Thinks It Is OK To Believe.

[busterdog]

I had this nice talk with my evolutionist brother in law about how messed the evolution and cosmology discussion is. He wasnt buying the proof of c decay, but we agreed that 95% of the nasty attitudes have do with an inability to do philosophy or use logic.

1. Ben Stein did not abuse Richard Dawkins' quotes out of context. Everyone knows Dawkins is not looking for ET. When a RADICAL atheist uses the little green men hypothetical, the irony is enormous. No greater context is needed.

2. There is a parallel to be drawn between Nazis and evolutionists. (And between creationists and radical beheading jihadists.) Ironically, the online critics of Ben Stein call him "evil" for his alleged hyperbole. Frankly, if you cant come to grips with shads of meaning as such, you are an intellectual dwarf. In the shades of grey between evolution and gas chambers, we all know evolution is pretty darn light compared to the Nazi darkness -- Stein said as much. That evolutionary theory was a useful component in Nazi ideology is undeniable. There is a logical connection. Unfortunately too many cant be satisfied with the argument that hyperbole is the problem (and arguably, I would say you are right). Rather, you have to deny every possible logical parallel to make your point, if you are an anti-Expelled evolutionist -- and I am certainly glad my tenure doesnt hinge on the mental processes of such small minded bigots.

3. It is OK to acknowledge creationism. Remember the dino-meat story? The relatively fresh TRex tissue recently found? The comical thing about it was how worried the academics were that the creationists would use it to support their case. What a laugh! You could see how their statements were sanitized not to serve the purposes of science, but to defend against creationists. If you say something that is true and someone misuses it, so what? The study hadnt even figured out what the data meant about the age of this thing, but they all knew they had to shield everything from the suggestion that their dino of uncertain date was not on the Ark.

4. Some creationists have credentials. If you have to answer an argument by saying that ICR, or AIG, or Discovery Institute, or any other group has no credibility, what you are doing here? That isnt logic. It doesnt make any sense. Well, it may make the evidence suspect or weak, but that hardly disposes of the substance of any issue. Do folks honestly think that such retorts are sufficient? Maybe not. But I am not sure why anyone thinks they are useful arguments.

5. ID is like neodarwinism. How is irreducible complexity not like the incredibly improbable, the latter being explained by self-organizing? Logically speaking, the correspondence it undeniable. There are valid arguments again to say that too much is made of the comparison. But, mostly the retort is at the level of charging another with thought crimes -- making it pretty clear that the mixture of these ideas is not so much forbidden because of logic, but because it encourages the wrong people.

6. Darwinism is a theory. So, it should be ok to talk of it as an unproven theory that can be subject to some reasonable, even if infinitessimal, doubt.

The common threads are 1. shades of gray are treated as black and white. 2 An idea that supports a certain camp is treated as an idea with no merit in and of itself. 3 Ideas that can be seen as hyperbole as seen as ideas that must be discredited by carrying them to their most offensive levels of malice. 4 Those who may have pushed the idea a bit far are regarded as having not the slightest common sense ability to distinguish the disparate elements of the things they compare. 5 Information is confused with the people using it. 6 Either agree completely on all issues with the author of an idea or forever abandon the notion of employing that person's evidence or position in your own argument.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is a parallel to be drawn between Nazis and evolutionists.

Don't see how. Darwin and his followers castigated the whole idea of classical eugenics, and Darwin, in "The Descent of Man" decried the idea of even allowing the death of weaker people as an "overwhelming evil." Later Darwinists, like Reginald Punnett, showed that the whole idea of purifying a human population by selection was impractically slow.

On the other hand, about 90% of Hitler's "Final Solution" for the Jews can be found in Martin Luther's "The Jews and Their Lies." And the Nazis gave him full credit for it.

Ironically, the online critics of Ben Stein call him "evil" for his alleged hyperbole.

For his lies. For example, he has publicly claimed that scientists forced his family into the gas chambers. He has been castigated by the Anti-Defamation League for this blood libel:

<b>[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

New York, NY, April 29, 2008 &#8230; The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.
Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

​

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
[/FONT]</b>http://adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm

By making excuses for the Nazis and blaming others for the crimes they did against humanity, Stein bears a grave responsibility.

Frankly, if you cant come to grips with shads of meaning as such, you are an intellectual dwarf. In the shades of grey between evolution and gas chambers, we all know evolution is pretty darn light compared to the Nazi darkness -- Stein said as much.

Let's take a look...

And it doesn&#8217;t scare me at all when scientists say, &#8221;Oh, but that can&#8217;t be proved,&#8221; because neither can any of the Darwinian hypotheses about how life began be proved. Anyway, I couldn&#8217;t give a [profanity] whether a person calls himself a scientist. It doesn&#8217;t earn any extra respect from me, because it&#8217;s not as if science has covered itself with glory, morally, in my time. Scientists were the people in Germany telling Hitler that it was a good idea to kill all the Jews. Scientists were telling Stalin it was a good idea to wipe out the middle-class peasants. Scientists were telling Mao Tse-Tung it was fine to kill 50 million people in order to further the revolution. - Ben Stein
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/interviews/benstein.html

Amazing that anyone would be that dishonest, or assume people would be stupid enough to believe him. In fact, scientists had already shown that his entire scheme for "purifying the race" was scientifically impossible, and Darwin had long ago, denounced such ideas. BTW, note that Stein has stupidly assumed that evolutionary theory is about the origin of life. He thinks he hates science, but he doesn't even know what it is. Here is what Darwin had to say about such things.

Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of
hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation,
for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if
we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could
only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man Chapter V.

On the other hand, look at this...

my sincere advice: First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them...

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed...



Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them...



Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb...



Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home...



Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping...



Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3 [:19]).



Martin Luther The Jews and Their Lies

http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm



About 90% of the Wannsee Protocol, as I said. Hitler found Christians like Luther very useful in his campaign to eradicate the Jews. BTW, there were a lot of things in between those statements that would likely get me banned from the site, if I posted them here.

That evolutionary theory was a useful component in Nazi ideology is undeniable.

It's such a foolish and dishonest claim, I'm surprised anyone would make it. As you see, the Jews, the people who suffered the greatest under Hitler are openly angry and scornful of Stein's excuses for the Holocaust.

It is OK to acknowledge creationism. Remember the dino-meat story? The relatively fresh TRex tissue recently found?

Fresh dino meat? Hey, let's have a checkable source for that one. I think I know what you're referring to; if so, they led you down the path on that one. And there's a zinger at the end you won't like so well. Tell me about yours, and then I'll tell you the rest of the story.

4. Some creationists have credentials.

Some do. Some, like Harold Coffin, who admitted that if it wasn't for his religious beliefs, he'd think the world was very old, and Kurt Wise who has repeatedly blasted creationists for their use of dishonest arguments to support YE creationism (which Wise accepts), are well-educated men, with PhDs in relevant fields. Not many of them, though.

If you have to answer an argument by saying that ICR, or AIG, or Discovery Institute, or any other group has no credibility, what you are doing here?

Pointing out that if people think it's OK to deceive to make a point, they shouldn't be trusted.

That isnt logic. It doesnt make any sense.

It does to sensible people.

 

[Sophophile]

I had this nice talk with my evolutionist brother in law about how messed the evolution and cosmology discussion is. He wasnt buying the proof of c decay, but we agreed that 95% of the nasty attitudes have do with an inability to do philosophy or use logic.

1. Ben Stein did not abuse Richard Dawkins' quotes out of context. Everyone knows Dawkins is not looking for ET. When a RADICAL atheist uses the little green men hypothetical, the irony is enormous. No greater context is needed.

Hello busterdog.

I haven't seen the movie, but I don't see the irony of an atheist supposing life on earth may have been seeded by aliens.

2. There is a parallel to be drawn between Nazis and evolutionists. (And between creationists and radical beheading jihadists.) Ironically, the online critics of Ben Stein call him "evil" for his alleged hyperbole. Frankly, if you cant come to grips with shads of meaning as such, you are an intellectual dwarf. In the shades of grey between evolution and gas chambers, we all know evolution is pretty darn light compared to the Nazi darkness -- Stein said as much. That evolutionary theory was a useful component in Nazi ideology is undeniable. There is a logical connection. Unfortunately too many cant be satisfied with the argument that hyperbole is the problem (and arguably, I would say you are right). Rather, you have to deny every possible logical parallel to make your point, if you are an anti-Expelled evolutionist -- and I am certainly glad my tenure doesnt hinge on the mental processes of such small minded bigots.

Sorry, I don't get it. That evolutionary theory was useful in Nazi ideology doesn't seem to me to impugn evolution. Christianity was also useful in Nazi ideology. Metallurgy is useful for making the knives that jihadists use to behead people. People just use knowledge for both good and bad purposes. Using knowledge for a bad purpose does not make the knowledge false or bad in itself, that's just common sense.

3. It is OK to acknowledge creationism. Remember the dino-meat story? The relatively fresh TRex tissue recently found? The comical thing about it was how worried the academics were that the creationists would use it to support their case. What a laugh! You could see how their statements were sanitized not to serve the purposes of science, but to defend against creationists. If you say something that is true and someone misuses it, so what?

I see you predicted my response!!!

The study hadnt even figured out what the data meant about the age of this thing, but they all knew they had to shield everything from the suggestion that their dino of uncertain date was not on the Ark.

The motives of the scientists may be questionable. So what? The facts are that this T-rex fossil is not evidence for a young earth or the falsity of evolution.

4. Some creationists have credentials. If you have to answer an argument by saying that ICR, or AIG, or Discovery Institute, or any other group has no credibility, what you are doing here? That isnt logic. It doesnt make any sense. Well, it may make the evidence suspect or weak, but that hardly disposes of the substance of any issue. Do folks honestly think that such retorts are sufficient? Maybe not. But I am not sure why anyone thinks they are useful arguments.

You are correct in this. However, I do not blame folks for discounting the opinions of people who have a track record of misrepresentation.

5. ID is like neodarwinism. How is irreducible complexity not like the incredibly improbable, the latter being explained by self-organizing? Logically speaking, the correspondence it undeniable. There are valid arguments again to say that too much is made of the comparison. But, mostly the retort is at the level of charging another with thought crimes -- making it pretty clear that the mixture of these ideas is not so much forbidden because of logic, but because it encourages the wrong people.

You are not very clear in this paragraph. I believe you are saying that it is not legitimate to discount ID arguments purely because its proponents are motivated by theistic convictions. You are right.

However, most of the objections to ID I have read go to the substance of it, not the motivations of its proponents. For example, irreducible complexity (IC) has been refuted, because it has been shown that it is possible for IC structures to form by stepwise evolutionary processes, such as exaptation. Therefore, as a logical argument against evolution, IC fails.

6. Darwinism is a theory. So, it should be ok to talk of it as an unproven theory that can be subject to some reasonable, even if infinitessimal, doubt.

Well, yes and no.

When relativity replaced Newtonian physics, it did so by accommodating all the known facts that supported Newtonian physics (and adding some more detail).

So, if some new theory replaces Darwinism in the future, it will still have to account for all the known facts that evolutionary theory accommodates, such as the great age of the earth, the history of life changing on earth, the reality of mutation and natural selection, and patterns of similarities/differences between organisms.

I believe many learned people believe that that mutation & natural selection (and genetic drift etc) are necessary but not sufficient to account for life on earth.

The common threads are 1. shades of gray are treated as black and white. 2 An idea that supports a certain camp is treated as an idea with no merit in and of itself. 3 Ideas that can be seen as hyperbole as seen as ideas that must be discredited by carrying them to their most offensive levels of malice. 4 Those who may have pushed the idea a bit far are regarded as having not the slightest common sense ability to distinguish the disparate elements of the things they compare. 5 Information is confused with the people using it. 6 Either agree completely on all issues with the author of an idea or forever abandon the notion of employing that person's evidence or position in your own argument.

Indeed.

Cheers S.

 

[Assyrian]

Oops Creationist subforum.

 

[shernren]

Wow, I ought to jump on the "let's say some nasty things about creationists in the creationist subforum" bandwagon, this could be fun.

... And I am certainly glad my tenure doesnt hinge on the mental processes of such small minded bigots.

But mine will!

3. It is OK to acknowledge creationism. Remember the dino-meat story? The relatively fresh TRex tissue recently found? The comical thing about it was how worried the academics were that the creationists would use it to support their case. What a laugh! You could see how their statements were sanitized not to serve the purposes of science, but to defend against creationists. If you say something that is true and someone misuses it, so what? The study hadnt even figured out what the data meant about the age of this thing, but they all knew they had to shield everything from the suggestion that their dino of uncertain date was not on the Ark.

The simple question I have to ask is this: are things so different when the shoe is on the other foot?

After all, both Nancey Murphy and Terry Gray ended up facing significant pressure (from Fuller Theological Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church respectively) simply for publishing negative reviews of Phillip Johnson's books. Gould patiently taught Kurt Wise for many years despite the latter's open creationist beliefs; contrast that with the reception that Glenn Morton got from the creationist community when he gradually became an evolutionist.

And on a personal level, I don't say much about my being an evolutionist either. I doubt that even my parents know. I've seen time and time again how, when someone says "I'm an evolutionist", the immediate reaction from their surrounding conservative Christian community is to simply cut them off without even giving them a chance to explain. I know for sure that if I told my bible study group that I am an evolutionist, they would treat anything I ever say in a Christian context with great suspicion, even if I am talking about something as unrelated to evolution as James. Even my ex was never comfortable with my Biblical understandings. (Though thank God evolution wasn't what we broke up over. That would have been pathetic.)

I do think that evolutionists who try to protect themselves from saying anything remotely creationist are over-reacting; but I understand why they do it. It's not so much that they are afraid that evolution is wrong; it's because they know, like I do, that human nature is so much more eager to form bad impressions than good ones, and so much more reluctant to let them go.

 

[busterdog]

Hello busterdog.

I haven't seen the movie, but I don't see the irony of an atheist supposing life on earth may have been seeded by aliens

.

It is ironic that one supernatural cause (God) is ruled out absolutely, in fact it is called preposterous, while another is found to be a useful hypothetical or illustration (little green men). The former is beyond doubt, the latter is not an article of belief for Dawkins, but yet not so crazy that it would not be useful in academic discussion.

In the scale of crazy (black) to conclusively demonstrated (pure white), I have no illusion that Dawkins saw little green men as a relatively white shade of gray. However, the accusation is that Ben Stein offered this as evidence that Dawkins believed in little green men. It is quite unfair that people presume Stein to be that stupid.

There is a more subtle use of the comparison, which was appropriate. But, more importantly, this type of example is why discussion breaks down here in this forum. Folks assume the worst of most positions and ignore the subtlety, which is what philosophy and logic are about.

The irony is that little green men are placed on this scale of black to white as being less black and more white than God. Yet, there is no more proof of little green men than of God or intelligent design.

Dawkins also clearly suggested that some organizing property intervened, which is a very woolly and undefined concept, and not wedded to an absolute belief in martians. The other irony is that when you appeal to woolly thinking, how exactly do you exclude God so adamantly without looking a little silly? At the woolly end of our reasoning process, open-ness is what is warranted by the use of proper logic.

Sorry, I don't get it. That evolutionary theory was useful in Nazi ideology doesn't seem to me to impugn evolution. Christianity was also useful in Nazi ideology. Metallurgy is useful for making the knives that jihadists use to behead people. People just use knowledge for both good and bad purposes. Using knowledge for a bad purpose does not make the knowledge false or bad in itself, that's just common sense.

Well, if there were no metallurgy, then indeed no one would be beheaded. There is a connection. You just think it is weak. That is fine. My point is that to say there is no connection whatsoever is to again attack what is at best hyperbole by hyperbole itself.

The motives of the scientists may be questionable. So what? The facts are that this T-rex fossil is not evidence for a young earth or the falsity of evolution.

Because creationists are treated with paranoia because of what their ideas might suggest and what advantage some creationist people might gain in institutions. There is a good case to be made for the proposition that a real examination of the evidence is overwhelmed by paranoia.

In this discussion board, a creationist hypothesis is deemed not worthy of consideration because of where it might lead. A hypothesis is something with a bit of evidence where the final analysis has not been made. You dont stop examination of the evidence because Phil Johnson might want to teach it in California.

You are correct in this. However, I do not blame folks for discounting the opinions of people who have a track record of misrepresentation.

Thats not what I do with my friends. Do you? Particularly when we are talking about institutions, not particular people. Doubt is fine. Be suspicious fine. But, at what point does your indictment of a person, say Hovind, end up in cutting off a discussion of ideas suggested by say, Jon Sarfati (whom Mallon and others I think respect)?

For example, Sarfati has an interesting piece on the positives and negatives of Barry Setterfield. Most folks like Sarfati. Most regard Setterfield as a fraud. Where do you go with that? Do you shut off all discussion because of the latter prevailing wisdom?

You are not very clear in this paragraph. I believe you are saying that it is not legitimate to discount ID arguments purely because its proponents are motivated by theistic convictions. You are right.

Thank you.

However, most of the objections to ID I have read go to the substance of it, not the motivations of its proponents. For example, irreducible complexity (IC) has been refuted, because it has been shown that it is possible for IC structures to form by stepwise evolutionary processes, such as exaptation. Therefore, as a logical argument against evolution, IC fails

.

Fail is a strong word. This is an area where we really need to be careful about the logic of what is being said. If the ID folks have presumed that a stepwise pathway could not be modelled, and then they are proven wrong, what exactly has been proven? Have you solved the question of why their are even proteins in the first place, or why there are heavy elements at all?

Again, like a government borrowing money, you tend to solve one issue, but you push the problem down the line (or up the line) into another area. Liquidity is very nice in our economy and of some benefit, but not a final answer.

Also, the stepwise pathway is not a comprehesive understanding for how this is even pulled off by a cell in connection with all the other necessary processes represented in evolution.

I will grant that there is some success the modelling you refer. But how is it a final answer about how life does what it does from generation to generation? As Ken Miller said, you get from the front of the room to the back one step at a time, but there is a big difference between taking a step and arriving at the final limit of your destination.

ID does not require that a particular biological problem be impenetrable. Even the modelling you refer to points to more difficult pathways of coordination with the cell. All ID has to do is to say you dont have a final answer to have legitimacy -- especially since it is such a limited idea that does not demand all the many philosophical inferences that I think it is accused of.

The religious inferences are legitimate, and in my own mind, I see them as inevitable. But, the idea is stil quite useful for discussion with people who are not believers and with whom I can discuss things without their religious conversion.

So, if some new theory replaces Darwinism in the future, it will still have to account for all the known facts that evolutionary theory accommodates, such as the great age of the earth, the history of life changing on earth, the reality of mutation and natural selection, and patterns of similarities/differences between organisms.

If you are going to say it is the final answer, then will have to do all these things. But, without a final answer, we put aside the questions of the relative strength of these various theories to some extent so that we can examine the facts without prejudgment. One should have the capacity to appreciate an idea before one has come to a final conclusion (based on reputation, inferences, politics, and even the strength of competing models). Darwinism has some interesting things going for it, which I can appreciate without any threat to my core beliefs. The fact that I can examine and be interested by evidence for a 16 billion year old creation does not require that I weaken my conviction for a 6,000 year old (or so) universe.

But, if you rank these various theories according to their relative strength and then say that only a light shade of gray is worth discussing, then you have committed a logical error (and ticked off your friends).

I believe many learned people believe that that mutation & natural selection (and genetic drift etc) are necessary but not sufficient to account for life on earth.

I can agree with that, as YEC.

 

[busterdog]

Wow, I ought to jump on the "let's say some nasty things about creationists in the creationist subforum" bandwagon, this could be fun.

But you havent .....

The simple question I have to ask is this: are things so different when the shoe is on the other foot?

Indeed not. If the creationists find this instructive, I will be happy as well.

A creationist in OT questioned whether one can have the gospel and evolution within the same belief system. Actually it wasn't a question, the OP said it wasn't possible. That was the same mistake.

After all, both Nancey Murphy and Terry Gray ended up facing significant pressure (from Fuller Theological Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church respectively) simply for publishing negative reviews of Phillip Johnson's books. Gould patiently taught Kurt Wise for many years despite the latter's open creationist beliefs; contrast that with the reception that Glenn Morton got from the creationist community when he gradually became an evolutionist.

Glenn Morton seems like a decent man and serious scholar.

 

[Sophophile]

Hello busterdog.

I haven't seen the movie, but I don't see the irony of an atheist supposing life on earth may have been seeded by aliens.

It is ironic that one supernatural cause (God) is ruled out absolutely, in fact it is called preposterous, while another is found to be a useful hypothetical or illustration (little green men). The former is beyond doubt, the latter is not an article of belief for Dawkins, but yet not so crazy that it would not be useful in academic discussion.

I still don't see the irony, because I can't agree that Dawkins regarded aliens as "supernatural". Is there some reason you think he did?

Folks assume the worst of most positions and ignore the subtlety, which is what philosophy and logic are about.

The irony is that little green men are placed on this scale of black to white as being less black and more white than God. Yet, there is no more proof of little green men than of God or intelligent design.

Dawkins also clearly suggested that some organizing property intervened, which is a very woolly and undefined concept, and not wedded to an absolute belief in martians. The other irony is that when you appeal to woolly thinking, how exactly do you exclude God so adamantly without looking a little silly? At the woolly end of our reasoning process, open-ness is what is warranted by the use of proper logic.

I agree the evidence from biology suggests an organising principle that is overlooked by modern science because of its physicalist/reductionist focus.

Sorry, I don't get it. That evolutionary theory was useful in Nazi ideology doesn't seem to me to impugn evolution. Christianity was also useful in Nazi ideology. Metallurgy is useful for making the knives that jihadists use to behead people. People just use knowledge for both good and bad purposes. Using knowledge for a bad purpose does not make the knowledge false or bad in itself, that's just common sense.

Well, if there were no metallurgy, then indeed no one would be beheaded. There is a connection. You just think it is weak. That is fine. My point is that to say there is no connection whatsoever is to again attack what is at best hyperbole by hyperbole itself.

I'm glad you agree that the weak connection between evolution and Nazism is analagous to the weak connection between metallurgy and beheadings.

This means, of course, that just as the connection between metallurgy and beheadings does not imply metallurgy is false or morally wrong, so the connection between evolution and Nazism does not imply evolutionary theory is false or morally wrong.

However, as I understand it (from reading reviews of the movie), Stein argues precisely the opposite of this. Therefore, as you have agreed, Stein's argument is false and misleading.

The motives of the scientists may be questionable. So what? The facts are that this T-rex fossil is not evidence for a young earth or the falsity of evolution.

Because creationists are treated with paranoia because of what their ideas might suggest and what advantage some creationist people might gain in institutions. There is a good case to be made for the proposition that a real examination of the evidence is overwhelmed by paranoia.

I don't think so. The evidence clearly shows that the T-rex fossil is not evidence for a young earth or the falsity of evolution, irrespective of any paranoia. You haven't come close to making a "good case" for your argument.

In this discussion board, a creationist hypothesis is deemed not worthy of consideration because of where it might lead. A hypothesis is something with a bit of evidence where the final analysis has not been made. You dont stop examination of the evidence because Phil Johnson might want to teach it in California.

Thats not what I do with my friends. Do you? Particularly when we are talking about institutions, not particular people. Doubt is fine. Be suspicious fine. But, at what point does your indictment of a person, say Hovind, end up in cutting off a discussion of ideas suggested by say, Jon Sarfati (whom Mallon and others I think respect)?

Again, I disagree. Can you name a creationist hypothesis which had not had the substance of it refuted? It is because the substance of arguments have been refuted, but creationists keep bringing up the same arguments, that discussions get cut off.

However, most of the objections to ID I have read go to the substance of it, not the motivations of its proponents. For example, irreducible complexity (IC) has been refuted, because it has been shown that it is possible for IC structures to form by stepwise evolutionary processes, such as exaptation. Therefore, as a logical argument against evolution, IC fails.

Fail is a strong word. This is an area where we really need to be careful about the logic of what is being said. If the ID folks have presumed that a stepwise pathway could not be modelled, and then they are proven wrong, what exactly has been proven? Have you solved the question of why their are even proteins in the first place, or why there are heavy elements at all?

Fail is the right word. The argument from irreducible complexity (IC) states that in some cases evolution cannot occur because it is impossible to build an IC structure in small steps. This argument is refuted by showing it is possible to build an IC structure in small steps, e.g. by exaptation, scaffolding etc. This is just basic logic.

So what exactly has been proven is that the argument from IC fails to disprove evolution. It is an unsound argument, and should no longer be used.

Again, like a government borrowing money, you tend to solve one issue, but you push the problem down the line (or up the line) into another area. Liquidity is very nice in our economy and of some benefit, but not a final answer.

I disagree with your implication that solving one issue just creates a greater problem. A solved issue or a refuted argument is another page in the volume of human knowledge.

Also, the stepwise pathway is not a comprehesive understanding for how this is even pulled off by a cell in connection with all the other necessary processes represented in evolution.

I will grant that there is some success the modelling you refer. But how is it a final answer about how life does what it does from generation to generation? As Ken Miller said, you get from the front of the room to the back one step at a time, but there is a big difference between taking a step and arriving at the final limit of your destination.

The stepwise pathway to an IC structure is not intended as a comprehensive understanding of evolution. It is offered as a refutation of the argument from IC, and it succeeds in this.

ID does not require that a particular biological problem be impenetrable. Even the modelling you refer to points to more difficult pathways of coordination with the cell. All ID has to do is to say you dont have a final answer to have legitimacy -- especially since it is such a limited idea that does not demand all the many philosophical inferences that I think it is accused of.

The argument from IC does require that a particular biological problem be impenetrable, and IC is what you referred to in your OP.

Also, your statement that "All ID has to do is to say you dont have a final answer" really is a "God of the gaps" argument, which is problematic for a variety of reasons.

Darwinism has some interesting things going for it, which I can appreciate without any threat to my core beliefs. The fact that I can examine and be interested by evidence for a 16 billion year old creation does not require that I weaken my conviction for a 6,000 year old (or so) universe.

Frankly, I do not understand how you can examine the evidence for an ancient universe and not weaken your conviction for a 6,000 year old universe.

For example, how can we see the light of distant stars if the universe is young? Consider supernova 1987A -- we can measure its distance from the earth using trigonometry to be 168,000 light years. We can also measure various physical properties of the supernova explosion and prove that, when the supernova exploded, the speed of light was the same as it is on earth now. Combine these two observations, and the only conclusion is that the universe is at least 168,000 years old.

But, if you rank these various theories according to their relative strength and then say that only a light shade of gray is worth discussing, then you have committed a logical error (and ticked off your friends).

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. That the earth and the universe is more than 100,000 years old is a fact. There are no shades of grey in this.

Thanks and regards
S.

 

[The Barbarian]

I do think that evolutionists who try to protect themselves from saying anything remotely creationist are over-reacting; but I understand why they do it.

Me too. Odds are, some creationist quote-miner will find it, and edit it to make it look like the scientist is supporting creationism or at least denying evolution.

It's their M.0.

 

[shernren]

Me too. Odds are, some creationist quote-miner will find it, and edit it to make it look like the scientist is supporting creationism or at least denying evolution.

It's their M.0.

And it's not just them, really. I've been tempted so many times to quote people out of context wherever I can just to get the upper hand in a discussion. It takes discipline not to do so! Never mind all the times when I must surely have done something like that accidentally ...

 

[juvenissun]

And it's not just them, really. I've been tempted so many times to quote people out of context wherever I can just to get the upper hand in a discussion. It takes discipline not to do so! Never mind all the times when I must surely have done something like that accidentally ...

Remember that getting an upper hand in discussion does not necessary solve your (or the) problem. Whether you (tend to) do it or not depends on what is your motivation of making the discussion.

 

[busterdog]

Remember that getting an upper hand in discussion does not necessary solve your (or the) problem. Whether you (tend to) do it or not depends on what is your motivation of making the discussion.

"Being right is overrated."

- Joyce Meyers (But, I said it first, ironically. Shes the one how got paid to publish it.)

 

[busterdog]

I still don't see the irony, because I can't agree that Dawkins regarded aliens as "supernatural". Is there some reason you think he did?

Well, let me tell you what I mean by supernatural: ghosts, gods, aliens, big foot, crop circles, Yogis who levitate, curses, etc. I think I understand your reaction. I think supernatural is a perfectly good word for the speculative or unexplained, and aliens fit. But, that doesnt mean that others couldnt find a better word. I am amenable to different terms for the same concept.

Dawkins framed the issue by saying that no one knows how abiogenesis happened. Fair enough. To my mind, we are in the realm of the supernatrual if we speak of ultimate conclusions about that, as opposed to messing around with proteins on crystals in the lab. He then speculates on aliens seeding life.

Now that we are beyond defining terms, I really hope we can all pay attention to how much 'splaining goes into understanding this conflict between Stein and Dawkins. Who started it, Was their full disclosure, Was dislosure of Stein's purpose even required, What was Dawkins' context, For what purpose did Stein offer these quotes, Is it far to reinterpret Dawkins (or Steins) intent by reading the text of what they said, apart from what they think they said? I deal professionally with witnesses, intent, motive, truthfullness, etc. These matters are not straightforward and my list of questions is really pretty short.

But, if you are the member of a movement, a cabal, a mob, an academy (teasing), the list of relevant inquiry is shortened pretty quickly based upon what your group believes about an idea.

People, however, are different from ideas. Stupidity and error can be understood in the human context as well meaning, for example. But, lets just focus for a moment on the fact that the analysis of people and motivations is so much more difficult than simply analyzing an idea. It is complicated.

Thus, you dont see the irony as I do.

To restate my case, it is ironic to me that a man who finds religion to be quite beyond serious inquiry regards aliens as worthy of a serious, even if hypothetical, inquiry.

To Dawkins credit, he finds God highly unlikely, but not impossible. Yet, he heaps scorn upon the God of the Old Testament. To him, that is not inconsistent. To us, it is highly ironic.

Lets say someone proves to you that the chance of anihiliation by alien starcruisers is absolutely at least 1 in 100 on Jan. 11, 2009. Do you then discuss how insane it is to beleive in aliens, that aliens are mean, or how much more profitable it would to spend all day in a massage parlour? Personally, I have a hard time seeing how people manage (myself included) to be cavalier about existence when at least the possibility of unlimited creative and judgmentally destructive power exists just outside the perceptions of people. We dont respond rationally to that possibility, let alone its absolute truth. Even if there is ony a one percent chance that this is possible, what exactly is the right response? You just keep running your life your way? What did they do in the movie Contact? They spent billions to make the machine to answer their freakin question.

I agree the evidence from biology suggests an organising principle that is overlooked by modern science because of its physicalist/reductionist focus.

Im sorry, I am not familiar with the latter terms. Could you elaborate?

I'm glad you agree that the weak connection between evolution and Nazism is analagous to the weak connection between metallurgy and beheadings.

Few people would disagree much. It appeared to me, and maybe I am wrong, that the adverse reaction to Stein seemed to think him incapable of similarly appreciating the weak causal connection. In euthanazia, there are some pretty moral people who believe life is precious, but would allow that a few be offed here and there. But, at the other end of the spectrum, there are some pretty crass folks who have an evil appreciation of who is useful and who isnt. Usefulness is pretty close in concept to "fitness." That is a connection. But there are certainly a great many other bad philosophies that must aggregate before we have genocide.

This means, of course, that just as the connection between metallurgy and beheadings does not imply metallurgy is false or morally wrong, so the connection between evolution and Nazism does not imply evolutionary theory is false or morally wrong.

Not quite. I think it may imply as much. Maybe I am unclear about what morals really are in a strict sense. I certainly dont think of evolutionists as per se immoral people, and yet I accept Stein's argument about the Nazis. So, maybe I agree with you.

We might want to drop this before we go too far off the trail. I have argued before that if I teach or believe something that is in error, that is sin. So, if I wrongly teach that the Gog/Magog invasion is the same as the battle of Armageddon (and this is heavily debated), that is sin. There are ultimate question for which we ask mercy and we trust that our salvation is the redeption of an entire person, warts and all. We are not redeemed by purifying all of our ideas. One day the evolution question will be answer. God will judge oneday, we will be forgiven much and probably much that we did not expect would need to be forgiven.

How is that for a long answer? I think it serves some purpose to see how long the answer can be and how many ways the issue can be qualified rationally. That is why the attacks on Stein seemed like the operation of a mob.

One of my fondest memories is shaking hands with Elie Wiesel, who that same day said that one should never lightly compare tragedies with THE Holocaust. 911 was not comparable, he would say. Because if you say that, you encourage people to forget who staggeringly comprehensive, effective, longlived, focused, bigotted and crule THE Holocaust was. That is a fair point, and maybe that speaks for caution that Stein did not show.

However, as I understand it (from reading reviews of the movie), Stein argues precisely the opposite of this. Therefore, as you have agreed, Stein's argument is false and misleading.

Disagree. Misleading? That means the argument might tend to get overblown or misused or inflammatory -- all arguments that extrapolate from his position. And cautioning people about such things is fair. False? I dont think so. There is some reason in what he said. It is a fair and rational point. It may be weak, but that doesnt make it false. Or evil, as others have suggested. Stein saw the point perhaps as less weak than I do. But, I think that is a rational position.

I don't think so. The evidence clearly shows that the T-rex fossil is not evidence for a young earth or the falsity of evolution, irrespective of any paranoia. You haven't come close to making a "good case" for your argument.

You may say that now. But, before the analysis was done, there were many heavy handed assumptions offered to the media to hedge against the creationists.

Again, I disagree. Can you name a creationist hypothesis which had not had the substance of it refuted? It is because the substance of arguments have been refuted, but creationists keep bringing up the same arguments, that discussions get cut off.

All of them.

C decay is a good one. It went from being refuted to being welcome in some theoretical discussions.

Here are some examples of legitimate debate about variance in the fine structure constant:

http://www.google.com/search?q=chan...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Arguably, there is an inverse relationship between planck's constant and C. The former has some legs in conventional physics. The former has been allowed in discussions of the very early universe, which to me is like saying that Mrs. Smith might only be a little bit pregnant.

If creationist science is in the business of introducing reasonable doubt into conventional cosmology, here is one area where the refutation is not so confident. If creation must offer definitive and comprehensive models, well, maybe we arent getting that done scientifically. I am not sure most of us care all that much about the latter, though at one time I think we thought we could carry the day as such. We used to argue about moon dust and say, aha, young earth is proven. Now, we have things like white hole cosmology, which I think is just a thought exercise, not dogma.

Fail is the right word. The argument from irreducible complexity (IC) states that in some cases evolution cannot occur because it is impossible to build an IC structure in small steps. This argument is refuted by showing it is possible to build an IC structure in small steps, e.g. by exaptation, scaffolding etc. This is just basic logic.

Disagree. Since we all know that there are working flagella in protozoan, we do know that the IC barrier has been solved somehow. Since evolutionist have not shown an evolving flagellum step by step, I dont think I see where you are going.

I disagree with your implication that solving one issue just creates a greater problem. A solved issue or a refuted argument is another page in the volume of human knowledge.

I still like my example. Call it an "apparent solution" if that helps.

The stepwise pathway to an IC structure is not intended as a comprehensive understanding of evolution. It is offered as a refutation of the argument from IC, and it succeeds in this.

Interesting point of philosophical divergence. Either way, if evolution remains a theory it should be treated as theory. If your confidence is built on a partial solution, then we have a discussion about whether something is partially full or partially empty.

The argument from IC does require that a particular biological problem be impenetrable, and IC is what you referred to in your OP.

Well, its still partially impenetrable. (See above)

Also, your statement that "All ID has to do is to say you dont have a final answer" really is a "God of the gaps" argument, which is problematic for a variety of reasons.

Yes there are problems. The point of the OP was that even if the argument is weak, it should be embraced. Those who study it should be encouraged to follow their research, like Stephen Gould. Lots of good things come out of weak ideas, given time.

Frankly, I do not understand how you can examine the evidence for an ancient universe and not weaken your conviction for a 6,000 year old universe.

One pillar of the ancientness of the universe has to do with physical constants. I dont see that conventional science has any firm and unshakable foundation in fact.

Glen Morton posted a picture of peaked hills over China, which appeared to have been eroded by rainwater over a vast area. No, I dont know how that could have happened quickly. But, lots of seemingly impossible things in natural science have been demonstrated.

For example, how can we see the light of distant stars if the universe is young? Consider supernova 1987A -- we can measure its distance from the earth using trigonometry to be 168,000 light years. We can also measure various physical properties of the supernova explosion and prove that, when the supernova exploded, the speed of light was the same as it is on earth now. Combine these two observations, and the only conclusion is that the universe is at least 168,000 years old.

Here is one article of many that compares the creationist theory of C decay with conventional expressions on the subject.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. That the earth and the universe is more than 100,000 years old is a fact. There are no shades of grey in this.

Evolutionist find confidence is revealing models for the step wise workings of biological processes. I get confidence that with these progressive steps, great questions and mysteray are revealed. I just dont see the basis for confidence. I find it terribly interesting to see how progressive revelation can be deemed to be the same as comprehensive understanding.

 

[busterdog]

Me too. Odds are, some creationist quote-miner will find it, and edit it to make it look like the scientist is supporting creationism or at least denying evolution.

It's their M.0.

As a lawyer, I can assure you that any truthful statement can be misused.

So, since you can never be immune to abuse, just get over it and deal with the facts. If it plays into someone else's hands, so what? I think the evolutionists look worse for all the maneuvering. It has reduced some of the Altenberg group to babbling their so afraid of being mined.

In fact, unless you are willing to stand up and make statements SUSCEPTIBLE to abuse -- showing that your trust your adversary to engage -- how exactly is there going to be credibility in the dialogue? I am assuming the dialogue is the point of this board and scientific inquiry. I have been listening to Ken Miller. His voice is like nails on a blackboard, since he betrays such a rush toward belittling his opposition -- at least that's the way it comes off. His arguments come off as lawyers arguments -- they provide the rhetorical bang, but never meet the substance of his opposition.


However, I am so interested in your irreducible complexity argument, I will open a new thread.

 

[The Barbarian]

As a lawyer, I can assure you that any truthful statement can be misused.

Phillip Johnson is a lawyer. I can see that.

So, since you can never be immune to abuse, just get over it and deal with the facts.

In science, dishonesty usually ruins a career. Unfortunately, not in some others.

It has reduced some of the Altenberg group to babbling their so afraid of being mined.

Perhaps you haven't read some of the work they've been putting out. They are just cautious, and rightly so.

In fact, unless you are willing to stand up and make statements SUSCEPTIBLE to abuse -- showing that your trust your adversary to engage -- how exactly is there going to be credibility in the dialogue? I am assuming the dialogue is the point of this board and scientific inquiry. I have been listening to Ken Miller. His voice is like nails on a blackboard, since he betrays such a rush toward belittling his opposition -- at least that's the way it comes off.

I've been pleased to sit at a table with him and I have to say, he's remarkably kind and Christian. But he has little patience for those who corrupt Christian belief by pretending it is inconsistent with science. He's quite correct; that is the atheist position.

His arguments come off as lawyers arguments -- they provide the rhetorical bang, but never meet the substance of his opposition.

Then you have never read anything by Kenneth Miller.

 

[Sophophile]

Hello again busterdog!

I still don't see the irony, because I can't agree that Dawkins regarded aliens as "supernatural". Is there some reason you think he did?

Well, let me tell you what I mean by supernatural: ghosts, gods, aliens, big foot, crop circles, Yogis who levitate, curses, etc. I think I understand your reaction. I think supernatural is a perfectly good word for the speculative or unexplained, and aliens fit. But, that doesnt mean that others couldnt find a better word. I am amenable to different terms for the same concept.

Actually, I think "supernatural" is a dreadful choice of words for "the speculative or unexplained". It doesn't mean that at all. This is why I did not understand the irony you pointed out, and I still don't see it.

Now that we are beyond defining terms, I really hope we can all pay attention to how much 'splaining goes into understanding this conflict between Stein and Dawkins.

I don't know much about this as I haven't seen the movie; I was only pointing out that your initial point in the OP did not make sense, because (as it turns out) you are using an idiosyncratic definition of "supernatural".

To restate my case, it is ironic to me that a man who finds religion to be quite beyond serious inquiry regards aliens as worthy of a serious, even if hypothetical, inquiry.

To Dawkins credit, he finds God highly unlikely, but not impossible. Yet, he heaps scorn upon the God of the Old Testament. To him, that is not inconsistent. To us, it is highly ironic.

I still can't see it. To Dawkins, aliens would be natural entities. Therefore, as an atheist, he is willing to entertain the concept seriously. He, however, finds the supernatural attributes of the OT God absurd, therefore he does not entertain that concept seriously. Where is the irony?

I agree the evidence from biology suggests an organising principle that is overlooked by modern science because of its physicalist/reductionist focus.

Im sorry, I am not familiar with the latter terms. Could you elaborate?

Sure.

Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things.

Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.

This means, of course, that just as the connection between metallurgy and beheadings does not imply metallurgy is false or morally wrong, so the connection between evolution and Nazism does not imply evolutionary theory is false or morally wrong.

Not quite. I think it may imply as much. Maybe I am unclear about what morals really are in a strict sense. I certainly dont think of evolutionists as per se immoral people, and yet I accept Stein's argument about the Nazis. So, maybe I agree with you ... (snip)

However, as I understand it (from reading reviews of the movie), Stein argues precisely the opposite of this. Therefore, as you have agreed, Stein's argument is false and misleading.

Disagree. Misleading? That means the argument might tend to get overblown or misused or inflammatory -- all arguments that extrapolate from his position. And cautioning people about such things is fair. False? I dont think so. There is some reason in what he said. It is a fair and rational point. It may be weak, but that doesnt make it false. Or evil, as others have suggested. Stein saw the point perhaps as less weak than I do. But, I think that is a rational position.

What you have already agreed to is that the link between evolution and Nazism is of the same nature as the link between metallurgy and jihadist beheadings; that is, the concept of selection was a necessary precursor to eugenics, just as the concept of metallurgy was a precursor to making knives.

Does this link prove or imply that metallurgy is false and/or evil? Of course not, as you have agreed. But Stein argues that the same kind of link makes evolution false and/or evil. This is a non sequitur and an appeal to consequences, which makes it a fallacious argument. It is not a weak argument; it is false argument.

C decay is a good one. It went from being refuted to being welcome in some theoretical discussions.

Here are some examples of legitimate debate about variance in the fine structure constant ... (snip)

As I understand it, modern astronomy has found evidence that some physical "constants" may have been different by less than 1%, billions of years ago. This does not even remotely support the concept of a universe less than 10,000 years old. Thus, this is a red herring.

Disagree. Since we all know that there are working flagella in protozoan, we do know that the IC barrier has been solved somehow. Since evolutionist have not shown an evolving flagellum step by step, I dont think I see where you are going.

The point is, that all that was required to refute the argument from IC was to show the bare possibility that an IC structure could evolve. And it is evident that Michael Behe (originator of the IC argument) accepted its refutation, because he does not make the argument from IC in his new book, and he pretty much resiled from the argument in the Dover case when he was on the witness stand. Instead, he made the argument for a "purposeful arrangement of parts", which is a totally different argument than the argument from IC.

So the argument from IC is a bad argument; it has been refuted, and shouldn't be used. That is all I was trying to say.

Yes there are problems. The point of the OP was that even if the argument [for ID] is weak, it should be embraced. Those who study it should be encouraged to follow their research, like Stephen Gould. Lots of good things come out of weak ideas, given time.

You know, I do agree with you here. Weak arguments are fine, and may lead to greater things. However, false arguments are not okay, and shouldn't be used, because they will never get you closer to the truth.

Here is one article of many that compares the creationist theory of C decay with conventional expressions on the subject.

(snip link)

Answers in Genesis (AIG) has stated on their "Don't Use" page that there are a number of serious problems with C decay and it is an argument that should not be used to support a young creation. Interestingly, AIG states here that they favour Dr Russell Humphreys model for explaining distant starlight. Advocates for a young earth should understand that Humphreys cosmology acknowledges that the universe is billions of years old.

Really, it is just common sense the speed of light has not decayed enough to allow for a 10,000 year old universe. If c-decay were true, then the more distant an astronomical object is, the more of a "slow motion effect" we would see in its rotation, readioactive decay etc. We don't see this at all.

Cheers
S.

 

[busterdog]

I still can't see it. To Dawkins, aliens would be natural entities. Therefore, as an atheist, he is willing to entertain the concept seriously. He, however, finds the supernatural attributes of the OT God absurd, therefore he does not entertain that concept seriously. Where is the irony?

Dawkins bases his denial of God on the basis of the odds. I dont think it is rational to be adamantly against God based on the odds, especially when one makes use of aliens.

What you have already agreed to is that the link between evolution and Nazism is of the same nature as the link between metallurgy and jihadist beheadings; that is, the concept of selection was a necessary precursor to eugenics, just as the concept of metallurgy was a precursor to making knives.

Does this link prove or imply that metallurgy is false and/or evil? Of course not, as you have agreed. But Stein argues that the same kind of link makes evolution false and/or evil. This is a non sequitur and an appeal to consequences, which makes it a fallacious argument. It is not a weak argument; it is false argument.

I dont think you are properly distinguishing between a sufficient cause, a necessary cause and a contributing cause. I still believe the strength of the association is the issue, not that evolutionary thinking was not a contributing cause, even if it was not sufficient. It was clearly part of their thinking and it was exploited in devising their plan to liquidate people. The metallurgical example is a useful comparison, but it is evident to me that it is a weak showing of an association.

As I understand it, modern astronomy has found evidence that some physical "constants" may have been different by less than 1%, billions of years ago. This does not even remotely support the concept of a universe less than 10,000 years old. Thus, this is a red herring.

Not at all. If we were debating whether the quantity of dark matter varied by 1%, that would be one thing. Instead, we are taking a historical, categorical understanding of constancy and then finding that it is wrong, or at least in play. Something going from absolute to not absolute is a huge change, even if it is 1%. Everything we have understood for 60 years or so has been built on the notion of physical constants. Screwing up that math is a big deal. Everything is affected by it.

Lets just theorize, and just for the sake of example, that some days the force of gravity varies by 1%. I would say at that point, the planet is in for some changes. If physical constants (we are talking about mass itself, for goodness sake!), lots that seems unshakeble (in theory) is now uncertain.

Most of the science that validates age dating requires constancy, and has also asserted that there must be zero variety in these quantities.

But also, you are probably going to invest zero confidence in that 1% figure. You dont accept as being 1%, I would wager. There is no confidence in that figure, because it is just a theory used while we are on the cusp of what may be a huge change in conventional thinking and research on the matter. If you have so little confidence in it (as I assume), why use it to shoot down a piece of science that is admittedly just a small bit of information pointing to a much larger territory of unexplored science?

You know, I do agree with you here. Weak arguments are fine, and may lead to greater things. However, false arguments are not okay, and shouldn't be used, because they will never get you closer to the truth.

Answers in Genesis (AIG) has stated on their "Don't Use" page that there are a number of serious problems with C decay and it is an argument that should not be used to support a young creation. Interestingly, AIG states here that they favour Dr Russell Humphreys model for explaining distant starlight. Advocates for a young earth should understand that Humphreys cosmology acknowledges that the universe is billions of years old.

And I dont "use" it either. Here's the difference. I could come in here and say, Bob is wonderful without a doubt, and so wonderful that you should invest a million bucks in the stock of his business. It is quite different to say, Bob is not a crook and there is reasonable doubt (ie, at least as small amount of reasonable doubt) about whether he as done anything wrong, and so you havent sufficient grounds to take his company away, shut it down and throw him in jail.

As you can see from the above, all I am arguing for is reasonable doubt. I a meeting the argument that C decay is unworthy of ANY consideration at any time -- and that has been one of the prevailing themes.

I dont know what Humphries thinks about his model. I would presume he understands that it is just an unproven theory.

Science has just, very recently, started to deal seriously with some measurable change in physical constants. That being said, of what use is it to validate an entire cosmology? But also, why believe AIG is the last word on anything when we are manifestly on the frontier of inquiry here?

Really, it is just common sense the speed of light has not decayed enough to allow for a 10,000 year old universe. If c-decay were true, then the more distant an astronomical object is, the more of a "slow motion effect" we would see in its rotation, readioactive decay etc. We don't see this at all.

Pulsars are a problem, to some extent. But, most of the use of this phenomena makes enormous presumptions about what pulsars are. If you look at Arp's work, you can see some pretty interesting attacks on the whole black hole model for some phenomena. Quantized shifts confirm (or are at least consistent with) c decay, even if it does not in itself confirm the radical change theorized by Setterfield.

 

[Sophophile]

Pulsars are a problem, to some extent. But, most of the use of this phenomena makes enormous presumptions about what pulsars are. If you look at Arp's work, you can see some pretty interesting attacks on the whole black hole model for some phenomena. Quantized shifts confirm (or are at least consistent with) c decay, even if it does not in itself confirm the radical change theorized by Setterfield.

Its not just pulsars, busterdog. Pulsars are the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of different astronomical objects show some kind of development through time e.g. galaxies rotate, supernovae radioactively decay etc. If c decay were true, the speed of these processes would appear to be slower for objects that are further away. Instead, the speed of the processes is the same regardless of distance. Therefore, c decay is false.

Now, I must apologise busterdog, as whilst this has been fun and interesting, in my extreme newbieness I did not realise this forum is for "christians only" -- and I am not a christian. So I will say farewell for now.

Cheers
S.

 

[shernren]

To restate my case, it is ironic to me that a man who finds religion to be quite beyond serious inquiry regards aliens as worthy of a serious, even if hypothetical, inquiry.

Why is it ironic? It's entirely understandable.

Star Trek has run on TV for just about as long as there has been TV.

On the other hand, I can't remember any good TV series featuring God in the history of TV. Can you?

Mr. Dawkins, like just about anybody else with a TV, has simply been watching too much of it.

(It's no coincidence that that space station was named Babylon 5. And called the "last, best hope for humanity". Captain John Sheridan was the Antichrist. Does that mean we all missed the Rapture?)

 

[busterdog]

(It's no coincidence that that space station was named Babylon 5. And called the "last, best hope for humanity". Captain John Sheridan was the Antichrist. Does that mean we all missed the Rapture?)

Quite possibly we missed a rapture, but we are probably glad that we missed this particular rapture. Look what happened to Mike TV in Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory.