Glad I am not a young earth creationist...you will have to ask Papias about that view since he is professor of it...
Paul
Paul
Upvote
0
-
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.
Where do the flood strata start and end?
- Thread starter troodon
- Start date
I don't understand why you think an immediate response is relevant?
Because usually questions and commentary is forthcoming within a few years and new insights and hypotheses are being discussed really soon thereafter. The rebuttal and cross rebuttal process is as much a healthy and normal part of deriving truth as being able to repeat experiments and getting the same results.
Also Gentry was not incompetent in his own field (for the umpteenth time he never claimed to be a geologist…he was merely one example of discrimination in academia) he was held in high esteem by many of his colleagues in his time. Some big names spoke out in his defense. I realize he has been belittled by the bombardment but mischaracterization and slander are an important part of convincing those who will buy their rhetoric. One of his defenders (of his personal integrity as a researcher and the professionalism of how he presented his data) was a Minerologist who won the Roebling Prize for his work in ore microscopy, and other was Nobel prize winning Mathematical Physicist…these men were not “Creation Scientists” or incompetents. Another defender of his integrity as a researcher and the quality of his data was Nobel Laureate, Emilio Gino Segrè, who discovered anti-protons. Incompetent crackpots? Really? May you become such a crackpot or be half as incompetent.
The rebuttals to the rebuttals are again, as before, by people incompetent in the field they are talking about, as opposed to the actual statements by real geologists based on an actual understanding of the evidence.
You are really showing yourself to be a sad desperate man. “Real geologists” are not the only people who are experts, and I have no problem with them, they are fine scientists within their fields and I certainly agree (apparently unlike you, a YEC) with an old earth position. So yes I have no problem admitting that Nobel Laureates and Nobel Prize winning Physicists are not “real geologists” nor did I or any of them claim to profess competency in that field (and it is an exciting and well documented field) but none the less, when Francis S. Johnson, Assistant Director, National Science Foundation, testified that “…Dr. Robert Gentry is the world's leading authority on the observation and measurement of anomalous radio-active haloes. Because of his recognized capabilities, Dr. Gentry's research was funded by the Foundation during the early 1970's." He was serious. So I have to say that despite your opinion (and we all have one) Gentry was hardly an incompetent crackpot…no my friend, he may have even been incorrect in his conclusions or suppositions on what he observed (which even many “real geologists have been at times), but the things you have accused him of is unfounded.
Editors of Science and Nature and other periodicals certainly thought enough of his work to publish it (or were they part of the hoax as well?).
Which articles are you specifically talking about?
Try the three or four I already gave you…
It was not contrived, it was based on the actual data of project steve. Plus, it is consistent with other sources of data (available if you like) that have repeatedly shown that practically all scientists in their fields reject young earth creationism and support common descent. That's why I didn't have to make up anything.
Project Steve is a parody and made to appear to be legitimate but is not really accurate…the reasoning there is also faulty assuming the rest do not hold different opinions, and his opinions of these opposing scholars is opinion only. Besides mister YEC…I have no problem with old earth (allegedly you do if you were telling the truth about yourself) but clearly do have issues with the unproven common descent hypothesis.
Also, I did not say I agreed with what Dr. Gentry concluded I said he had a right to stay employed as a researcher and professor. No longer funding this particular line of research is certainly the option of those who funded his research, but to be fired and find himself unable to get legitimate work after this point was simply discrimination, and nothing more or less. I understand your need to make me seem like I support or uphold Gentry’s conclusions but I never said I this is what I believed.
What I believe is that on any subject or issue, objective open minded people have a need as well as a right to declare their beliefs and accept the criticisms and the counter criticisms both ways (hearing the arguments for and against) without reprisal or legal consequence. I also believe when people cannot get there way they call people names and slander their character. If the facts against Gentry’s conclusions are valid then let them stand and speak for themselves. Insult and personal opinion regarding people’s character who one does not even know is worthless information in a good discussion.
If you want to discuss the hypothesis of common descent then present your version of this hypothesis on another thread (being that there are at least two schools that I know of) and please express what you believe to be true, and I would be glad to present arguments that bring common descent into question.
A chemist cannot draw any meaningful conclusions that contradict the experts and have any basis to stand on. Do you go to your auto mechanic to get your cavities filled, or ask your accountant to fix your car? A chemists "assessments of the brain" are as worthless as your or my "assessments of the brain". They are better called "uninformed opinions". To try to pass them off as anything else is indeed chicanery.
Oh I see! So a qualified Biochemist has nothing to contribute worth salt? Man are you so closed minded as to really believe that? Sad really!
"problematic" fossils? What are you talking about? Are you seriously proposing that there is a worldwide flood layer, or that there are "problematic" fossils? All fossils have confirmed, thousands of times, common descent
Wow! You actually said that…I say they are problematic because they demonstrate other possibilities than what is taught to us...for example please explain the fossils of struggling intact fish in layers alleged to take 1,000s of years to form when it only takes a few days for fish to rot….or please explain rooted trees that span multiple layers…and these are just two examples…and I have read different OPINIONS as to why and how these occur, so what dio you believe?
And NO, I never proposed there was a “worldwide flood layer” and in fact explained quite simply why there would not be one (but that’s alright, I forgive you…you cannot hear if your mind is fixed on prejudging me and putting me into a box).
Keep up the good fight Papias and work well at supporting your view as a YEC however not trying to be insulting but sadly it sounds as if you are a self-contradiction, but I am not saying you are, but I cannot see how the two views you hold mesh…it is kind of like cognitive dissonance. Like holding two mutually negating beliefs simultaneously without really recognizing the difference. What exactly is your Young Earth Creationist belief?
Paul
Because usually questions and commentary is forthcoming within a few years and new insights and hypotheses are being discussed really soon thereafter. The rebuttal and cross rebuttal process is as much a healthy and normal part of deriving truth as being able to repeat experiments and getting the same results.
Also Gentry was not incompetent in his own field (for the umpteenth time he never claimed to be a geologist…he was merely one example of discrimination in academia) he was held in high esteem by many of his colleagues in his time. Some big names spoke out in his defense. I realize he has been belittled by the bombardment but mischaracterization and slander are an important part of convincing those who will buy their rhetoric. One of his defenders (of his personal integrity as a researcher and the professionalism of how he presented his data) was a Minerologist who won the Roebling Prize for his work in ore microscopy, and other was Nobel prize winning Mathematical Physicist…these men were not “Creation Scientists” or incompetents. Another defender of his integrity as a researcher and the quality of his data was Nobel Laureate, Emilio Gino Segrè, who discovered anti-protons. Incompetent crackpots? Really? May you become such a crackpot or be half as incompetent.
The rebuttals to the rebuttals are again, as before, by people incompetent in the field they are talking about, as opposed to the actual statements by real geologists based on an actual understanding of the evidence.
You are really showing yourself to be a sad desperate man. “Real geologists” are not the only people who are experts, and I have no problem with them, they are fine scientists within their fields and I certainly agree (apparently unlike you, a YEC) with an old earth position. So yes I have no problem admitting that Nobel Laureates and Nobel Prize winning Physicists are not “real geologists” nor did I or any of them claim to profess competency in that field (and it is an exciting and well documented field) but none the less, when Francis S. Johnson, Assistant Director, National Science Foundation, testified that “…Dr. Robert Gentry is the world's leading authority on the observation and measurement of anomalous radio-active haloes. Because of his recognized capabilities, Dr. Gentry's research was funded by the Foundation during the early 1970's." He was serious. So I have to say that despite your opinion (and we all have one) Gentry was hardly an incompetent crackpot…no my friend, he may have even been incorrect in his conclusions or suppositions on what he observed (which even many “real geologists have been at times), but the things you have accused him of is unfounded.
Editors of Science and Nature and other periodicals certainly thought enough of his work to publish it (or were they part of the hoax as well?).
Which articles are you specifically talking about?
Try the three or four I already gave you…
It was not contrived, it was based on the actual data of project steve. Plus, it is consistent with other sources of data (available if you like) that have repeatedly shown that practically all scientists in their fields reject young earth creationism and support common descent. That's why I didn't have to make up anything.
Project Steve is a parody and made to appear to be legitimate but is not really accurate…the reasoning there is also faulty assuming the rest do not hold different opinions, and his opinions of these opposing scholars is opinion only. Besides mister YEC…I have no problem with old earth (allegedly you do if you were telling the truth about yourself) but clearly do have issues with the unproven common descent hypothesis.
Also, I did not say I agreed with what Dr. Gentry concluded I said he had a right to stay employed as a researcher and professor. No longer funding this particular line of research is certainly the option of those who funded his research, but to be fired and find himself unable to get legitimate work after this point was simply discrimination, and nothing more or less. I understand your need to make me seem like I support or uphold Gentry’s conclusions but I never said I this is what I believed.
What I believe is that on any subject or issue, objective open minded people have a need as well as a right to declare their beliefs and accept the criticisms and the counter criticisms both ways (hearing the arguments for and against) without reprisal or legal consequence. I also believe when people cannot get there way they call people names and slander their character. If the facts against Gentry’s conclusions are valid then let them stand and speak for themselves. Insult and personal opinion regarding people’s character who one does not even know is worthless information in a good discussion.
If you want to discuss the hypothesis of common descent then present your version of this hypothesis on another thread (being that there are at least two schools that I know of) and please express what you believe to be true, and I would be glad to present arguments that bring common descent into question.
A chemist cannot draw any meaningful conclusions that contradict the experts and have any basis to stand on. Do you go to your auto mechanic to get your cavities filled, or ask your accountant to fix your car? A chemists "assessments of the brain" are as worthless as your or my "assessments of the brain". They are better called "uninformed opinions". To try to pass them off as anything else is indeed chicanery.
Oh I see! So a qualified Biochemist has nothing to contribute worth salt? Man are you so closed minded as to really believe that? Sad really!
"problematic" fossils? What are you talking about? Are you seriously proposing that there is a worldwide flood layer, or that there are "problematic" fossils? All fossils have confirmed, thousands of times, common descent
Wow! You actually said that…I say they are problematic because they demonstrate other possibilities than what is taught to us...for example please explain the fossils of struggling intact fish in layers alleged to take 1,000s of years to form when it only takes a few days for fish to rot….or please explain rooted trees that span multiple layers…and these are just two examples…and I have read different OPINIONS as to why and how these occur, so what dio you believe?
And NO, I never proposed there was a “worldwide flood layer” and in fact explained quite simply why there would not be one (but that’s alright, I forgive you…you cannot hear if your mind is fixed on prejudging me and putting me into a box).
Keep up the good fight Papias and work well at supporting your view as a YEC however not trying to be insulting but sadly it sounds as if you are a self-contradiction, but I am not saying you are, but I cannot see how the two views you hold mesh…it is kind of like cognitive dissonance. Like holding two mutually negating beliefs simultaneously without really recognizing the difference. What exactly is your Young Earth Creationist belief?
Paul
Last edited:
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
Originally Posted by pshun2404
1) Surely Pshun2404 should know that a number of processes which allow preservation. And the fact that USUALLY a fish rots and does not fossilize is irrelevant.
2) Isn't it time we get past the long-ago debunked silliness of "polystrate trees"? Even the illustrations of "polystrate fossils" in various modern propaganda publications come from an old article which actually explained them (dishonest quote-mining at its prime!)
for example please explain the fossils of struggling intact fish in layers alleged to take 1,000s of years to form when it only takes a few days for fish to rot
.or please explain rooted trees that span multiple layers
and these are just two examples
and I have read different OPINIONS as to why and how these occur, so what dio you believe?
1) Surely Pshun2404 should know that a number of processes which allow preservation. And the fact that USUALLY a fish rots and does not fossilize is irrelevant.
2) Isn't it time we get past the long-ago debunked silliness of "polystrate trees"? Even the illustrations of "polystrate fossils" in various modern propaganda publications come from an old article which actually explained them (dishonest quote-mining at its prime!)
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by pshun2404for example please explain the fossils of struggling intact fish in layers alleged to take 1,000s of years to form when it only takes a few days for fish to rot….or please explain rooted trees that span multiple layers…and these are just two examples…and I have read different OPINIONS as to why and how these occur, so what dio you believe?
1) Surely Pshun2404 should know that a number of processes which allow preservation. And the fact that USUALLY a fish rots and does not fossilize is irrelevant.
2) Isn't it time we get past the long-ago debunked silliness of "polystrate trees"? Even the illustrations of "polystrate fossils" in various modern propaganda publications come from an old article which actually explained them (dishonest quote-mining at its prime!)
1) I do and these show the layer they are in formed rapidly
2) Really? Who did I quote for this? Oh that's right no one...or were you saying the one "Old Article" which explained them was such an example?
You know...just for fun, motivated by an earlier post I pulled out my copy and re-read Gould's, Evolution’s Erratic Pace. It brought back memories. He is such an articulate writer. However, in about 5 places he quotes people in support of his position (as well as other quotes for other reasons)....
And if you think this Gould "quote mining" is much in his short three page article, try The Panda's Thumb, you'll have field day with that...Oh I forgot...the quote mining is okay as long as it mines quotes which agree with the general consensus...Yeah! That's objective...and of course open minded.
Oh that's right...it's only quote mining if we question or do not agree with the "real geologists"...(much of which is admittedly theory)...please remember I am not a YEC...that's like when a local social philosopher Donald Crowell once said that certain groups promote free thinking so long as your freedom of thought agrees with theirs.
By the way...does your "Old Article" also include A. MacRae's, "Polystrate" Tree Fossils (1997). and DiMichele, W.A., and H.J. Falcon-Lang's, Pennsylvanian 'fossil forests' in Growth Position (2011) written in the Journal of the Geological Society, 168(2):585-605? Or maybe R.A. Gestaldo, I. Stevanovic-Walls, and W.N. Ware's, 2004, Erect forests are evidence for coseismic base-level changes in Pennsylvanian cyclothems of the Black Warrior Basin, found in in J.C. Pashin's Sequence Stratigraphy, Paleoclimate, and Tectonics of Coal-Bearing Strata. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology. 51:219–238, or any of the other 20 or 30 articles in peer reviewed journals? And that does not even cover the rebuttals (which of course, I understand, are only allowed or respected if they come against people who might have a different perspective on the evidence)...
And yes some of these explore different possible explanations but undoubtedly the fact still rocks the foundation of conventional dating that has been assigned to some of these layers.
Genuine intellectual integrity must be open to opposing views...those who suppress it are nothing more than intellectual fascists...rather discuss the differences and give examples and show what supports your position but can the petty insults...they are opinion (which is fine) but are demonstrating an emotionally charged prejudice which is never good...and please stop with these implications in your attempt to persuade others such as implying there is only one old article on this very interesting and controversial subject. Seriously, you have me pegged all wrong...I support anyone's right to support their view, even to question there is a God.
Paul
Last edited:
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
Considering that the classic article I was talking about was published over a century ago, I think not.
But are you going to admit to your readers that Andrew MacRae's "Polystrate" Tree Fossils title placed quotation marks around "Polystrate" because he was making fun of the myth?! What a fantastically fitting, dishonestly misleading quote-mine!
My work is done here!
They just don't get any more perfect than this one. I'm putting this exchange on my office door for all to see. The laughter never stops.
More from Andrew Macrae, since Pshun likes to cite him:
"Polystrate" Tree Fossils
Upvote
0
No it isn't. I did not say his article supported my view. I simply pointed out that more than one article (and not an old one) speaks to this issue...which negates what you had implied and what that implication was accusing me of (falsely I might add).
And I never quoted anything from his work...I don't even care what it speaks to, the point was it is you who intentionally misrepresented the facts with your all that comes from an old 1800s article (which by the way I had no idea existed and have never read).
But yeah...I agree this discussion is basically washed out (no pun intended). You obviously will not re-present what I actually have brought up, and you have me in a box of your own determination, so VS, peace be unto you...I answered the OP honestly, and early on...
God bless...
Paul
And I never quoted anything from his work...I don't even care what it speaks to, the point was it is you who intentionally misrepresented the facts with your all that comes from an old 1800s article (which by the way I had no idea existed and have never read).
But yeah...I agree this discussion is basically washed out (no pun intended). You obviously will not re-present what I actually have brought up, and you have me in a box of your own determination, so VS, peace be unto you...I answered the OP honestly, and early on...
God bless...
Paul
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
You are only digging your hole deeper. Nobody is fooled.
I entirely agree that you should quit while you're behind.
Thanks for one of the funniest quote-mine blunders I've ever collected.
.
Upvote
0
Your quite welcome and I am glad I brought you joy (even though your final accusation here was not even extent save in your own mind)...and I also enjoyed you proving my point as to the insult and character assault techniques needed by people who will not allow for dissent from the standard acceptable opinion. Much of what we accept as "established fact" in science today will after all one day be considered obsolete and based on our ancient ignorance and be replaced by new established fact. The Lord bless...
Paul
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
Sorry. I tried to make sense of that sentence but finally gave up.
Evidence please? NEVER in the history of modern science has that EVER been the case that "much of what we accept as established fact" will later be considered obsolete. Science moves forward by refining and adding a more detailed understanding. RARELY is some major scientific concept rendered entirely obsolete and replaced by something else. Your description is a popular myth about science which young earth creationists often propagate. (Frankly, it is a cliche.)
But what is most astounding about the claim is that it dishonors the rationality of God's creation. God has filled his creation with answers to our questions. You denigrate those answers but most Christ-followers do not. We believe that God is NOT a deceiver and that we can trust what he reveals in his creation. Both his Bible and his Creation reveal his truths. Far more being overturned in the future, we discover more and more of their verity day by day! I hope you will eventually come to discover and accept what God has revealed to you in his creation. Trust God, not your cherished traditions! You need not fear God's answers.
Upvote
0
ChetSinger
Well-Known Member
This got me thinking of paradigm-shifting increases in knowledge, and some of the crazy ideas that were once considered established fact:
- The sun goes around the earth.
- Life is regularly created via spontaneous generation.
- Witches float.
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
But notice that NONE of those were "paradigm shifts" within modern science. In fact, ALL OF THEM were debunked with the rise of the scientific method!
And one of my favorite myths is that "Science used to think blood-letting was a great idea." No it didn't. Blood-letting was an ANCIENT tradition and was further "standardized" in the west through the writings of an ancient Roman, Galen. Not until the rise of the scientific method was it finally overthrown. (In fact, because the American colonies were slow to replace ancient traditions with modern medical schools, many colonial physicians were still following Galen's advice and bled George Washington to death ---even while modern science in Europe was eradicating the practice.)
Isaac Asimov wrote a great article about the myth of "changing science making yesterday's facts obsolete." It is amazing how many non-scientists believe the myth. He provides plenty of examples of how it is the very opposite of reality. I'm sure you could easily find the article on Google. I used to have my Honors Western Civilization Colloquium students each semester read that in the recurring syllabus. Modern science is an incredibly stable enterprise. And that is due to the rigors of the scientific method and the procedures employed to reduce confirmation bias and ideology. Once a theory survives years of falsification attempts, it rarely get refuted. Instead, it gets further refined and more detailed.
By the way, I find it fascinating that a lot of young earth creationists have tried to denigrate abiogenesis hypotheses by trying to link abiogenesis to "spontaneous generation", a very different concept. (Some even try to pretend that Louis Pasteur somehow established a "law" that is binding on all future scientists that somehow renders all abiogenesis hypotheses impossible! No joke!)
And if anyone thinks that Asimov was wrong and that I'm wrong, I would love to hear your #1 Best Example of a major established scientific theory being "debunked" and rendered entirely obsolete by some later theory. (Occasionally someone will pretend that Relativity destroyed Newton's Laws. Obviously, that is a great example of a new theory "completing" and improving a prior law/theory saw that MORE CONTEXTS were explained---in this case, speeds approaching the speed of light where a part of the equation which is inconsequential at low speeds becomes extremely important at high speeds.)
I sometimes wonder if non-scientists wish to "take science down a peg" because they feel intimidated by science--- and feel less uninformed if they think that the knowledge they lack won't matter because eventually it will be rendered obsolete. Is that possible?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Can't speak for them but I love science and history has indeed shown that we build on and from earlier less informed models. Newtonian Mechanics for example was an important step but is mostly irrelevant in our time. An eternal universe conceptually ruled for centuries but was also a step which motivated us to see and postulate a big bang and the singularity theory and the atom as smallest object of mass is now useless as well as is spontaneous generation. So I still believe it is important to allow other scientific models to be expressed until proven to be incorrect (like Lucy as a bipedal pre-human and more). And I think it is important to let scientists who see the evidence differently create debate and continue pursuing there models without character assassination.
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
How has Newtonian Mechanics become IRRELEVANT in our time? Unless you know a lot of people who regularly travel at close to the speed of light, the details which relativity theory brought to the relevant equations are largely irrelevant. Your statement SOUNDS like you are reinforcing the myth that new theories in modern science entirely nullify a prior theory. Newton's Laws of Motion continue to describe important important physics of our daily lives!
So please explain how Newtonian have become "mostly irrelevant in our time." I'm sure a lot of physics undergrads and their professors will be shocked at that news headline.
{Do you understand why the rest of us are so often startled at the incredible statements we often see posted by some of our brethren here?}
"Spontaneous generation" was NEVER a theory of modern science. The term summarized a number of long-standing "old wives tales" myths which dated to ancient times. (And as I said, efforts to somehow link it to abiogenesis are illogical and just plain silly.)
The rise of modern science came with the work of Roger Bacon, Paracelsus, and other pioneers of the scientific method only a few centuries ago. Unfortunately, a lot of non-scientists assume an ancient definition of science which is simply "knowledge."
1) Nobody is preventing scientific models from being expressed.
2) Debate has ALWAYS been allowed.
3) Time and again investigation has revealed that sinister claims of "character assassination" have been debunked. The movie EXPELLED was a prime example. Indeed, as a Bible-affirming Christ-folower, one of my concerns is that we cry "Wolf!" far to often and in the worst possible situations---so that we are priming the public to ignore us when there IS a legitimate discrimination situation.
After a life-time in academia, I can say that I was treated quite well (even when I was a young science professor who was also a staunch young earth creationist speaker/author/debater.) But what is NOT tolerated for long is (a) claims without supporting evidence, (b) misuse of evidence, (c) abuse of science terminology and basic science concepts, (d) "lobbying" science and manipulating the public with pseudo-science instead of appropriate peer-review publishing channels, (d) crying "Discrimination!" when unsupported nonsense [whether based largely on unsupported religious beliefs and traditions OR NOT] leads to shredding of a hypothesis, and (e) LYING.
Based upon my own observations within academia, I'm generally more concerned about the rampant discrimination against various POLITICAL viewpoints (e.g such as conservative positions which do not reaffirm "political correctness.) So I'm concerned when a subgroup of Christians make us ALL look woefully science-illiterate when complaining that crackpot evidence-denying ideas are not warmly embraced by scientists. Some of the complaints about "discrimination" are nothing more than a reminder that we EXPECT groundless pseudo-science and the people who promote it to be discriminated against! We don't want astrologers in the Dept. of Astronomy must so we can say that "all sides of the debate" have been included, just as we don't hire "flat earthers"
for the geography department faculty.
EXAMPLE: For months I've been asking young earth creationists on various forums to simply cite the #1 best "A Comprehensive Scientific Theory of Special Creation" ---even if it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal. For a theory to be considered by the scientific community, SOMEBODY has to formally propose and describe and tell us how it BEST explains the evidence we observe today. (The Theory of Evolution has a huge head start. It explains huge piles of evidence and even accurately predicts future evidence, such as when genome mapping provided astounding confirmation of what The Theory of Evolution had expected all along!) So a formal Theory of Special Creation needs to demonstrate that it does an even BETTER JOB of explaining all of the data. If young earth creationists wish to be taken seriously and get appointed to university faculties, they MUST be able to do this----but I don't even see them trying! [[To his credit, Old Earth Creationist Dr. Hugh Ross DOES understand this and has indeed published a book which describes his unusual brand of "progressive creation" model. But I've yet to see a YEC do that. Why?]]
Indeed, the fact that nobody here every responds to my request with anything more substantive than "It's in the Bible!" tells us all that even young earth creationists understand that their cherished traditions are NOT SCIENCE but are purely theology which happens to use (or misuse) scientific terms to make it sound "scien-cey".
Instead, even "creation science" leaders with legitimate Ph.D.'s ignore the call for appropriate declarations of a Comprehensive Theory of Special Creation and instead do nothing but rant about miscellaneous phenomena ---mostly to science-illiterate audiences of potential donors---which they think will somehow find "weaknesses" in The Theory of Evolution. They cherry-pick obscure curiosities (often dishonestly quote-mining and misrepresenting the evidence in the process) as if somehow exposing a tiny mystery in biology, geology, or astronomy will topple The Theory of Evolution and thereby establish the never-articulated formal theory of Special Creation. Such sermonettes may rally and encourage the choir but it gets them NOWHERE with the academy or even the honest inquirer.
And it is within this extremely frustrating backdrop that the world of science expects "creation science" advocates to START ACTING LIKE SCIENTISTS! If they want a seat at the big boys table, they have to start DOING SCIENCE and DEMONSTRATING THAT A THEORY OF SPECIAL CREATION CAN BE PROPOSED AND ADVANCED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Now can you tell us WHY nobody on these threads ever responds with a Comprehensive Theory? (Why do they simply heckle and throw random and insignificant, long ago debunked concepts, such as Peter Gentry's so called "Polonium halos" from around a half-century ago---as if that curiosity somehow advances "creation science"?)
It is worth mentioning that even the religion and Bible-friendly Templeton Foundation got fed up with the Discovery Institute (after awarding them some substantial grants early on) because: They aren't doing any actually scientific research. They just want to lobby and publish propaganda. [That is my paraphrase of what their people have told reporters and their philanthropic colleagues. Indeed, I had a conversation with a Templeton associated about this very topic a few years ago at an AAR/SBL conference I believe it was.]
So here's a tip for young earth creationist: Quit whining about discrimination and simply start with PUBLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE SCIENTIFIC THEORY OF SPECIAL CREATION. If the evidence in God's creation truly supports the evidence which your traditional Bible interpretations claim to have found in the scriptures, you should have no difficult articulating your FORMAL THEORY and tell us why and how your theory better explains the mountains of evidence we have available to us. As the old saying goes, "Put up or shut up."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Good enough! And I likewise have never heard a young earth creationist scientific explanation for special creation mostly because if it is true, then science cannot explain it since science can only deal with the natural order and "nature" is the sum total of the forms, forces, functions, their interactions and relative dependencies, etc. In other words it can only deal with what is less than God, in fact only parts of the universe from within it, and is limited by the extent of our human ability to perceive, and the sensitivity and designed purposes of our instrumentation, and so on.
So if special creation is actually what happened, it cannot possibly be described by science (but that would not mean it was not real)...Science just does not have the tools, just as it cannot answer questions about values, morals, and other aspects of reality, but I am so glad God gave us minds to explore and question this "nature" He has placed us in. Heck! Science cannot even explain why the kettle on my stove is boiling right now. That being said, the more science unfolds insight and heightens our understanding of things micro and macro the more complex we realize this creation actually is and I love all the insights, ideas, theories...they all make us think and question.
Now VS, since I am not a young earth creationist, might I ask what is your comprehensive theory that denies or negates the possibility of special creation? Please share....
I've heard a couple of interesting guesses from other brilliant scientists, but it would be interesting to know where you stand...thanks.
Paul
So if special creation is actually what happened, it cannot possibly be described by science (but that would not mean it was not real)...Science just does not have the tools, just as it cannot answer questions about values, morals, and other aspects of reality, but I am so glad God gave us minds to explore and question this "nature" He has placed us in. Heck! Science cannot even explain why the kettle on my stove is boiling right now. That being said, the more science unfolds insight and heightens our understanding of things micro and macro the more complex we realize this creation actually is and I love all the insights, ideas, theories...they all make us think and question.
Now VS, since I am not a young earth creationist, might I ask what is your comprehensive theory that denies or negates the possibility of special creation? Please share....
I've heard a couple of interesting guesses from other brilliant scientists, but it would be interesting to know where you stand...thanks.
Paul
Last edited:
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
1) You don't need to be a young earth creationist to propose a Comprehensive Theory of Creation. You either think it can constitute a scientific theory or you don't.
2) My acceptance of the Book of Genesis and the creation of the universe by the YHWH of the Bible is my THEOLOGY. Unlike many young earth creationists, I do NOT claim it is SCIENCE. I know and readily admit that I cannot propose a comprehensive theory of creation and I have no reason to do so. My theology is not a scientific theory. I can't explain the evidence in the universe using the scientific method and explain it by a scientific creation theory so I have no burden of proof. But "creation science" proponents DO have such a burden. If their view is SCIENCE, it has to conform to the scientific method. If it can't, it is simply a theological and/or philosophical view.
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
I'm still awaiting your explanation and defense of your many bombastic statements. Here's a reminder:
Just big talk?.....or did you mean every word of it?
I wrote:
How has Newtonian Mechanics become IRRELEVANT in our time? Unless you know a lot of people who regularly travel at close to the speed of light, the details which relativity theory brought to the relevant equations are largely irrelevant. Your statement SOUNDS like you are reinforcing the myth that new theories in modern science entirely nullify a prior theory. Newton's Laws of Motion continue to describe important important physics of our daily lives!
So please explain how Newtonian have become "mostly irrelevant in our time." I'm sure a lot of physics undergrads and their professors will be shocked at that news headline.
How has Newtonian Mechanics become IRRELEVANT in our time? Unless you know a lot of people who regularly travel at close to the speed of light, the details which relativity theory brought to the relevant equations are largely irrelevant. Your statement SOUNDS like you are reinforcing the myth that new theories in modern science entirely nullify a prior theory. Newton's Laws of Motion continue to describe important important physics of our daily lives!
So please explain how Newtonian have become "mostly irrelevant in our time." I'm sure a lot of physics undergrads and their professors will be shocked at that news headline.
Just big talk?.....or did you mean every word of it?
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
1) No. You've confused him with Kent Hovind. (In fact, Ken Ham denounced Hovind's bombastic wager/prize-money sham.)
2) Obviously, you are confusing the interpretations which take place daily in the frontiers of advancing science with the overwhelming evidence which support established theories such as The Theory of Evolution. Of course, that is Ken Ham's intention when he emphasizes the "same data; different interpretations and conclusions" mantra---and you clearly promote the same idea, regardless if you are well acquainted with him. Working hypotheses can depend upon subjective interpretations but established theories reach that status precisely BECAUSE there is overwhelming affirmation of the evidence and insignificant variant-interpretations. The goal for Ham and for you is to pretend that if someone were simply to possess a different world view, scientific theory would crumble because an entirely different interpretation of the data would emerge. THAT IS A MYTH.
Upvote
0
Paul wrote:
Again, that's for people who are actually doing competent work. As was pointed out, he couldn't even tell what kinds of rocks he was looking at, and any actual geologist reading his Po halo stuff could see that it was like an accountant talking about how a car engine might be failing to run because there isn't enough plutonium being delivered to the ramjet. It's obviously not a real hypothesis by a real researcher. I'm not sure how many times I have to point out this same answer.
Plus, as verysincere pointed out, more time would lead to a widening research field if it were real, not a deadening like we saw with Gentry's writings.
Then why is he making claims in the field of geology? The fact that he was esteemed as a physicist says nothing about his abilities as a geologist. He may well have been competent in physics - but his own writings show that he was a buffoon in geology, and we are talking about his writings in GEOLOGY.
1. You didn't answer my question before - do you seriously think it is a good idea to have your accountant do your brain surgery, on the basis that he's a competent accountant?
2. Did you, or did you not, read our repeated requests for any evidence that such paranoid delusions of "discimination" of Gentry are based on actual bias, as opposed to incompetent work, as has been pointed out repeatedly?
These defenders wrote about how good a geologist he was? links please. If they wrote about what a good physicist he was, or good person, or good accountant, they are irrelevant. Otherwise, we are back to your accountant doing brain surgery.
big surprise, he resorts to insulting me in place of making a rational argument.......
Well, they are the only people who are experts in geology. Sounds like we are back to going to your accountant for brain surgery.
The only way to support a YEC position is to ignore practically all the evidence. Why do you think I am a YEC?
And none of that is relevant in geology. I claimed he was an incompetent crackpot in geology - and his own claims prove that point. I did not claim he was an incompetent crackpot in physics - which is all your quotes above address. They are irrelevant.
I looked back and didn't see any matching citations. 3. Could you please repost the articles about geology by Gentry in Science and Nature? Or at least tell me what post # they were in?
It's a parody using real data, and hence proves a real point. 4. Can you show some reference or reason why you think it is "not really accurate"?
?? what are you trying to say here??
Common descent is more firmly proven than the idea that the Roman Empire actually existed. But if you have a problem with it, you are free to start a thread on it.
As pointed out before, he was treated appropriately based on incompetent work.
Of course it is. That's why people should be fired for incompetence, not for their character, and Gentry's experience showed what happens to people who publish incompentent work.
I have discussed it on many other threads. Maybe I'll do so again.
5. What examples do you really mean (with citations)? Do you mean the polystrate trees that you tried to pass off on very sincere and got caught doing so?
I don't support YEC. I'm still trying to see why you think I do.
Papias
Again, that's for people who are actually doing competent work. As was pointed out, he couldn't even tell what kinds of rocks he was looking at, and any actual geologist reading his Po halo stuff could see that it was like an accountant talking about how a car engine might be failing to run because there isn't enough plutonium being delivered to the ramjet. It's obviously not a real hypothesis by a real researcher. I'm not sure how many times I have to point out this same answer.
Plus, as verysincere pointed out, more time would lead to a widening research field if it were real, not a deadening like we saw with Gentry's writings.
Then why is he making claims in the field of geology? The fact that he was esteemed as a physicist says nothing about his abilities as a geologist. He may well have been competent in physics - but his own writings show that he was a buffoon in geology, and we are talking about his writings in GEOLOGY.
1. You didn't answer my question before - do you seriously think it is a good idea to have your accountant do your brain surgery, on the basis that he's a competent accountant?
2. Did you, or did you not, read our repeated requests for any evidence that such paranoid delusions of "discimination" of Gentry are based on actual bias, as opposed to incompetent work, as has been pointed out repeatedly?
These defenders wrote about how good a geologist he was? links please. If they wrote about what a good physicist he was, or good person, or good accountant, they are irrelevant. Otherwise, we are back to your accountant doing brain surgery.
big surprise, he resorts to insulting me in place of making a rational argument.......
Well, they are the only people who are experts in geology. Sounds like we are back to going to your accountant for brain surgery.
The only way to support a YEC position is to ignore practically all the evidence. Why do you think I am a YEC?
And none of that is relevant in geology. I claimed he was an incompetent crackpot in geology - and his own claims prove that point. I did not claim he was an incompetent crackpot in physics - which is all your quotes above address. They are irrelevant.
I looked back and didn't see any matching citations. 3. Could you please repost the articles about geology by Gentry in Science and Nature? Or at least tell me what post # they were in?
It's a parody using real data, and hence proves a real point. 4. Can you show some reference or reason why you think it is "not really accurate"?
?? what are you trying to say here??
Common descent is more firmly proven than the idea that the Roman Empire actually existed. But if you have a problem with it, you are free to start a thread on it.
As pointed out before, he was treated appropriately based on incompetent work.
Of course it is. That's why people should be fired for incompetence, not for their character, and Gentry's experience showed what happens to people who publish incompentent work.
I have discussed it on many other threads. Maybe I'll do so again.
A qualified biochemist has a lot to contribute to discussions of biochemisty of the brain, not to stuff outside of that, which contradict the experts. This goes back to question #1.
5. What examples do you really mean (with citations)? Do you mean the polystrate trees that you tried to pass off on very sincere and got caught doing so?
I don't support YEC. I'm still trying to see why you think I do.
Papias
Upvote
0
Similar threads
