• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation

sbvera13

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2007
1,914
182
✟25,490.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Starting from the top down of Loudmouth's list, here is a rough summary of the arguments used. They are all pretty old hat. I won't go into detail on each argument since most of these have been discussed in depth elsewhere on the board.

Dr. Paul Giem, chemist, uses these arguments: Piltdown man, refutation of Miller/Urey, Denial of radiometric dating, evolution as belief

Jeremy L Walter, mechanical engineer, uses these arguments
: the past is not observable, 2nd law of thermodynamics, first cause, Mt. St. Helens ash flows comparing to Grand Canyon, Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so.

Jerry R. Bergman, psycologist, uses these arguments: False dilemma (evolution vs creation), equivocation (evolution with atheism), Irreducible Complexity, Embedded Age, Genetic information cannot increase, probability of random generation, life cannot come from nonlife.

John K.G. Kramer, biochemist, uses these arguments: False Dilemma (evolution or religion), no new genetic information, no macroevolution, irreducible complexity, argument from incredulity, claims scripture inspires work, 2nd law of thermodynamics, argument by design

Henry Zuil, biologist, uses these arguments: Irreducible complexity

Jonathan D. Sarfati, chemist, uses these arguments: the past is not observable, evolution as belief, strawman (quote "This atheistic bias is ironic, because the whole basis for modern science depends on the assumption that the universe was made by a rational Creator"), slippery slope (evolution causes sin), irreducible complexity.

Ariel A. Roth, biologist, uses these arguments: evolution as belief, irreducible complexity, no beneficial mutations, no transitional fossils, cambrian explosion, catastrophism explains geological formations, Flood as explanation for sediment layers and fossils, appeal to authority

Notice any common themes here? That's all the essays I have time to read for now.
 
Upvote 0

bigredline

Member
May 3, 2007
6
0
42
✟22,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Everyone has access to the same facts, but our interpretations will be different. Evolution, apart from its underlying assumptions, is unproven and unprovable. This book is worth reading, at least to see what a substantial minority in the scientific community happens to believe and why.

Evolution actually has been proven, to a degree where any reasonable and objective person would not question it.

Even among scientists there are ignorant people, and this book proves it.
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
Even among scientists there are ignorant people, and this book proves it.

That sounds like an ad hominem to me. Please tell the laboratories and universities that hired these scientists how ignorant they truly are. It seems bigoted to assert that holding an alternative view automatically makes a person ignorant. I'd recommend actually reading the book for yourself, with an open mind, before arriving at such judgments.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
That sounds like an ad hominem to me. Please tell the laboratories and universities that hired these scientists how ignorant they truly are. It seems bigoted to assert that holding an alternative view automatically makes a person ignorant. I'd recommend actually reading the book for yourself, with an open mind, before arriving at such judgments.
I wouldn't say they are ignorant per-say, but the theme of the arguments in those essays are appeals to ignorance. As I said in the other thread, the gist of the arguments are, "we don't know X, therefore Goddidit". None of it is scientific evidence for creation. It's just "God of the gaps".
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟26,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
That sounds like an ad hominem to me. Please tell the laboratories and universities that hired these scientists how ignorant they truly are. It seems bigoted to assert that holding an alternative view automatically makes a person ignorant. I'd recommend actually reading the book for yourself, with an open mind, before arriving at such judgments.
Why are you insisting on holding the views of these scientists as somehow more informed or qualified than the other 99% of scientists? Again, there are scientists that support ESP and astrology...it doesnt make those any more scientific. What makes this view ignorant is the fact that it rejects not only evolution (along with most of modern biology) but the age of the earth and universe (geology and astronomy..bye bye). Literal Genesis isn't at all consistent with the modern scientific view of the universe. That's why it's ingorant. It's not just against evolution it's against most of science.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,882
65
Massachusetts
✟399,179.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Given that internet forums are inherently unproductive, I'm recommending this book. Its authors are more qualified to understand and articulate their position than the members of an internet forum. One may object outright, given that it contradicts your worldview. But intellectual fluidity should at least allow you to learn what the opposing side has to offer.
I've read quite a lot of creationist arguments, including those by scientists with credentials, over the years. The scientific arguments have consistently of abysmal quality. Based on the summaries provided in this thread, and based on your inability or unwillingness to offer any particulars about the book that would recommend it, I conclude that this book is more of the same, and that reading it would be a waste of my time and slightly less fun than practicing dentistry on myself. I don't see a lot of point in doing something that is likely to be both fruitless and unpleasant.
 
Upvote 0

flatworm

Veteran
Dec 13, 2006
1,394
153
✟24,922.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It seems bigoted to assert that holding an alternative view automatically makes a person ignorant. I'd recommend actually reading the book for yourself, with an open mind, before arriving at such judgments.

Before you go off lecturing people on bigotry and open mindedness, please answer this:

Is it open-minded to set aside the evidence because it doesn't conform to your church's teachings?
 
Upvote 0

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
46
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Even among scientists there are ignorant people, and this book proves it.

Well yeah, I bet Steven Hawking knows jack about cancer research.

But I'm pretty sure there are no scientists ignorant of the field that they work in.

And my challenge is still open. Here it is again...

Show me a paleontologist, a molecular biologist, or a geologist who believes these things. Show me a scientist who works in a field that creationism claims is wrong, who also conducts their work according to a young earth model. And then show me the scientific results that they have gathered using the young earth model, and show me how the scientific community has accepted those results.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
That sounds like an ad hominem to me.

It would be if no one referenced their arguments. However, we are calling them ignorant because of their ignorance, not their beliefs. Several scientists on the list claim that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This illustrates both an ignorance of thermodynamics and evolution. There is no way around it.

It seems bigoted to assert that holding an alternative view automatically makes a person ignorant.

We are criticizing people for holding an incorrect view. Whether or not you accept the theory of evolution it is incorrect (to put it lightly) to state that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is also logically incorrect to state that if something is complex a supernatural deity must have done it. Incorrect arguments like these are sprinkled throughout the essays.

I'd recommend actually reading the book for yourself, with an open mind, before arriving at such judgments.

We have been. It can be found online here. This link is for the essay written by Ker C. Thomson. He makes the incorrect argument that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution. Perhaps you should write this scientist and tell him how wrong he really is. Here is what Thomson wrote:

Evolution fails the test. The test procedure is contained within the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law has turned out to be one of the surest and most fundamental principles in all of science. It is, in fact, used routinely in science to test postulated or existing concepts and machines (for instance perpetual motion machines, or a proposed chemical reaction) for viability. Any process, procedure, or machine which would violate this principle is discarded as impossible. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is a long-range decay process which ultimately and surely grips everything in the universe that we know about. That process produces a breakdown of complexity, not its increase. This is the exact opposite of what evolution requires.

The 2nd Law only applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not. Secondly, the law does not disallow increases in complexity. If the 2nd Law prevents the evolution of humans from a single celled ancestor then it would also disallow human embryonic development which also starts from a single cell. This scientist has things so badly wrong that it makes my brain hurt. I don't know if I should be angry at this scientist or have sympathy for their ignorance.
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
79
Visit site
✟30,931.00
Faith
Unitarian
It would be if no one referenced their arguments. However, we are calling them ignorant because of their ignorance, not their beliefs. Several scientists on the list claim that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This illustrates both an ignorance of thermodynamics and evolution. There is no way around it.



We are criticizing people for holding an incorrect view. Whether or not you accept the theory of evolution it is incorrect (to put it lightly) to state that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is also logically incorrect to state that if something is complex a supernatural deity must have done it. Incorrect arguments like these are sprinkled throughout the essays.



We have been. It can be found online here. This link is for the essay written by Ker C. Thomson. He makes the incorrect argument that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution. Perhaps you should write this scientist and tell him how wrong he really is. Here is what Thomson wrote:



The 2nd Law only applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not. Secondly, the law does not disallow increases in complexity. If the 2nd Law prevents the evolution of humans from a single celled ancestor then it would also disallow human embryonic development which also starts from a single cell. This scientist has things so badly wrong that it makes my brain hurt. I don't know if I should be angry at this scientist or have sympathy for their ignorance.
To be more precise the 2nd law only prevents entropy from decreasing in isolated systems. The second law applies in all systems but figuring out how to apply it in open systems that are not a equilibrium is not straightforward. In any case the 2nd law can not be shown to prevent evolution and all creationist attempts to show that it does end up making "extrathermodyanmic arguments". The second law doesn't say anything about "complexity".

I have debated creationists on this almost endlessly at times but I don't have endless time to do it now.

The bottom line is that no creationist can show that any step required for evolution violates the 2nd law and if no step in process violates the 2nd law the process does not violate the 2nd law.

People who make this 2nd law argument call to mind a line from What's Up Tiger Lily

I'd call him a sadistic, hippophilic necrophile, but that would be beating a dead horse.


I have looked at several of the "50 reasons". Ithink the line may apply to most of them as well.

F.B.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
To be more precise the 2nd law only prevents entropy from decreasing in isolated systems. The second law applies in all systems but figuring out how to apply it in open systems that are not a equilibrium is not straightforward. In any case the 2nd law can not be shown to prevent evolution and all creationist attempts to show that it does end up making "extrathermodyanmic arguments". The second law doesn't say anything about "complexity".

Very true, but I was trying to limit my comments to the creationist argument. In ecology it is roughly estimated that 10% of energy is lost at each level. This means that 10% of the energy available to plants is being converted to energy in the form of carbohydrates. This is more than enough energy to sustain life on Earth.

The only place that entropy really applies to evolution is the availability of energy. Each DNA base extension during replication requires the same amount of energy independent of what that base is. Therefore, entropy has little to do with biological complexity as complexity is governed by DNA sequence. Any 100 base stretch of DNA is equal (or nearly so) when entropy is considered.

What I find most disturbing is that creationists lose all touch with reality when embryonic development is considered, or even growth from a baby to an adult. This obviously requires an increase in complexity. So what is their excuse? DNA holds instructions on how to violate the 2nd law. Strange indeed. I wonder where we can find instructions for building a refrigerator that doesn't require energy. They go from stating that the 2nd Law can not be reversed to stating that a simple hydrocarbon polymer can do just that. Too bad we can't harness Morton's Demon for something useful.
 
Upvote 0