,500 years.

Without researching I think you are downplaying scientific knowledge and deliberately confusing it with what the ignorant religious people believed or wanted uneducated people to believe.

From wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

Aristarchus of Samos
Aristarchos von Samos (Denkmal).jpeg
Statue of Aristarchus of Samos at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Born c. 310 BC
Died c. 230 BC (age c. 80)
Nationality Greek
Occupation
Scholar Mathematician Astronomer
Aristarchus of Samos (/ˌærəˈstɑːrkəs/; Greek: Ἀρίσταρχος ὁ Σάμιος, Aristarkhos ho Samios; c. 310 – c. 230 BC) was an ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician who presented the first known model that placed the Sun at the center of the known universe with the Earth revolving around it (see Solar system). He was influenced by Philolaus of Croton, but Aristarchus identified the "central fire" with the Sun, and he put the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun.[1] Like Anaxagoras before him, he suspected that the stars were just other bodies like the Sun, albeit further away from Earth. He was also the first one to deduce the rotation of earth on its axis. His astronomical ideas were often rejected in favor of the incorrect geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy. Nicolaus Copernicus attributed the heliocentric theory to Aristarchus.[2]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religion, especially Christianity kept the world blindfolded and stupid as my proud atheist Greek friend would tell me.

Now consider that I was taught in 1955 in a Catholic school - stars were holes in the floor of Heaven - what ignorance, even Greenbottle in Yes What would not come p with such stupidity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovJQt9EccZ8

Patrick Byrom
09-04-2018, 10:11 PM
Without researching I think you are downplaying scientific knowledge and deliberately confusing it with what the ignorant religious people believed or wanted uneducated people to believe. ... You may be correct, but your quote from Wikipedia basically just repeats what Capablanca-Fan already said.


... Now consider that I was taught in 1955 in a Catholic school - stars were holes in the floor of Heaven - what ignorance, even Greenbottle in Yes What would not come p with such stupidity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovJQt9EccZ8How old were you - it sounds like the way a Primary School teacher might explain it? The Catholic Church doesn't have a problem with modern cosmology. For example, it accepts the Big Bang theory, which was actually proposed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, almost 100 years ago.

antichrist
10-04-2018, 04:28 PM
...............

How old were you - it sounds like the way a Primary School teacher might explain it? The Catholic Church doesn't have a problem with modern cosmology. For example, it accepts the Big Bang theory, which was actually proposed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, almost 100 years ago.

Yes it was primary school and it was before there was any compulsory science curriculum in NSW, schools that was not until about 1963 after the Wyndham Report. Do you think uneducated nuns knew anything about all those hi fluting scientific words you just mentioned? Who knows what they would have guessed about Big Bang theory? After being told about the holes in floor of Heaven I rationalised that when it rained God must have been hosing down the floor of Heaven.

Patrick Byrom
10-04-2018, 05:44 PM
Yes it was primary school and it was before there was any compulsory science curriculum in NSW, schools that was not until about 1963 after the Wyndham Report. Do you think uneducated nuns knew anything about all those hi fluting scientific words you just mentioned? Who knows what they would have guessed about Big Bang theory? After being told about the holes in floor of Heaven I rationalised that when it rained God must have been hosing down the floor of Heaven.They probably didn't know about the Big Bang theory, but I'm fairly sure the nuns (and even some of the children) knew stars weren't actually holes in the sky - here's a Disneyland program on spaceflight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zcU85O82XE) from 1955!

antichrist
10-04-2018, 06:01 PM
Nuns were poverty-stricken and the only movie I can recall we all seeing was been taken by the nuns to the Ten Commandments. They took a vow of poverty and this was before TV so you cannot presume anyone seeing anything. My mother would buy them sweets and new underwear for Christmas. They had orphans to care for which they probably received no money to support.

Desmond
30-05-2018, 08:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVrr_BbEtJE

Ian Murray
30-05-2018, 09:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVrr_BbEtJE


The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. On this shore we’ve learned most of what we know. Recently, we’ve waded a little way out, maybe ankle-deep, and the water seems inviting. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return, and we can because the cosmos is also within us. We’re made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.
Cosmos: A Personal Voyage narrated by Carl Sagan 1980

An inspiring thought - we are all made of star stuff. Every bit of me came from the stars.

Frank
30-05-2018, 11:33 PM
"An inspiring thought - we are all made of star stuff. Every bit of me came from the stars."

And every bit of you and me are destined to go to the stars.

Patrick Byrom
04-09-2018, 09:47 PM
Creationism almost irrelevant in Australia (https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0083-9#Sec5):

Results
The results have demonstrated a downward shift over time from 60% of the class in 1986 believing a god had something to do with the origin of humans, to 29% in 2017. Conversely, the percentage of students convinced that a god had nothing to do with the origin of humans rose from 25% in 1986 to 62% in 2017. The creationist belief that a god created the world de novo within the last 10,000 years declined from 10% in 1986 to 3.6% in 2017. The decline in the Australian students’ commitment to religious views about divine creation, especially creationism, considerably exceeded the corresponding beliefs among American students and their general public, where belief in creationism while slowly declining appears to have remained in the 40% range, four times that seen in our Australian survey.
Conclusions
The very low and declining levels of commitment to the creationist view that god created humans de novo suggests this view is unlikely to be a significant obstruction to accepting the scientific evidence for evolution. The results of the survey of UNSW students correlate with changes documented in the census of the general Australian public suggesting that our survey results of first-year biology students reflect overall changes in the Australian community as a whole.

antichrist
20-12-2019, 12:24 AM
Ho

I am surprised that Capa Fan claims the world is only 6000 years old when my consultant building engineer tells me it took billions of years for the clay to become so dense? Capa Fan appears to be accepting Einstein's and Newton's theories without question yet rejects science in areas outside of his expertise.

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2019, 03:22 AM
Ho

I am surprised that Capa Fan claims the world is only 6000 years old when my consultant building engineer tells me it took billions of years for the clay to become so dense?
Considering evolutionists would not believe that the top layers of clay or any rock are billions of years old, I have every reason to doubt. Seriously, does he think that such upper layers are from Paleoproterozoic Era? Clay minerals are the result of weathering of rocks.


Capa Fan appears to be accepting Einstein's and Newton's theories without question
Of course! They have enormous experimental support, and could be falsified by experiment if they were false, but no such falsification exists.


yet rejects science in areas outside of his expertise.
Rather, I question claims when there are assumptions and outright holes in them. What is the current compaction rate? Has it been compacting at the same rate? Would a greater weight of sediment above the clay layers would cause gravitational compaction sooner? Would a higher temp accelerate any diagenetic changes?

antichrist
20-12-2019, 05:01 AM
Considering evolutionists would not believe that the top layers of clay or any rock are billions of years old, I have every reason to doubt. Seriously, does he think that such upper layers are from Paleoproterozoic Era? Clay minerals are the result of weathering of rocks.


Of course! They have enormous experimental support, and could be falsified by experiment if they were false, but no such falsification exists.


Rather, I question claims when there are assumptions and outright holes in them. What is the current compaction rate? Has it been compacting at the same rate? Would a greater weight of sediment above the clay layers would cause gravitational compaction sooner? Would a higher temp accelerate any diagenetic changes?

Apparently the magnetic pole is shifting rapidly, the previous flips have taken approximately 330,000 years. Are you sure that this science is incorrect as God only created the world 6,023 years ago? I had an earth birthday party on October 23 1997 did you also?

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2019, 07:08 AM
Apparently the magnetic pole is shifting rapidly, the previous flips have taken approximately 330,000 years. Are you sure that this science is incorrect as God only created the world 6,023 years ago?
Magnetic field reversal is much faster (https://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young)than that.


I had an earth birthday party on October 23 1997 did you also?
I told you I don't think that the Bible's creation date can be tied down to the nearest year, let alone day or time.

antichrist
20-12-2019, 09:54 AM
Magnetic field reversal is much faster (https://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young)than that.


I told you I don't think that the Bible's creation date can be tied down to the nearest year, let alone day or time.

Who has more authority on Biblical matters yourself or Bishop Ussher?

Are you suggesting that the magnetic fields flip 50 times faster than the relevant science theory states so that can fit into your 6,000 year time slot? You could write a scientific paper on such?

antichrist
20-12-2019, 12:30 PM
Can Jesus perform time travel or/and he just insert himself anywhere? Would he mess up history by doing so?

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2019, 12:36 PM
Who has more authority on Biblical matters yourself or Bishop Ussher?
Me.


Are you suggesting that the magnetic fields flip 50 times faster than the relevant science theory states so that can fit into your 6,000 year time slot? You could write a scientific paper on such?
Explained in the article.

antichrist
20-12-2019, 02:29 PM
Me.


Explained in the article.

I checked your reply on the phone and did not notice it had link will check out.

antichrist
20-12-2019, 02:33 PM
Me.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher
.


You are putting yourself up against this guy? He is a GM of theology!
James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his identification of the genuine letters of the church father, Ignatius, and for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as "the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October... the year before Christ 4004"; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, per the proleptic Julian calendar.

Ussher was born in Dublin to a well-to-do family. His maternal grandfather, James Stanihurst, had been speaker of the Irish parliament. Ussher's father, Arland Ussher, was a clerk in chancery who married James Stanihurst's daughter, Margaret (by his first wife Anne Fitzsimon), who was reportedly a Roman Catholic.[1]
Ussher's younger, and only surviving, brother, Ambrose, became a distinguished scholar of Arabic and Hebrew. According to his chaplain and biographer, Nicholas Bernard, the elder brother was taught to read by two blind, spinster aunts. A gifted polyglot, he entered Dublin Free School and then the newly founded (1591) Trinity College Dublin on 9 January 1594, at the age of thirteen (not an unusual age at the time). He had received his Bachelor of Arts degree by 1598 and was a fellow and MA by 1600 (though Bernard claims he did not gain his MA till 1601). In May 1602, he was ordained in the Trinity College Chapel as a deacon in the Protestant, established, Church of Ireland (and possibly priest on the same day) by his uncle Henry Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland.
Ussher went on to become Chancellor of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin in 1605 and Prebend of Finglas. He became Professor of Theological Controversies at Trinity College and a Bachelor of Divinity in 1607, Doctor of Divinity in 1612, and then Vice-Chancellor in 1615 and vice-provost in 1616. In 1613, he married Phoebe, daughter of a previous Vice-Provost, Luke Challoner, and published his first work. In 1615, he was closely involved with the drawing up of the first confession of faith of the Church of Ireland.
Early life and career[edit]

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2019, 03:50 AM
↑↑↑
I'm well aware of who Ussher was, thanks—see Archbishop’s achievement (https://creation.com/archbishops-achievement). His figure was in the right ballpark.

antichrist
21-12-2019, 04:06 PM
So if Jesus can add atoms via multiplying loaves and fishes then presumably he can also make them disappear with out any consequences. But why the hassle if he splits a few? Can he split without consequences? When I consume the holy communion host if I was to cough half out on the ground is that half of the body and blood of Jesus fertilizing the roses? Like top half or backside?

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2019, 04:57 PM
Irrelevant to me because I am not a transsubstantiationist.

antichrist
21-12-2019, 05:28 PM
Irrelevant to me because I am not a transsubstantiationist.

What about splitting atoms etc.? Could Jesus split the atom without consequences? Can Jesus go back in time?

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2019, 03:04 AM
What about splitting atoms etc.? Could Jesus split the atom without consequences?
If He is capable of splitting atoms, then He is also capable of dealing with consequences.


Can Jesus go back in time?
As the Creator of time, He is not restricted by time.

antichrist
22-12-2019, 06:27 AM
So Jesus could go back in time and uncreate angel Lucifer and other fallen angels then there would be no evil and suffering in the world?

antichrist
22-12-2019, 09:07 AM
So Jesus when just an infant knew all of Einstein's theories though he had never discussed science?