The problem with Creation Science

invisible trousers · May 2, 2005

On the Narrow Road said:
Again, this sounds suspiciously like many scientists use of "facts" and evidence. For example: astronomy. Hmmm, let's theorize about a black hole, then find evidence for it. Maybe "dark matter" Evidence for a "black hole" is virtually non-existent and there are far better theories to explain the evidence they are using.

Awesome, you're deliberately misrepresenting science (this time it's astronomy) in order to further your own flawed view of creation. I'm curious, what are the far better theories that explain black holes? Of course, you're going to have to ignore general relativity, and that might be a problem.

SBG · May 2, 2005

I would venture to guess that in the eyes of TE's it is a worse crime to misrepresent data of science than to misrepresent God's Word. I make this guess, because the only time I see TE's say such a thing is about science. Even when another TE says the virgin birth isn't a big deal and is not necessary, or people who preach Jesus didn't raise from the dead aren't really teaching something that dangerous, other TE's never say anything. I have yet to see ONE TE ever actually try and uphold the BIble when another(TE) says the Bible is not innerant, does have errors, and Jesus Christ was in error if He thought Adam and Eve were real.

Simply put, it appears to this reader, that many TE's here value science more than God's Word.

Biliskner · May 3, 2005

SBG said:
I would venture to guess that in the eyes of TE's it is a worse crime to misrepresent data of science than to misrepresent God's Word. I make this guess, because the only time I see TE's say such a thing is about science. Even when another TE says the virgin birth isn't a big deal and is not necessary, or people who preach Jesus didn't raise from the dead aren't really teaching something that dangerous, other TE's never say anything. I have yet to see ONE TE ever actually try and uphold the BIble when another(TE) says the Bible is not innerant, does have errors, and Jesus Christ was in error if He thought Adam and Eve were real.

Simply put, it appears to this reader, that many TE's here value science more than God's Word.

On the Narrow Road · May 6, 2005

invisible trousers said:
Awesome, you're deliberately misrepresenting science (this time it's astronomy) in order to further your own flawed view of creation. I'm curious, what are the far better theories that explain black holes? Of course, you're going to have to ignore general relativity, and that might be a problem.

Look into plasma cosmologoy and see if you think it doesn't better explain things than the science fiction constructions of dark matter and black holes.

Vance · May 6, 2005

If it is truly a better theory, in that it best explains the data we have, then it will eventually become the accepted theory. But it will not happen overnight, it will take peer review, scrutiny, and basically run the gauntlet of the scientific community. It is this very process that gives us a confidence level that the currently accepted theory among the community as a whole is truly the best available.

At the same time, theories are only held to the degree that they are well-supported by the evidence. That is why the current theories about black-holes and other such phenomenon are not held to as strongly as others with such support. Like evolution.

rmwilliamsll · May 6, 2005

SBG said:
I would venture to guess that in the eyes of TE's it is a worse crime to misrepresent data of science than to misrepresent God's Word. I make this guess, because the only time I see TE's say such a thing is about science. Even when another TE says the virgin birth isn't a big deal and is not necessary, or people who preach Jesus didn't raise from the dead aren't really teaching something that dangerous, other TE's never say anything. I have yet to see ONE TE ever actually try and uphold the BIble when another(TE) says the Bible is not innerant, does have errors, and Jesus Christ was in error if He thought Adam and Eve were real.

Simply put, it appears to this reader, that many TE's here value science more than God's Word.

this is a false guilt by association argument.
if TE did not struggle with the fields of both theology and science then they would not be T(heistic)E's. It is that committment to the T that puts TE's in the middle, a most uncomfortable place. Not really at home in a conservative church nor an agnostic scientific one, but with feet in both camps, trying to do justice to both of God's great books.

read Terry Gray's church trial notes and tell us again that TE's value science over God's Word.

SBG · May 6, 2005

Vance said:
If it is truly a better theory, in that it best explains the data we have, then it will eventually become the accepted theory. But it will not happen overnight, it will take peer review, scrutiny, and basically run the gauntlet of the scientific community. It is this very process that gives us a confidence level that the currently accepted theory among the community as a whole is truly the best available.

At the same time, theories are only held to the degree that they are well-supported by the evidence. That is why the current theories about black-holes and other such phenomenon are not held to as strongly as others with such support. Like evolution.

Would this be the same scientific community that helped by either ignorance or lying to spread the 30 year lie about the dating of human fossil remain?

Scientists either helped keep the lie, or they do not check other peoples work.

Is this the process you say that gives us confidence that science gives the truly best theories there is?

SBG · May 6, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
this is a false guilt by association argument.
if TE did not struggle with the fields of both theology and science then they would not be T(heistic)E's. It is that committment to the T that puts TE's in the middle, a most uncomfortable place. Not really at home in a conservative church nor an agnostic scientific one, but with feet in both camps, trying to do justice to both of God's great books.

read Terry Gray's church trial notes and tell us again that TE's value science over God's Word.

As you said, you are right in the middle. I suppose you feel it is smarter to err on the side of liberalizing the Bible, instead of taking it for its word.

Your analogy reminds of the one where the wolf is in sheep's clothing.

shernren · May 6, 2005

"Plasma cosmology?" Never heard of it. Teach me teach me!

Jon_ · May 6, 2005

SBG said:
Well, my stance has not changed. The Bible is the Authority in all matters, including Genesis 1-11, which I believe are literal history.

So, I am not sure why you think I might change in this belief to suit the beliefs of the humanists that you so eagerly support.

The nature of the account of Creation was every bit as prophetic as the account of the Revelation. How much of the symbolism used in the Revelation do we interpret literally? How much then, should we interpret the account of Creation literally?

There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the universe and the earth are billions of years old. It is folly to deny it all. The science does not contradict Scripture. It complements it.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Ceris · May 7, 2005

MOD HAT ON

Alright people - chill. This thread has been brought to my attention and so I'm telling everyone to step back for a second. There have been several posts in the last few pages that have come close to breaking some of the rules - especially the No Flamming and No Trolling Rules. So chill. Consider this the same as an "unofficial" warning.

Thank you.
MOD HAT OFF

Robert the Pilegrim · May 7, 2005

Scholar in training said:
but there still aren't enough fossils to support the theory of evolution. If evolution were true, then we should see millions of fossils depicting all the discreet changes in mammals' bone structure throughout their lifespans on earth; but are they there? No, as far as I know. There aren't nearly as many fossils as one would expect there to be.

What is your basis for stating this?

Go to your source, try to find their basis for their statements.

What is the rate of fossilization they propose?
What observations do they base their proposal on?
How many different environments have they made observations in?

I've spent a fair amount of time in areas that could be fairly described as wilderness. Finding bones is a rare event. Sometimes you find places like the tar pits where lots of animals died, either all at once or over an extended period of time. For paleontologists those places are better than goldmines.

Suggestions:
Go to Yellowstone and find the site of a moose kill by wolves. Watch the site daily for a month (from a distance) and then go back every month (when there is less than a foot of snow on the ground for two years. Report back how many bones are left at that time, and what their mass is (i.e how much has been chewed away by rodents).

Go to Alaska and find a spot where the bears are eating fish, observe the salmon run and count how many fish are caught. Wait until two months before the next run, pick a 10 meter by 10 meter spot in the river and see how many fish bones you can find there.

Go into your back yard, or into a relatively undisturbed forest preserve. Pick a 100 meter by 100 meter square and observe how many animals go through over a 24 hour period. This will require very careful planning and observation as mice and chipmunks are not very easily observable. Pick 10 1 meter by 1 meter squares within the larger square and count the insects once an hour for 24 hours.

Estimate how many creatures have crossed that area over the last 2000 years.

Now pick a few 1 meter x 1 meter squares and start digging.

How many bones do you find?

How many complete skeletons?

Robert the Pilegrim · May 7, 2005

On the Narrow Road said:
Again, this sounds suspiciously like many scientists use of "facts" and evidence. For example: astronomy. Hmmm, let's theorize about a black hole, then find evidence for it. Maybe "dark matter"

Were you under the impression that dark matter was evidence for the existance of blackholes?

Evidence for a "black hole" is virtually non-existent and there are far better theories to explain the evidence they are using.

What do you base this statement on?

How do these better theories deal with Mercury's precession?

Some interesting sites on the topic of black holes.
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q7
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/kits/xtej1550/
http://jca.umbc.edu/news/SpaceFlightNow-020626/blackhole.html
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html

Evolution seems to me a similar construct. Someone came up with a theory and went looking for evidence...

Well no, Carl Linnaeus produced the nested hierarchy that is a strong piece of evidence for evolution in the mid 1700s with no concept of evolution in his mind.

There is no evidence that either Darwin or Wallace were looking for a theory when they independently came up with the idea of natural selection. It appears to have been quite the opposite, as they collected reams of evidence on how animals lived and where, the theory shaped in their minds.

Robert the Pilegrim · May 7, 2005

On the Narrow Road said:
Look into plasma cosmologoy and see if you think it doesn't better explain things than the science fiction constructions of dark matter and black holes.

From what I have found plasma cosmology has no explanation for either 3 degK background radiation or the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

Unless you have a PhD in an appropriate subfield of physics or can demonstrate a similar level of expertise, I really suggest you refrain from describing black holes as "science fiction constructions".

Black holes derive fairly directly from G.R..

shernren · May 10, 2005

What is plasma cosmology? Aren't all the stars made of plasma whatever scientific cosmology you adopt?

gluadys · May 10, 2005

shernren said:
What is plasma cosmology? Aren't all the stars made of plasma whatever scientific cosmology you adopt?

Wikipedia includes an explanation of it in its article on Non-Standard Cosmologies.

shernren · May 10, 2005

Hmm. Plasma cosmology doesn't seem to do a lot of explaining.

The problem with Creation Science

~*this post promotes non-nicene christianity*~

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Contributor

avid reader

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

I R the Nutness (and I love sedatta )

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

you are not reading this.

Legend

you are not reading this.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

~this post promotes non-nicene christianity~