The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Seems to me it is you who are just saying "We are right, you are wrong".

No, I'm saying "We can show we are right, you can't"

wolfsbane wrote:

You refuse to acknowledge that any scientific argument has been made by creationists

Creationists have never made a scientific argument. When they do science will respond.

wolfsbane wrote:

, despite all the material that is available on the internet sites I have repeatedly listed, and JC's patient detailed explanations.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there is very little science to be found on any of these websites.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you wouldn't actually know what it looked like if you found it, rather than assume that you like JC, are simply ignoring the reality of the situation.

wolfsbane wrote:

Of course you may say these are faulty scientific arguments, their maths or chemistry or whatever mistaken, but you cannot honestly claim they are not scientific arguments.

I can claim they are not scientific argument because they are not scientific arguments.

A scientific argument is a specific thing. It is not simply saying "We think that spiral galaxies mean the universe is quite young" That is an argument, it is not a scientific argument.

wolfsbane wrote:

For example of scientific arguments: http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

Ok lets take one of these "scientific" papers shall we. Say

ACCELERATED DECAY: THEORETICAL MODELS - Chaffin

Well it certainly looks very scientific. Look he has charts and graphs and fancy mathematics all over the place.

But lets skip down to the end and have a look at these lines

"Because of our interest in explaining radioisotope data in terms of a young earth, we may think as follows. If, over the early history of the universe, the radius of compact dimensions should change, then so would the mass scale MR, and hence the value of the Fermi constant."

Oh no

And he was doing so well...

Chaffin is basically saying that if the universe straight after God made it didn't work as it does now it is possible that things didn't work back then as they do now. Well d'uh

Is this a scientific argument? No, its utter nonsense. You might as well say that if the laws of physics were different then the laws of physics would be different.

Has Chaffin put foward a model of what the universe should look like if these fundamental forces were different? No.

Has Chaffin explained why his conclusions don't fit modern scientific models? No (though he hopes that the LHC will, but I doubt he will accept it if they don't)

Has he constructed any model of what this conclusions mean? No

He has simply said, in a very "scientific" looking paper, that if the laws of nature were different then the results of the laws of nature would be different. He hasn't even said how different they would be

Don't be fooled Wolfsbane by the fancy charts and mathematics. This isn't science.

wolfsbane wrote:

I would have though one could predict many things: that sedimentary deposits will be found in even the highest altitudes;

There is no model ever constructed that explains how flood water can made sedimentary rock, let alone explain how such sedimentary rock is found at high altitudes

Which brings us nicely to your computer "models"

Lets look at how these scientists have actually set up these models

Lets see how these "models" are set up

Firstly all continents were together as one (Pangaea as it is known to geologists). Why assume this? Because the model won't produce the results the Creationists want otherwise.

Secondly for this model to work there must be a process called "runaway subduction" working, where the heat generated by the movement of the plates gives energy to future movement. Run away subduction is nonsense, it has been shown not to be possible, yet it is included in the model "as is" rather than being simulated. This has been pointed out to, Baumgardner a number of times since his 1965 (yes, 47 years ago) model but he simply ignores it.

Thirdly the models all rely on God to kick things off. How do you model God? Surely you can get God to do what ever you want him to do in your model to produce any results you want?

If you set up the model any way you want to produce the results you want you are not modeling something scientifically

A scientific computer model is one where you put in the data and you see what comes out, not one where you set up what you want to come out and then put in what ever data you think will produce such a result.

In fact look at what one of the papers says -

"Any flood model must begin by speculating on the nature of the pre-Flood world. Virtually every flood event and product is in some way or another affected by characteristics of the pre-Flood world."

Non-creationists translation? We have to make up what goes into our model, ignoring any evidence to the contrary since it is all "speculation"

wolfsbane wrote:

They seem pretty uptight about it to me.

Only when Creationists go for the school boards ...

wolfsbane wrote:

They spend a lot of time 'targeting' anyone who will listen, be they scientists, educators, or the ordinary citizen.

No they don't. They target specific areas in an effort to go around normal science. They even admit to this. Have a read about the "Wedge Strategy"

wolfsbane wrote:

They want to offer scientific argument to support their alternative and to refute evolution.

Then why don't they? Where are the papers Wolfsbane, where are the papers?

wolfsbane wrote:

They do not get a ready access to academia, so often their efforts are seen in the other venues.

That is what happens when you don't do science. Its call standards. They don't let brick layers teach economics in Harvard either :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote:

Not when it points them to the Judge of all the earth. If it pointed to the god of popular sentiment (we all go to heaven when we die, except maybe the real baddies), then what you say would be true.

Spare me the "true Christian" malarkey Wolfsbane.

What? so now scientists, even the very religious ones, ignore on purpose Creationism because they aren't proper Christians and they don't want to face your proper idea of God? :rolleyes:

Seriously, can you do anything except invoke the conspiracy theory when ever you run into a brick wall.

wolfsbane wrote:

Creationism doesn't offer that option.

So you admit that Creationism is a religious doctrine, not a scientific one?

wolfsbane wrote:

They do set up groups to further their program; they do set up websites; they do inform parents about what their kids are taught and challenge educators and government to be open and fair in their treatment of scientific debate; they do scream persecution when they experience it. But they also do the scientific research and argument.

If they did the last bit they wouldn't have to do any of the other bits :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I love his references..

You will notice that most of them are at least 10 and some times 20 or 30 years older than the date of the paper, which was 1998.

Creationists tend to not like up to date research, since finding out new things tends to get in the way of their "comfort zone of ignorance"

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

You will notice that most of them are at least 10 and some times 20 or 30 years older than the date of the paper, which was 1998.

Creationists tend to not like up to date research, since finding out new things tends to get in the way of their "comfort zone of ignorance"

Could have been worse. A lot of their stuff references hundred year old papers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Could have been worse. A lot of their stuff references hundred year old papers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

True, like the statistics from the 17th century that show light is slowing down :rolleyes:

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

Of course you may say these are faulty scientific arguments, their maths or chemistry or whatever mistaken, but you cannot honestly claim they are not scientific arguments.

Can you define what, by your standards, a scientific argument is.

I'm not asking for examples. I don't want you to point to some website and say "this is one".

I'm asking for what an argument has to entail to be considered scientific in nature.

Is it sufficient to simply form an argument, backed by some math?
Do the assumptions on which the argument rests have to be valid? Do they have to be verifiable? Falsifiable?
What of the conclusions? Should they be testable?

I'm asking because I'm trying to avoid a continuation of this Punch-and-Judy show.

The proponents of the creationists insist there's some bias against their perfectly-valid scientific research and that the science-supporters are just saying "oh no it isn't".

The supporters of the scientific community, on the other hand, insit they explaining why it isn't, and are claiming that the pro-creationists are simply saying "oh yes it is".

So lets try a different tack. Let the creationist-supporter explain what constitutes science. Once they can get agreement from the creationist-opposer, then let them present a single paper and show how it meets the agreed-upon criteria.

On the other hand, if there is a disagreement between the "creationism is science" camp and the "creationism is not science" camp in terms of what constitutes scientific work.....well....then there's no point in continuing.

I'm not interested in anti-creationist people explaining why they think the pro-creationists won't go for this. Its a simple challenge....if you claim to understand what constitutes scientific work well enough to argue that creationists engage in it, then you can explain what constitutes scientific work.

JC claims to be a scientist, so he has no excuse not to be able to manage this one. Wolfbane admits to being less well versed, but still seems to argue that this stuff is science....

so what about it guys....can you explain what science is, without engaging in pro-creationism or anti-evolutionary side-commentary. Just explain the features that scientific work needs to have and why.

bonkey

Having just written that...I'm pretty sure I issued this challenge before and got no takers.

Oh well...second time lucky.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Groan ...

Firstly that isn't a scientific paper, it is review. These are quire different.

I never said it was; I said, but you may find this article of interest.

Notice that this takes the predictable Creationists form of simply attacking the current scientific model of galaxies. Faulkner doesn't put forward a model of a galaxy that would actually fit with "recent origin", nor does the paper he links to further on.

Here's one that even I know of:
Humphreys, D. R., 1994. Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of
Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, Green Forest,
Arkansas.

I don't know if it availble for free on the net, but there are several debates regarding it there:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

This especially should be of interest: New Vistas of Space-Time
Rebut the Critics D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage2.pdf

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

I never said it was; I said, but you may find this article of interest.

Well Son was looking for scientific papers, you didn't give him one, so I imagine he didn't find it interesting.

wolfsbane wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

Here's one that even I know of:
Humphreys, D. R., 1994. Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of
Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, Master Books, Green Forest,
Arkansas.

Again, guessing, not science.

For most of this Humphreys requires God do either do something to cause something to happen, or God to do something to stop something happen.

You cannot model God. And simply invoking "God did it" when ever you cannot explain something is not science.

One also wonders why one would feel the need to do this in the first place. Humphrey's, like all Creationists, is trying to prove something he has already accepted, that being that the Biblical account of creation must be true.

I think I better wait for you to answer Bonkey, because this nonsense is going no where.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Chaffin is basically saying that if the universe straight after God made it didn't work as it does now it is possible that things didn't work back then as they do now. Well d'uh

Is this a scientific argument? No, its utter nonsense. You might as well say that if the laws of physics were different then the laws of physics would be different.

Not really. He is saying that different conditions might cause what we now regard as a constant to be different. Is that not similar to the difference between classical and quantum physics?

There is no model ever constructed that explains how flood water can made sedimentary rock, let alone explain how such sedimentary rock is found at high altitudes

Really? I'm a scientific ignoramous, but even so I would think flood water that lay for a year or more would deposit sediment. Ah, well, so much for common sense.

I'm also amazed to know there is no sedimentary rock found at high altitudes (or are you saying there are, but no one has ever modeled an explanation?).

Firstly all continents were together as one (Pangaea as it is known to geologists). Why assume this? Because the model won't produce the results the Creationists want otherwise.

So models are to be set up without assumptions? One shouldn't say, 'Let's assume the Moon derived from the Earth and set up a model to see if we can explain how it happened'?

Secondly for this model to work there must be a process called "runaway subduction" working, where the heat generated by the movement of the plates gives energy to future movement.

Yes, that would be part of the model.

Run away subduction is nonsense, it has been shown not to be possible,

Is that another absolutely sure fact? Not one that may be accepted by most today, then rejected by the same people tomorrow when new evidence disproves it?

Thirdly the models all rely on God to kick things off. How do you model God? Surely you can get God to do what ever you want him to do in your model to produce any results you want?

The scientific model says nothing about the first cause of the Flood.

If you set up the model any way you want to produce the results you want you are not modeling something scientifically

To discover if one's theory is correct, a model is set up. From the physics, etc. that we know, we try to see if we can offer a coherent explanation for the evidence before us.

A scientific computer model is one where you put in the data and you see what comes out, not one where you set up what you want to come out and then put in what ever data you think will produce such a result.

The trouble with a data-only model, it seems to me in my simplicity, is that data can lead to a very wide range of possible causes. One needs to test what seem the most likely to begin with. for example, the presense of dog-dirt on my shoe would have much data associated with it. But to establish how it got there I would need to test several models at least: I walked on it coming home; someone put it on them as a joke when I was asleep; a dog messed in the bedroom where I have just changed and I trod on it, etc. I can fairly safely rule out it being made that way and I hadn't noticed before; Wicknight found out my identity and called around to express his distain for my arguments; my daughter is entering it for an art exhibition. So we model for the likelier ones first. The likelier ones are determined in our minds by all the information we have accepted from life.

More later.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

This especially should be of interest: New Vistas of Space-Time
Rebut the Critics D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage2.pdf

Okay, at least here, the person actually knows something and he is employing fairly complicated ideas such as signature change. There are two problems:

1. He doesn't give predictions that are detailed enough. For instance, does this reproduce the CMB?
2. Possibly more bizarre, he is using a metric in which the universe has always existed without a moment of creation.

He also makes occasional errors such as forgetting that coordinates do not fully specify the manifold. This combined with his sporadic use of advanced topics indicates that he quickly read some accounts of GR without fully digesting them.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Not really. He is saying that different conditions might cause what we now regard as a constant to be different.

Of course it would. But he is guessing at the "different conditions". Why?

wolfsbane wrote:

Is that not similar to the difference between classical and quantum physics?

No, its not :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote:

Really? I'm a scientific ignoramous, but even so I would think flood water that lay for a year or more would deposit sediment. Ah, well, so much for common sense.

Do you understand what sedimentary rock is?

Show me a lake or other large body of water that produced sedimentary rock within a year.

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm also amazed to know there is no sedimentary rock found at high altitudes (or are you saying there are, but no one has ever modeled an explanation?).

Show me the Creationist model that explains how a biblical flood produces high altitude sedimentary rock.

If the Creationists explanation is that the pressure from the water above the sediment produced the rock how tall was this body of water???

wolfsbane wrote:

So models are to be set up without assumptions? One shouldn't say, 'Let's assume the Moon derived from the Earth and set up a model to see if we can explain how it happened'?

I think you are getting a bit confused there. If you have already assumed that the Moon came from the Earth what would be the point of setting up a model to try and show that the Moon came from the Earth?

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, that would be part of the model.

Does the fact that run away subduction doesn't work itself not mean it is a bad idea to form model using it as a element of the model?

wolfsbane wrote:

Is that another absolutely sure fact? Not one that may be accepted by most today, then rejected by the same people tomorrow when new evidence disproves it?

Ah yes, you are doing what a lot of Creationists do. Continue to use something that has been shown to not work in the hope that some day down the line this will be over turned.

But why are you doing that Wolfsbane. It isn't science. Could it be that you are attempting to show something that you have already made your mind up about?

Its kinda like continuing to wait for a bus that has been cancelled in the hope that they will un-cancel it. One has to wonder why you would do that.

wolfsbane wrote:

The scientific model says nothing about the first cause of the Flood.

Then how do you model its effect on the Earth before the flood?

For example, where did the flood start? And how powerful was it?

wolfsbane wrote:

To discover if one's theory is correct, a model is set up. From the physics, etc. that we know, we try to see if we can offer a coherent explanation for the evidence before us.

If you have already decided on the answer you want, and you set the model up to always give you the answer you want this would seem to be a rather pointless exercise.

Do you have an example of a Creationists argument where the result was that there wasn't actually a flood? I seriously doubt it, for some reason :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote:

The trouble with a data-only model, it seems to me in my simplicity, is that data can lead to a very wide range of possible causes. One needs to test what seem the most likely to begin with.

Is the "most likely" not that there wasn't a world wide supernatural flood of water that goes against all known physical laws of nature? ... just an idea :rolleyes:

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

The trouble with a data-only model, it seems to me in my simplicity, is that data can lead to a very wide range of possible causes. One needs to test what seem the most likely to begin with. for example, the presense of dog-dirt on my shoe would have much data associated with it. But to establish how it got there I would need to test several models at least: I walked on it coming home; someone put it on them as a joke when I was asleep; a dog messed in the bedroom where I have just changed and I trod on it, etc. I can fairly safely rule out it being made that way and I hadn't noticed before; Wicknight found out my identity and called around to express his distain for my arguments; my daughter is entering it for an art exhibition. So we model for the likelier ones first. The likelier ones are determined in our minds by all the information we have accepted from life.

The situations aren't that similar. Cosmology and the behaviour of spacetime are highly non-linear and a few facts are enough to single out one theory above others. Explaining an event, such as the one above, is not the same as there is too much dispersion. There is a large amount of possible causes for the event. In Cosmology what you are looking for is not causes, but the actual laws of dynamics.

In other words:
1. With what set of laws is what we see today consistent?
2. What do the laws which are consistent say about the past?

It is very hard to prevent General Relativity from retrodicting a Big Bang and we know GR is the only consistent, empirically correct relativistic theory of gravity.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm a scientific ignoramous,

Do you bear this in mind this each time you try to make an argument that something is scientific?

I'm also amazed to know there is no sedimentary rock found at high altitudes (or are you saying there are, but no one has ever modeled an explanation?).

Lets say there is such rock found at high altitude.

Just for argument sake, lets say that its found amidst the peaks of the Alps.

The Alps were formed in stages between 300 and 100 million years ago. Some of what formed the alps was previously ocean. Life predates the formation of the Alps by billions of years.

Now...seriously...are you telling me that you can't possibly envisage a conventional scientific model which would explain how sedimentary rock might just have gotten to the tops of the alps?

What I believe Wick is arguing is that there is no Young Earth model which can explain this and which could also be considered scientific.

There's YEC flight-of-fancy models where the world (except for Mount Ararat, of course) is flat for the flood, and the Alps etc. all formed in a handful of years afterwards...but these are all just attempts to say "yes, the scientific model is fundametnally correct, except it all happened inside a handful of years, rather than over a period of billions of years whilst ignoring the impossibilities that such a ludicrous claim entails.

One shouldn't say, 'Let's assume the Moon derived from the Earth and set up a model to see if we can explain how it happened'?

That depends. You can say that, but that doesn't make your work scientific. Its how you progress from there that counts.

Which brings us back to you clearing up what you understand by something being scientific. Gonna take that one on?

Is that another absolutely sure fact? Not one that may be accepted by most today, then rejected by the same people tomorrow when new evidence disproves it?

Do you think this is a reasonable approach to take with regards to science - that because something might be shown to be incorrect at some point, that we can assume it is incorrect?

The concept of falsifiability is a central strength of the scientific method for a reason. I would be highly suspect of any argument - such as yours - which appears to be throwing that out the window.

To discover if one's theory is correct, a model is set up. From the physics, etc. that we know, we try to see if we can offer a coherent explanation for the evidence before us.

And yet, only a (virtual) moment ago, you asked if inconvenient physics which showed an incoherency was something "that may be accepted by most today, then rejected by the same people tomorrow when new evidence disproves it?"

Do you not see a problem with this?

How can you argue, on one hand, that the purpose of a model is to produce a coherent explanation, whilst on the other hand questioning if incoherencies are really significant because it could be the established theory which is wrong, rather than the unestablished assumption.

for example, the presense of dog-dirt on my shoe would have much data associated with it. But to establish how it got there I would need to test several models at least: I walked on it coming home; someone put it on them as a joke when I was asleep; a dog messed in the bedroom where I have just changed and I trod on it, etc. I can fairly safely rule out it being made that way and I hadn't noticed before;

Would you agree that if the dog-dirt was dried-in, it would be reasonable to assume you hadn't walked in a fresh "sample" just before coming through the front door 30 seconds ago?

Or would you argue that it was possible that all of our understanding about how such things dry was wrong, and that its possible that you walked in a fresh pile only 10 seconds ago?

Would you then go on to argue that because its not an absolutely certain fact that dog-dirt takes a minimum of whatever-the-established-minimum-is to form, that it could, in fact, be total fiction dreamed up by a conspiracy of scientists who are somehow biased against wearers of your type of shoe, and that your 5-second-drying "model" was just as valid a scientific model as theirs?

In fact, given the differences in timescales of the respective models, it would be more accurate to say you had noticed the dried dog-dirt on your foot and your model was that you had just lifted your foot out of dog-dirt which should be still right there, but wasn't, that the conditions around your foot just at that moment in time were special, causing it to dry immediately, but that your theory couldn't be tested because those special conditions were gone - the only trace fo their existence being the seconds-old-but-miraculously-dried dog-poo on your shoe.

Because thats the type of difference we're talking about here if you want to argue that "of course we need different models".

We do need different models, but a model which invokes non-falsifiable conditions and arbitrarily rejects established science because its inconvenient ain't one of them.

Ah, well, so much for common sense.

You tell me - is the seconds-old model of dried-dog-dirt common sense?

If not, then ask yourself how mountains such as the Alps and the Himalayas forming in a handful of years is common sense.

Ask yourself how throwing out what doesn't conform to the conclusion you want and then concluding that because whats left is a good fit you have a strong case is common sense.

Common sense - like established science - seems to be something you can dispense with whenever it suits, yet appeal to the authority of when that is of greater utility.

Zombrex

Excellent post, particularly the instant drying "young origin" dog dirt bit

wolfsbane

bonkey makes an excellent suggestion to avoid us chasing our tails:

Can you define what, by your standards, a scientific argument is.

I'm not asking for examples. I don't want you to point to some website and say "this is one".

I'm asking for what an argument has to entail to be considered scientific in nature.

Is it sufficient to simply form an argument, backed by some math?
Do the assumptions on which the argument rests have to be valid? Do they have to be verifiable? Falsifiable?
What of the conclusions? Should they be testable?

I'm asking because I'm trying to avoid a continuation of this Punch-and-Judy show.

The proponents of the creationists insist there's some bias against their perfectly-valid scientific research and that the science-supporters are just saying "oh no it isn't".

The supporters of the scientific community, on the other hand, insit they explaining why it isn't, and are claiming that the pro-creationists are simply saying "oh yes it is".

So lets try a different tack. Let the creationist-supporter explain what constitutes science. Once they can get agreement from the creationist-opposer, then let them present a single paper and show how it meets the agreed-upon criteria.

On the other hand, if there is a disagreement between the "creationism is science" camp and the "creationism is not science" camp in terms of what constitutes scientific work.....well....then there's no point in continuing.

I'm not interested in anti-creationist people explaining why they think the pro-creationists won't go for this. Its a simple challenge....if you claim to understand what constitutes scientific work well enough to argue that creationists engage in it, then you can explain what constitutes scientific work.

JC claims to be a scientist, so he has no excuse not to be able to manage this one. Wolfbane admits to being less well versed, but still seems to argue that this stuff is science....

so what about it guys....can you explain what science is, without engaging in pro-creationism or anti-evolutionary side-commentary. Just explain the features that scientific work needs to have and why.

I'm sure JC will oblige with his professional input, but here goes for the layman:

Is it sufficient to simply form an argument, backed by some math?

I wouldn't think that would be enough.

Do the assumptions on which the argument rests have to be valid? Do they have to be verifiable? Falsifiable?
What of the conclusions? Should they be testable?

Yes, that seems correct to me.

Would you agree that the purpose of science is to understand reality through explanations? And a characteristic method of criticism used in science is experimental testing?

Bear with me in my ignorance of terminology. What assumptions underlie the arguments for evolution/mature biosphere (creationism)? Are they valid? Verifiable? Falsifiable? Are their conclusions testable?

Perhaps you could sketch that out for me so that I may be able to see the differences?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Perhaps you could sketch that out for me so that I may be able to see the differences?

How would a Young Earth Creationist demonstrate the that God did not create a mature Earth 10,000 years ago?

They don't have to do it, but it must be possible that they could.

That goes to the heart of falsifiability.

What test or tests (experiments) used by Young Earth Creationts to support the idea that God created a mature Earth 10,000 years ago that can be done by anyone any where that will produce the same results with out requiring faith in a particular religious outlook?

It must be possible that a completely independent source can carry out the same test and produce the same results.

That goes to the heart of verifiability.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm a scientific ignoramous,


Do you bear this in mind this each time you try to make an argument that something is scientific?

Always. If qualified scientists have not used my argument, I would not advance it as such. Doesn't make it necessarily true, but it removes it beyond ignorant speculation.

Quote:
I'm also amazed to know there is no sedimentary rock found at high altitudes (or are you saying there are, but no one has ever modeled an explanation?).


Lets say there is such rock found at high altitude.

Wicknight denies it - that's what surprised me.

Just for argument sake, lets say that its found amidst the peaks of the Alps.

The Alps were formed in stages between 300 and 100 million years ago. Some of what formed the alps was previously ocean. Life predates the formation of the Alps by billions of years.

Now...seriously...are you telling me that you can't possibly envisage a conventional scientific model which would explain how sedimentary rock might just have gotten to the tops of the alps?

Never said there wasn't. I'm quite sure I recall Scofflaw explaining it in terms of uplift. But Wicknight knows it is not so.

What I believe Wick is arguing is that there is no Young Earth model which can explain this and which could also be considered scientific.

If he had said that, I would not have been so surprised. I would have pointed him to creationist models that account for high altitude sediments. He of course then would not have considered them scientific.

Quote:
One shouldn't say, 'Let's assume the Moon derived from the Earth and set up a model to see if we can explain how it happened'?


That depends. You can say that, but that doesn't make your work scientific. Its how you progress from there that counts.

Certainly. But Wicknight's argument was that models must be based on data, rather than data being used to confirm/refute the model. I was saying the model is imagined as a possible explanation for the data, then all the data is inputed and we see if it tallies (pardon the simplistic account).

Quote:
Is that another absolutely sure fact? Not one that may be accepted by most today, then rejected by the same people tomorrow when new evidence disproves it?


Do you think this is a reasonable approach to take with regards to science - that because something might be shown to be incorrect at some point, that we can assume it is incorrect?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying one should not be so certain an argument is wrong based on a 'fact' that has not been so certainly determined as to be beyond doubt. I was asking if runaway subduction is know to be false with such certainty.

And yet, only a (virtual) moment ago, you asked if inconvenient physics which showed an incoherency was something "that may be accepted by most today, then rejected by the same people tomorrow when new evidence disproves it?"

Do you not see a problem with this?

Only if one is rejecting what is known beyond reasonable doubt to be physics. If it is not so certain, then arguments built on it are also uncertain.

How can you argue, on one hand, that the purpose of a model is to produce a coherent explanation, whilst on the other hand questioning if incoherencies are really significant because it could be the established theory which is wrong, rather than the unestablished assumption.

If established theory was really certain, rather than just the best guess given current understanding, then I would agree. But how the earth operates has been the subject of many established theories, not all of which survive today. Is that not so?

Would you agree that if the dog-dirt was dried-in, it would be reasonable to assume you hadn't walked in a fresh "sample" just before coming through the front door 30 seconds ago?

Yes, it would be a reasonable asumption. But not necessarily the right one. Many people have been wrongly hanged on such reasonable assumptions.

Or would you argue that it was possible that all of our understanding about how such things dry was wrong, and that its possible that you walked in a fresh pile only 10 seconds ago?

Depends on what other data there is. Ten seconds is a bit fine for analogy to today's conditions, so let me go with 10 minutes: if I had come in from a baking-hot walk on concrete paving in Jeddah, my shoes would have been very hot when they encountered the fresh poo, and the 10 minutes walking on the concrete after the exposure may well account for it being dried out now. Move this scenario to Lurgan, then it might take a week to dry out!

Would you then go on to argue that because its not an absolutely certain fact that dog-dirt takes a minimum of whatever-the-established-minimum-is to form, that it could, in fact, be total fiction dreamed up by a conspiracy of scientists who are somehow biased against wearers of your type of shoe, and that your 5-second-drying "model" was just as valid a scientific model as theirs?

Do you deny my 10 minute Jeddah model is not just as scientifically valid as your 1000x longer Lurgan model? It is the application of sum of all the facts that will establish which of these reasonable theories is correct. Or in reality, enough facts will prove one or both of these to be wrong. The error lies in drawing faulty inferences from few facts. The scandal is in suppressing discussion of one or other of these theories on the assumption that our theory must be right. Such an assumption is not scientific but religious.

In fact, given the differences in timescales of the respective models, it would be more accurate to say you had noticed the dried dog-dirt on your foot and your model was that you had just lifted your foot out of dog-dirt which should be still right there, but wasn't, that the conditions around your foot just at that moment in time were special, causing it to dry immediately, but that your theory couldn't be tested because those special conditions were gone - the only trace fo their existence being the seconds-old-but-miraculously-dried dog-poo on your shoe.

Let me put you 6000 years after the big Bang and ask you if you stand by your assertion that the vast universe you see around you came into existence only 6000 years ago. Do the same conditions prevail as at one second after the Big Bang? Creationism says that the material universe came into being mature, and that all of the evidence before us is consistent with that. Both Big Bang and Creation have starting points at which the conditions then are not what we have now.

Because thats the type of difference we're talking about here if you want to argue that "of course we need different models".

We do need different models, but a model which invokes non-falsifiable conditions and arbitrarily rejects established science because its inconvenient ain't one of them.

I'm not sure what aspect of the Creation model you think is non-falsifiable. And I have dealt with the inconvenient facts argument above.

You tell me - is the seconds-old model of dried-dog-dirt common sense?

If not, then ask yourself how mountains such as the Alps and the Himalayas forming in a handful of years is common sense.

It would certainly be strecting it to inmagine how 10 seconds would be enough to dry the dirt. But is it really contrary to what we know of physics for Everest to have risen a few miles in a thousand or so years? Taking Everest at 30,000 feet, and starting at sea-level, at 30 feet a year it would take 1000years. That's about an inch a day. The current rate is about half that in a year. Of course, if you believe rates don't change nor are subject to catastrophe, then that rules out a period of rise 700x as great. If you believe great disturbances of the Earth or Sun can occur, then such uplift cannot be ruled out.

Ask yourself how throwing out what doesn't conform to the conclusion you want and then concluding that because whats left is a good fit you have a strong case is common sense.

It wouldn't be - and we don't.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

How would a Young Earth Creationist demonstrate the that God did not create a mature Earth 10,000 years ago?

They don't have to do it, but it must be possible that they could.

That goes to the heart of falsifiability.

What test or tests (experiments) used by Young Earth Creationts to support the idea that God created a mature Earth 10,000 years ago that can be done by anyone any where that will produce the same results with out requiring faith in a particular religious outlook?

It must be possible that a completely independent source can carry out the same test and produce the same results.

That goes to the heart of verifiability.

That is a helpful insight into your understanding of Creationism's scientific argument. You are completely wrong.

Creationists do not expect scientific argument to be debated on whether or not God created the world 6000 years ago. Therefore God creating anything isn't a matter of falsifiability. What is a matter for it is, for example, the simultaneous appearance of the whole biosphere or the descent of all mankind for one couple.

J C

dan719 wrote:

Science is defined as the empirical study of the universe around us using boh theory and experiment to come to logical conclusions about our enviroment.

....all of the following Creation Science papers are in accordance with your definition of science above!!:D

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm

dan719 wrote:

Answersingenesis is a joke, passing off fallacies as a science. It has claimed dark energy is proof of god, that quantum mechanics is proof of god, next it will claim that relativity is actually the curves of god's shoes.

The only joke around here are the Evolutionists who have FAILED miserably to provide a single shred of evidence for 'big picture' Evolution that isn't better explained by Direct Creation!!:D

Indeed they have largely failed to provide ANY evidence, good, bad or indifferent for Evolution.

dan719 wrote:

And as for your claim that creation scientists-no thats wrong let me rephrase that, those people who claim to be scientists yet are in fact idiots who have no concept of logical thought, are conventionally educated, they may well be, but before they were ever educated they were INDOCRINATED by a religion which is more concerned with its own self preservation then reality and science.

My primary 'indoctrination' as a young person, was into Evolution - and MOST Creation Scientists were also ORIGINALLY Evolutionists!!:eek:

dan719 wrote:

Schools in the us which teach biology without evolution do the whole world a disservice

Could I gently point out that Creation Scientists believe that BOTH Creation and Evolution should be taught in schools.
Indeed, the NS dimension to 'Evolution' is scientifically valid - it's only the idea that simple chemicals spontaneously 'evolved' into man using processes unknown to generate the vast quantities of Complex Specified Information observed in living cells, that Creation Scientists don't accept!!!:D

Could I also point that Evolutionists are the ones going to court in the US to prevent Creation even being mentioned in public schools.

Creationists fully support the availability of information about BOTH Creation and Evolution - it is the Evolutionists who want to BAN all criticism of Evolution - and ANY MENTION of Creation in school!!!!

Sounds like denial or something!!

Indeed Evolutionists show their lack of confidence in Evolution, by threatening to go to court for a 'gag' order, every time a student mentions the word 'Creation' in class!!!!:D

dan719 wrote:

I feel quite sorry for you, the randon interactions of your evolved cells are not able to accept the processes by which they came about.

You should feel sorry for yourself - as you face eternal perdition IF you don't trust in Jesus Christ to save you.......

.......and BTW my cells DON'T randomly interact .........

.......which is yet another stubborn FACT indicating that my cells and YOURS weren't produced by random Evolutionary forces ......but via a precise input of massive amounts Complex Specified Information by a massive intelligence !!!!:D

The ironic reality is that your God-given cells are using your God-given powers of free will to deny the very God who gave you your life and your free will in the first place!!:)

........strange but TRUE!!!!!:D

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Indeed, the NS dimension to 'Evoilution' is completely scientifically valid - it's only the idea that simple chemicals spontaneously 'evolved' into man using processes unknown to generate the vast quantities of Complex Specified Information observed in living cells that Creation Scientists don't accept!!!:D

Yeah, but that's abiogenesis not evolution.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Creationists do not expect scientific argument to be debated on whether or not God created the world 6000 years ago.

Actually that is exactly what they expect

Creationists put forward that the evidence supports the idea that universe was created, and only could be created, in the way described in the Bible.

This, as even you yourself seem to recognize, is not a scientifically valid theory.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Actually that is exactly what they expect

Creationists put forward that the evidence supports the idea that universe was created, and only could be created, in the way described in the Bible.

This, as even you yourself seem to recognize, is not a scientifically valid theory.

Perhaps you will provide the quotes to prove Creationists say that God did it is amenable to scientific argument?

Their argument, as far as I can see, is simply that a scientific case can be made for a recent mature origin of the universe.

The implication of course is strongly that it was brought into being by a creator like the one described in the Bible - but that is not part of the scientific argument. You are confusing the theological case Creationists make for the veracity of the Bible with their scientific argument for a recent mature origin. The latter serves the former, but is not identical to it.

I can think of another logical possibility, an atheistic one, for a recent mature origin - that such a state is the natural starting condition of a material universe such as ours. Why that should be is just as hidden from us as is why the Big Bang conditions came to be. Not something science can comment on.

All science can comment on is the evidence before us and what model might best explain it.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

It is very hard to prevent General Relativity from retrodicting a Big Bang and we know GR is the only consistent, empirically correct relativistic theory of gravity.

Perhaps you could help me with a detail in a thread of thought I'm following? Does the universe appear to be expanding out from a single point? Thanks.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Do you understand what sedimentary rock is?

Show me a lake or other large body of water that produced sedimentary rock within a year.

Need not be a year - I'm sure decades or centuries would do. See: Rapid rock Unexpected application for hard-rock recipe by Dr. Tas Walker, Creationist Mechanical Engineer and Geologist http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/rapid_rock.asp

Show me the Creationist model that explains how a biblical flood produces high altitude sedimentary rock.

The above, plus uplift of the continents.

I think you are getting a bit confused there. If you have already assumed that the Moon came from the Earth what would be the point of setting up a model to try and show that the Moon came from the Earth?

I think it is the normal way scientists go about deciding what models to test first. You have some other method?

Does the fact that run away subduction doesn't work itself not mean it is a bad idea to form model using it as a element of the model?

If it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt to not work, I would agree. Is that the case? Or is it just currently out of favour as a likely explanation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The scientific model says nothing about the first cause of the Flood.


Then how do you model its effect on the Earth before the flood?

We don't. It is the normal processes of the material world that creationists argue - the physics, chemistry, biology.

For example, where did the flood start? And how powerful was it?

Those are natural forces, so are amenable to scientific research. Being a world-wide flood, scientifically we would expect it to be world-wide in its causes. History, in the form of the biblical account, tells us that ideed it was world-wide in operation - the 'windows of heaven' were opened and the 'fountains of the deep' were broken up. Water from above and below, everywhere.

If you have already decided on the answer you want, and you set the model up to always give you the answer you want this would seem to be a rather pointless exercise.

The point of the model is not so much the conclusion, but to show if the conclusion is possible. One might be sure of the conclusion, but finding out how that would be possible is another matter.

Do you have an example of a Creationists argument where the result was that there wasn't actually a flood? I seriously doubt it, for some reason

No, I think Creationists would just borrow the standard evolutionary model. Do you have an example of an Evolutionary argument where the result was that there actually was a flood? I seriously doubt it, for probably the same reason.

Is the "most likely" not that there wasn't a world wide supernatural flood of water that goes against all known physical laws of nature? ... just an idea

The Flood indeed would be most unlikely if it went against all known physical laws of nature. The scientists of the Creation camp show why that is not the case.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

If you offer a theory that states that the world was 6000 years old, without any mention of the supernatural, then it is not ruled out as a scientific theory a priori, as Creationism is, by the inclusion of the supernatural. It must stand or fall thereafter on its own merits as a theory:

I'm glad we agree on that. A, ahem, major breakthrough.

To proceed from that point you would need to outline why you came to the figure 6000 years without reference to the authority of a source.

Hmm. Is that part of a strictly scientific argument? Does it rule out 'eureka' moments'? Or historical reports? Or scientific evidence that suggests a recent creation (Polystrate fossils, Soft-sediment deformation, for example)? Why not even forming such a model just for curiosity - would that mean it would not be scientific?

You would need to show how your 6000 years timescale allowed for all that we observe on the Earth to come about, and explain how and why radiocarbon dating doesn't work. Further, your theory would need to account for our apparent ability to observe far stars, and a host of other data. It would need to explain what we see in genetics, and genetic changes, and a lot of the rest of the past century's accumulated observations.

All of this would need to be done without bringing in the supernatural, and to the usual standards of falsifiability, repeatability, and evidence - and you would then have a theory (or more realistically, a set of theories) that would be on an equal footing with current scientific theories.

Agreed. That's what creation science is providing. (I'm sure you don't mean that a complete explanation for all observations would be necessary - for the evolutionary model hasn't provided that yet).

Mmm...no. You see, 13.7 billion years was not the starting point. It is the current best estimate - the best match to observation. 6000 years, on the other hand, is a figure derived by a seventeenth century divine, and it is your starting point.

Then if I said 6000 years was not the starting point. It is the current best estimate, you would have no problem with my saying both systems only deal with what occurred after whatever the actual starting point was?

That is the essential difference. "Materialistic science" is only trying to match the observations, Creationism is trying to match the Bible.

The science of Creationism is soley concerned with matching the observations with the model. Creationism's religious agenda is a separate cause, served by the scientific argument but not identical to it.

It would be ridiculous, if science were false, for science to have chosen such a ridiculously different timescale for the Universe. There would be no need to do so - whoever the 'conspirators' are could equally well have chosen a million, or a hundred thousand, to show their disagreement with the Bible.

They would need one that offered a prima facie case. Two basic models presented themselves, as I understand it, in the development of our understanding of our universe - especially our planet. Long and slow, or short and fast. Both can make a prima facie case. Those antagonistic to Christian teaching would naturally go for the former. Any variation in it would be acceptable, but nothing approaching the Biblical figure.

Indeed, if the figure of 6000 years were actually correct, the 'conspirators' would have found it much easier to fudge a figure closer to the truth.

Any figure closer to the truth would not give the clear blue water required for a sleeping conscience.

Again, you're starting from the Bible, and trying to make observations of the Earth match the text. The Flood is not offered as an independent explanation of the Earth's geology,

I'm sure that is exactly what Creation Science is doing. Where they got the idea that there was a global flood is beside the point. They offer the Flood model to explain Earth's geology.

There is nothing in the rocks to which the Flood is the explanation.

That is the argument - there is evidence in the rocks that point to the Flood.

If you really wanted to see whether the world matched the Biblical text, the only real test is to start from real-world observations, and find whether, in the absence of belief in or knowledge of the text, the theories required to explain the world match up with the text.

It's been done.

I agree. That's what our scientist friends in Creation Science have been doing.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Son Goku said:

Perhaps you could help me with a detail in a thread of thought I'm following? Does the universe appear to be expanding out from a single point? Thanks.

If you measure the red shift between galaxies, it "roughly" increases with distance. ("Roughly" is important here, it doesn't exactly increase with distance once you go far enough and that'll be important later)

Anyways red shift basically translates into a velocity, so the galaxies are moving away from us. The further the galaxy, the faster it is moving away from us. In a sense, it would look like the universe is moving away from our galaxy, with ever more distant galaxies rushing away from us ever faster.

The first question would be, why is it that you only see this movement on a galactic scale? Why isn't it that different parts of galaxies themselves rush away from each other?
These questions indicate that the expansion must actually depend on the distance scale itself. For small distances like a light year you wouldn't notice it, but you do notice it on scales of 1,000,000 light years.
(I've this in bold for a reason)

Another thing is that distant galaxies, if you measure relative red shift, see the same thing as we do. From the point of view of any galaxy all other galaxies are rushing away from it. Every galaxy thinks that it is the centre of an expansion.

Add to this the fact that on the largest of scales the universe is an evenly distributed goo, which means the expansion must be smooth enough to preserve this evenness. (An uneven expansion would obviously cause some parts of the goo to become denser.)

So we have a smooth expansion that, no matter where you are, looks like it's coming from the spot you're standing on.

Okay, so let's see if we can model that.

We take our best theory of relativistic gravity, General Relativity. General Relativity's equations link the distribution of matter to the shape of spacetime. So once we've put in the fact that on the largest of scales matter is distributed like a homogeneous goo, the equations spit back out what the shape of the universe should be.

According to the equations, the shape of the universe is such that the universe will have a smooth expansion that, no matter where you are, looks like it's coming from the spot you're standing on.

So we have theory matching experiment. However General Relativity also says that if you look far enough from where you are you'll see very distant galaxies actually accelerating away from you (not just moving away at a constant speed).

So we build huge telescopes and eventually we see that far away galaxies are actually accelerating, at the exact amount predicted by General Relativity. Another match between theory and experiment.

This keeps going. GR predicts that the furthest galaxies will have a "jerk", the technical word for a change in acceleration. Again we see with our largest telescopes that the furthest galaxies do have a jerk.

However you'll notice no mention of the Big Bang yet, for that we must go back to General Relativity. General Relativity says that in a universe like the one we seem to live in the expansion comes from the very expansion of space itself, not the motion of galaxies through space. This actually comes from the fact that the rules of distance itself are changing in response to the presence of matter. This eventually leads to the explanation of the facts in bold up above.

However the equations also say that further into the past, distance worked in such a way that everything was closer. As you rewind the clock distance changes, so that everything is closer and closer, until a point in time where everything becomes so hot, dense and close together that distance itself melts and breaks down.

So the same model that predicted all the stuff we found also predicts that at some point in the past, everything was so hot and dense that time and space melted out of existence. This is the Big Bang.

J C

Bonkey
Would you agree that if the dog-dirt was dried-in, it would be reasonable to assume you hadn't walked in a fresh "sample" just before coming through the front door 30 seconds ago?

………….yes, but I also wouldn’t go claiming that it took 4 billion years for the dog dirt to dry-in either!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
Indeed, the NS dimension to 'Evoilution' is completely scientifically valid - it's only the idea that simple chemicals spontaneously 'evolved' into man using processes unknown to generate the vast quantities of Complex Specified Information observed in living cells that Creation Scientists don't accept

Son Goku
Yeah, but that's abiogenesis not evolution

The vast quantities of ADDITIONAL Complex Specified Information observed in the cells of ‘higher’ plants and animals is certainly claimed by Evolutionists to be due to Evolution!!!!

Creation Scientists DON’T accept either Abiogenesis or Evolution – and Evolutionists claim that they BOTH occurred.

….and the idea that simple chemicals spontaneously 'evolved' (via Abiogenesis AND Evolution) into man using processes unknown to generate the vast quantities of Complex Specified Information observed in living cells is how can I say it???? ……..

……..PREPOSTEROUS!!!!:eek:


BTW this ‘rapid rock’ forming technique is amazing
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/rapid_rock.asp

……but don’t tell the Evolutionists about it……because it could completely destroy their FAITH…..

……….in billion year old rocks!!!!!!:D


Son Goku
So the same model that predicted all the stuff we found also predicts that at some point in the past everything was so hot and dense that time and space melted out of existence........

Predicting the PAST..........melting time and space.....
......and believing that it takes millions of years for cement to set into rock....

........what a strange world the Evolutionists live in!!!!:eek:

I suppose they will be telling us next that they are spontaneously generated from dirt.....
......oops, I almost forgot they ALREADY are doing so!!!!:eek:

Son Goku

J C wrote:

The vast quantities of ADDITIONAL Complex Specified Information observed in the cells of ‘higher’ plants and animals is certainly claimed by Evolutionists to be due to Evolution!!!!

Or claimed to be abiogenesis and not evolution.

Predicting the PAST

Oh my god, I made a grammar mistake. Wow, you're an excellent scientist alright, why form a criticism when you can correct grammar?
I should have said "So the same model that predicted all the stuff we found also says that at some point in the past.......". I'm getting sick of us putting effort into posts and you just casually dismissing all of it with an eejity remark and later acting as if you dealt with the points raised. Will other Creationists please look at this guy and see that he makes no sense.

Now do actually have anything to say about what I posted? Can you give an actual criticism?

J C

Originally Posted by J C
The vast quantities of ADDITIONAL Complex Specified Information observed in the cells of ‘higher’ plants and animals is certainly claimed by Evolutionists to be due to Evolution!!!!

Son Goku
Or claimed to be abiogenesis and not evolution.?

OK, so are you NOW saying that all life developed to it's current level of complexity via ABIOGENESIS????

.......and Evolution had NOTHING to do with it???

......replace the word 'Abiogenesis' with the words 'Direct Creation' ..... and I will welcome you as a 'fully fledged' Creation Scientist!!!!:eek:

Son Goku

J C wrote:

OK, so are you NOW saying that all life developed to it's current level of complexity via ABIOGENESIS????

No, what you're describing is abiogenesis and not evolution.