Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

[samaus12345]

Russel Humphreys.

"In 1983, on the basis of Scriptures implying the original created material of the earth was water, I proposed that God created the water with the spins of its hydrogen nuclei initially aligned in one direction (Humphreys, 1983). That would produce a strong magnetic field. After 6,000 years of decay, including energy losses from magnetic reversals during the Genesis Flood, (Humphreys, 1986a, 1990c) the strength of the earth's magnetic field would be what we observe today. In 1984 I extended the theory to the other planets of the solar system, the Sun, and the Moon (Humphreys, 1984). The theory explained the observed magnetic field strengths of those bodies very well. It also correctly predicted the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune measured by the Voyager 2 spacecraft several years later, (Humphreys, 1986b, 1990a, b) as well as magnetizations of surface rocks on Mars (Humphreys, 1999)."

The Creation of Cosmic Magnetic Fields

He accurately predicted the magnetic fields of two planets based on his creation model.

There is a astronomer/physicist named Jason Lisle who is a YEC he has some interesting material on youtube. Also thermodynamics isnt good for evolution, no science is. For evolution to be true we need an increase in complexity, from nowhere, caused by nothing. As seen in the above paper these problems are dealt/dealt away with by assigning them to the unobserved past. Also do you read Hugh Ross's stuff? I havnt read any....

 

[NGC 6712]

Russel Humphreys.

"In 1983, on the basis of Scriptures implying the original created material of the earth was water, I proposed that God created the water with the spins of its hydrogen nuclei initially aligned in one direction (Humphreys, 1983). That would produce a strong magnetic field. After 6,000 years of decay, including energy losses from magnetic reversals during the Genesis Flood, (Humphreys, 1986a, 1990c) the strength of the earth's magnetic field would be what we observe today. In 1984 I extended the theory to the other planets of the solar system, the Sun, and the Moon (Humphreys, 1984). The theory explained the observed magnetic field strengths of those bodies very well. It also correctly predicted the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune measured by the Voyager 2 spacecraft several years later, (Humphreys, 1986b, 1990a, b) as well as magnetizations of surface rocks on Mars (Humphreys, 1999)."

The Creation of Cosmic Magnetic Fields

He accurately predicted the magnetic fields of two planets based on his creation model.

There is a astronomer/physicist named Jason Lisle who is a YEC he has some interesting material on youtube. Also thermodynamics isnt good for evolution, no science is. For evolution to be true we need an increase in complexity, from nowhere, caused by nothing. As seen in the above paper these problems are dealt/dealt away with by assigning them to the unobserved past. Also do you read Hugh Ross's stuff? I havnt read any....

Do you have actual references to Humphreys papers? Because I hope it is more scientifically credible than his pathetic attempts at General Relativity in "Starlight and Time" where he showed he was mathematically inept.

 

[samaus12345]

There was the full article in that link. What is your personal faith based belief when it comes to origins? By the way when you say dark matter has been observed please do elaborate?

 

[NGC 6712]

By the way when you say dark matter has been observed please do elaborate?

What is your definition of observed? (This is not a trivial question by the way)

 

[samaus12345]

Inference-this is a slippery term. I can "infer" an invisible alien in my room (like Sagans dragon) impervious to all observational instruments man has if i want. If someone finds an anomaly in something then one person can have one "inference" for it (dark matter) and someone can have something else (like teslas and einsteins ether). Please cite me a literature article on dark matter as i am interested. Do you read Hugh Ross's books y/n?

 

[NGC 6712]

Inference-this is a slippery term. I can "infer" an invisible alien in my room (like Sagans dragon) impervious to all observational instruments man has if i want. If someone finds an anomaly in something then one person can have one "inference" for it (dark matter) and someone can have something else (like teslas and einsteins ether). Please cite me a literature article on dark matter as i am interested. Do you read Hugh Ross's books y/n?

I am tired at the moment - but I am puzzled by your post nonetheless. Where did I use the term inference?

I assume you are addressing me.

I am sure Wikipedia has a dark matter page.

I know of Hugh Ross - not impressed.

 

[samaus12345]

When i say literature i mean peer reviewed literature relevant to whatever field we are talking about. Are you John Herschel? Do you believe genesis y/n? I found articles by einstein the other day that were FASCINATING about ether. I will look again and link it...

 

[Martyrs44]

Well considering it is a claim that the video that was posted with Dawkins a while back was a quote mine it's

Forget the quote mine stuff. I am only interested in how Dawkins responded. He was clearly caught with his breeches down.

Did God give us a historical account of material creation though?

Have you ever read Genesis 1? Seriously.

You mean quote mine his famous 1866 paper.

Quote mine? You mean a 'quote mine' like this:

"Gärtner, by the results of theses transformation experiments, was

led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability
of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation.
He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into
another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond
which they cannot change. Although this opinion cannot be
unconditionally accepted we find on the other hand in Gärtner’s
experiments a noteworthy confirmation of that supposition regarding
variability of cultivated plants which has already been expressed.​

Among the experimental species there were cultivated plants,​

such as

​

Aquilegia atropurpurea and canadensis, Dianthus​

caryophyllus​

​

​

, chinensis, and japonicus, Nicotiana rustica and

paniculata​

​

, and hybrids between these species lost none of their
stability after four or five generations.
(Mendels paper, 1866)​

And in many generations since Mendel that stasis has been observed without interruption. No evolution. Look, O skeptical one, Mendel was a Roman Catholic priest. The position of the Catholic church in 1866 was six-day creationism. So don't give me any nonsense that Mendel was on Darwins side of things. He wasn't.​

Mendel stated variation...that's variation within the kind just as creationists hold to.​

Well no they don't tell me one way or the other whether they were literal-historic accounts, only that they were known shared stories, I could just as easily talk about Harry Potter and his battle against Voldemort and draw parallels with the Easter account. In all of the references of the OT characters they are used as teaching aids in the NT, this does not mean that they are literal.

"...and Enoch the seventh from Adam." What does this tell you?​

Adam is listed in Jesus family lineage in Luke 3. What does that tell you?​

Do you realize that unless that family lineage is correct and legitimate that Jesus Christ has no legal right to the throne of David? So what does that tell you about the historical validity of Genesis?​

I do care what they said...

Convince me. Answer what I just posed to you above.​

I care about figuring out what they were originally writing about and material creation is not it when it comes to Gen1:1-2:4, it's a temple cosmogony text, I started seeing this well before I became a theistic evolutionist, it's what helped me realise that theistic evolution is compatible with the Gen1 account.

What you care about is making sure your 'faith' is compatable with neo-Darwinian philosopy. Moses and the other authors who touched on and verified what Genesis said about creation takes a back seat when stacked up against Darwin.​

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11​

 

[Keachian]

I don't have time to answer your whole post before scooting out the door for service, so I'll just answer this much.

What you care about is making sure your 'faith' is compatable with neo-Darwinian philosopy. Moses and the other authors who touched on and verified what Genesis said about creation takes a back seat when stacked up against Darwin.

"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Exodus 20:11

I'm not really sure what neo-darwinian philosophy is, I looked up neo-darwinism and according to wikipedia it is:

Neo-Darwinism is the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics

Mendelian genetics... I wonder who discovered those?
But in any case evolution could be disproven and I would stick to my current understanding of the narrative. At this point in time I'm far more interested in studying into Ancient Near East thought and the implications thereof, I make this the groundwork for the acceptance of quite a lot of things. Basically I want to think like a 1st Century Jew with all the knowledge of the current age, I'm not there yet but Lord willing, I'll be there at some point, that is if he doesn't have other things planned for me.

 

[Martyrs44]

I don't have time to answer your whole post before scooting out the door for service, so I'll just answer this much.

I'm not really sure what neo-darwinian philosophy is, I looked up neo-darwinism and according to wikipedia it is:

Mendelian genetics... I wonder who discovered those?
But in any case evolution could be disproven and I would stick to my current understanding of the narrative. At this point in time I'm far more interested in studying into Ancient Near East thought and the implications thereof...

Perhaps that's a good idea since you aren't even willing to deal with the simple questions I posed above.

 

[Metal Minister]

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons," The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31

Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.
R.E. Dickerson, J. Molecular Evolution, 34:277, 1992; Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 44:137-138, 1992

This is why I say its very hard to give scientists the botd, its why I say to question every aspect of every "theory" they come up with.

 

[Martyrs44]

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons," The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31

Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule: Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.
R.E. Dickerson, J. Molecular Evolution, 34:277, 1992; Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 44:137-138, 1992

This is why I say its very hard to give scientists the botd, its why I say to question every aspect of every "theory" they come up with.

Excellent quotes, friend. Perhaps it will do some searching soul some good but don't count on the die-hards on CF to favor it.

 

[samaus12345]

yes good quotes lol. Heres the truth about "quote mining" and "evolution". It is satan getting people to put there hands over there eyes and fingers in their ears and going lalalalalala things just have the "appearance" of design lalalalala Dawkins- "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" lol

 

[Martyrs44]

Dawkins- "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" lol

Gasp! You just quote mined! I am going to report you to ....sir Richard!

Ha, ha, ha, ha.

 

[Metal Minister]

Rotfl to both of you! Yes, and I made extra special sure to put where the quotes are from this time so as to not upset certain posters here

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[samaus12345]

lolz

 

[renewed21]

I have a better question. Do you know anything about thermodynamics?

Because that might be a first (apart from myself) on this forum.

(Apologies to someone else who does know something about it)

Yes. Please continue. Thanks.

 

[Papias]

MM wrote:

Ok, I will admit, I used that from AIG but plagiarism was not my intent. As I said, it has been difficult to differentiate between our posts, and have taken to copying to my notepad, placing my answers, and then pasting them into a post. On this instance I missed the url in the transfer.

If you paid any attention you would have seen the obvious change in writing styles, but as you've done on numerous occasions you tried to attack the messenger rather than refute the message Automatically assuming I'm plagiarising something is not only offensive, it shows how disingenuous you've been about this discussion. So yes, our discussion is done. I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone who would accuse me of something like this without even bothering to find out if it was plagiarism or a simple mistake. Expect to be placed on my ignore list.

Apology accepted, gratuitous insults ignored. At least you didn't try to defend plagiarizing as an acceptable practice, as some have done in defending the practice of quotemining.

Papias

 

[Keachian]

Forget the quote mine stuff. I am only interested in how Dawkins responded. He was clearly caught with his breeches down.

To me it looks as if Dawkins was angry at the interviewers because it became apparent to him that they had started the interview under false pretenses.

Have you ever read Genesis 1? Seriously.

Have you read this thread through entirely?
starting at this post:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7658942-8/#post60691620
I have an amicable discussion with Metal Minister about the genesis 1 text.

Quote mine? You mean a 'quote mine' like this:
<snip>

And in many generations since Mendel that stasis has been observed without interruption. No evolution. Look, O skeptical one, Mendel was a Roman Catholic priest. The position of the Catholic church in 1866 was six-day creationism. So don't give me any nonsense that Mendel was on Darwins side of things. He wasn't.​

Mendel stated variation...that's variation within the kind just as creationists hold to.​

Well if you're only going to post the closing comment where he sums up another's point of view then of course you are misrepresenting what he said. The use of this summation of Gartner's work doesn't actually lead me one way or the other as to whether Mendel agrees with Gartner.

"...and Enoch the seventh from Adam." What does this tell you?​

Adam is listed in Jesus family lineage in Luke 3. What does that tell you?​

Do you realize that unless that family lineage is correct and legitimate that Jesus Christ has no legal right to the throne of David? So what does that tell you about the historical validity of Genesis?​

Again where have I claimed non-historical figures for Enoch or Adam? I'm a theistic evolutionist with a literal Adam, on the other hand I'd contend that Luke was making a theological point that Jesus is not just the promised one of those of Abrahamic descent but the saviour of everyone. He has already dealt with Jesus being the rightful heir of David as soon as the genealogy gets to David, the point of continuing past David in both of the NT genealogies is theological not legal.

Perhaps that's a good idea since you aren't even willing to deal with the simple questions I posed above.

Any other questions I haven't answered, do please post them, I was in a rush to get to Church, I do so like the insinuation that my continuation of this conversation is somehow more important than my service to God.

 

[samaus12345]

Progmonk email your local/countries genome research institute (google whatever state/country your in "genome research institute") ask them "Hi im interested to know can you please tell me of evidence for human "evolution" and if possible can you please tell me of a literature article on it? Thanks". Post it.