Scientific proof?

[Dracil]

Yes. Have you visited www.trueorigins.org

Yes, and have you visited the actual Talkorigins newsgroup, with their 1 million+ postings for the most current information and rebuttals to trueorigins.org, instead of just looking at the small archive at talkorigins.org?

 

[gluadys]

No. I interpret the Bible literally unless the context suggests otherwise. A literal interpretation of Genesis squares nicely with the YEC model, which I've not seen convincingly falsified. So, no reason to interpret otherwise.

As I said, you interpret scripture to agree with the YEC model. What is so special about a literal interpretation? What claim does it have to be the default interpretation for any passage not specifically labelled figurative? Why should we pre-suppose that all figurative passages will be labelled for our convenience?

See my previous post in response to shenron. I wish I had the time to be an expert on isochronic dating, etc. Until then, I rely on experts to do their best to argue their case to laymen. I read and listen to both sides,

In your response to shernren, you indicated otherwise. You clearly listen much more closely to creationists sites, and with much more credulity than you are willing to give to non-creationist sites. If you would truly listen to both sides you need to 1) take down your defensive attitude toward non-creationist sites and 2) be more objective about creationist sites.

Others chose science, devoid of and contra to any supernatural causes, as their bias. That's fine, but with origins (of universe, life, and all life's forms), I think such a bias can be misleading.

Some may, but we are in a Christian Only forum here, so that does not apply to participants here. You cannot assume such a bias on the part of fellow Christians. Especially Christians who are practicing scientists. (That does not include me.)

Sorry. It has to do with God creating a mature universe. Perhaps he created a star with its light path already extended to us.

Even in a mature universe, light will not exceed its constant speed such that stars can be seen before their light arrives. A "mature" Alpha Centauri is still 4 light years away, and could not be seen from earth two days after its creation. The only way God could render it "visible" is to create light that did not come from Alpha Centauri. IMO that is going beyond creating a mature universe.

Or perhaps, in the big bang of creation, light traveled at a speed far exceeding the constant we recognize today.

Show the math for it and the mechanism that permitted it and maybe the physicists will listen. Did you know that although photons existed from the beginning, light was unable to shine until 1000 years after the big bang? And all astronomical observations coincide with the speed of light as measured. One would need to see a considerably different universe if the speed of light had ever been significantly different.

This, I think, is one of the characteristics of science that creationists do not appreciate. The poet William Blake did, when he commented "Turn but a stone and move a star". Everything in the universe is truly interconnected. There is no way to tinker with one thing, such as the speed of light, without there being consequences in a dozen other things. And for each of those things that must change, there are dozens of more consequences. Creationists are always throwing up these "it could have happened this way" statements with no understanding of the differences it would make to all the rest of the universe.

The universe is as it is today because of what it was like in the past. You cannot suppose a change in that past without consequences for the present. If those consequences are not observed here and now, the only rational conclusion is that the proposed different past did not occur.

If we could conclusively show that natural laws cannot account for the cause of something, then may we be permitted to say that we've come to the end of science?

Yes, but it is not humanly possible to show that conclusively. Since our knowledge is by definition limited, we can't know what we are still ignorant of. So the most we can say of any unanswered scientific question is that it is an unanswered question; we cannot say that an undiscovered scientific answer does not exist.

Lying? That's harsh!

Harsh, yes, but sadly true.

What makes you think that the vast amount of information in the DNA, which is far more complex than Internet Explorer, in the first living cell, which (even apart from the DNA) was far more complex than the space shuttle, was formed by anything other than intelligence?

Well, at least you have narrowed down the field to DNA. But the assertion I was responding to was that abiogenesis, et al was a chance formation of information.

Supposing DNA does have a natural origin? Why would you attribute that to chance?

 

[shernren]

I wish I had the time to be an expert on isochronic dating, etc.

Isochron dating isn't hard at all. I think I can explain it to you in a few minutes.

In a rock different minerals uptake different elements at different rates. For example a particular mineral A might incorporate 5 uranium atoms for 2 lead atoms, while a mineral B might incorporate 7 uranium atoms for 8 lead atoms. The actual values are different, of course, but this has been lab-verified. However, these minerals do not discriminate between isotopes when they incorporate minerals. For example, if there are 2 atoms of lead-207 to 1 atom of lead-206 in the rock, then the minerals will all have about 2 atoms of lead-207 to 1 atom of lead-206 making up their lead atoms. This is also lab-verified, with measurable but extremely small differences due to external conditions. Now when the rock first solidifies, the ratio between isotopes is common to all the minerals, but the ratio between parent and child element is different.

Now, a few billion years later we analyse the makeup of those rocks. We then plot the graph of ratio-between-isotopes (y) to ratio-of-parent-to-child (x). If the rock had just solidified, the graph would be flat because all the minerals would have the same y-value. However, if the rock has undergone decay, for each mineral the y-value goes up because the child isotope is being produced while the non-child isotope isn't, while the x-value goes down because parent atoms are being transformed into child atoms. It can be proven mathematically that the resulting points still fall on a straight line, and the slope of that straight line can reflect the age of the sample.

Think of it this way. I have a few sacks, each of which I fill with some rotten fruits - 2 rotten apples for each rotten orange - and some fresh apples. I leave the apples to rot. What do I need to assume about the system to figure out how long the apples have been rotting? I only need to know that the apples rot at a constant rate, and that the initial ratio of rotten apples to rotten oranges was constant. Try it yourself!

And all this from Google. Not even TalkOrigins. But note that no, I don't have to assume anything about how much child isotope there is initially. Heh.

Others chose science, devoid of and contra to any supernatural causes, as their bias. That's fine, but with origins (of universe, life, and all life's forms), I think such a bias can be misleading.

Think of it this way. What would you think of a Christian scientist who came up with a research paper dealing with the physics of Jesus walking on water? If the paper mentioned "God did this and did that and we don't know how", you'd immediately say it's not being scientific. The paper can't possibly analyse God in a causal manner so what is God doing there in it?

Now substitute the physics of Jesus walking on water for the physics of mega-accelerated nucleon decay with magically vanishing decay heat. You can be biased towards a Creator, no problem. I am and most good Christian scientists are. But don't imagine that what you do is scientific (scientific, not true) if it allows for a non-analyzable, non-causal influence like God.

Sorry. It has to do with God creating a mature universe. Perhaps he created a star with its light path already extended to us.

Theologically faulty. Your own AiG discourages this.

Or perhaps, in the big bang of creation, light traveled at a speed far exceeding the constant we recognize today.

And without the universe falling apart at the seams? Sorry, but one moment you say the universe was fine-tuned for life, and the next you say God messes around with physical constants to make a young earth look old. You can't have it both ways. If the universe is fine-tuned then God can't mess with it without obliterating life as we know it.

ID attempts to suggest that science (the naturalistic process we use to expand our knowledge of the universe) cannot explain all that we see.

See, that's the problem with creationism. It's trying to create a niche for God: What science cannot explain, God can! Firstly as I have said before a doctrine of God's occasional supernatural interference must start with a doctrine of God's normal natural apathy. Secondly, what happens when science starts explaining things? Then our little niche that we have carved for God becomes smaller and smaller and smaller - until we can only either see God in all of science as well as outside it, or say that science is simply wrong and technology has no right to exist. Your choice.

What makes you think that the vast amount of information in the DNA, which is far more complex than Internet Explorer, in the first living cell, which (even apart from the DNA) was far more complex than the space shuttle, was formed by anything other than intelligence?

Intelligence using evolution!

 

[artybloke]

A literal interpretation of Genesis squares nicely with the YEC model

Interesting, and rather revealing, turn of phrase, methinks....

Which comes first? The "YEC model" or the "literal"* interpretation of Genesis?

* for "literal" read " according to modernist rationalistic views of truth" as opposed to according to the ancient Hebrew model of truth as including the symbolic and poetic.