Creation vs. Evolution II

[MichaelCadry]

There you go again, cherry-picking the outliers.

There is no difference between excluding a single dating outlier because it doesn't conform to the trend established by other dating results, and excluding a single dating outlier because it doesn't conform to trends in the morphology of the fossils associated with the particular dated strata. The overwhelming body of evidence that already establishes, for example, that bunny rabbits won't be found in Cambrian rock is itself just as valid for determining dating errors as are other dating data.

That's not to say a suspected Cambrian bunny rabbit femur would not be investigated further; these people aren't dogmatic or dishonest like creationists are.

Real science has mechanisms for correcting the errors induced by any individual who wants to promote a particular view by cherry-picking data. Peer review usually does the trick, and science is not dogmatic but always provisional so is permanently open to new evidence. But creationism has no correction mechanisms, and in fact doesn't even have any theories.

I note, by the way, that few creationists who question the reliability of dating techniques ever claim that the real ages of dated strata could in fact be much older than stated. In general, dating techniques claim accuracies of ±0.5%.

Your hilarious AiG material refers to 'evolutionary geologists'. Do they mean to say 'paleontologists'? Can you translate this term from creationist speak into something a real scientist would recognise?

Stuart

Dear Stuart,

It's really good to see you back here again! I don't agree with this post of yours, but I still care about you. I'm sorry I didn't get to get on this Creation thread last night. I had to hit the sack early because I had a doctor's appointment to keep earlier today. I'm so very sorry about that! Stuu, I see that you are all on this Page 42. Well, the last time I was on this Thread, it was on Page 36. So I've got a lot of catching up to do.

Stuu, there is NO evolution pinning man down with some chimp or ape from the past. That is heresy. But you are still entitled to your beliefs, of course. Do you actually think that ALL of the wonders of man, creatures, birds, bugs, Heaven and the Universe all came to be by themselves, without a Creator?? It's ridiculous Stuu. Is it because you don't believe in the Bible, whereas millions of religious people do? Aren't there millions of people making our Bible the top-selling book over all of this time? And you would rather not believe in God, and would rather remain that way for whatever reasons you might have. Is it because there are some rules when choosing God and Jesus Christ and you don't like those rules? Is that it? It's okay, Stuart, if you have reservations. 6days, Rosenritter and myself are three people who believe in the Creation by God. We believe in Jesus and the Holy Ghost. God said that He created man in His Image. That does not include us being evolved from chimps or apes ancestors. God did not create man to look like a chimp or other creature. He created man to look like Him. When Jesus came, He said, "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father/ God. So that's what's going on.

We don't see the spirit, but just like the wind, we Feel it's Effects. Just because Hydrogen is an invisible gas does not mean that God can't be invisible also, revealing Himself to those whom He chooses. You've got to try to trust me in this, Stuart. This is all not just a game. You're a grown man, right? You should put aside childish ways for now. This ALL is serious! Please do something right quick.

I will try to keep up with things here. I have to go back to Page 36 and read what I've missed. I just thought that I would answer your more recent post here first. We do hear what you are trying to say. Please try hearing what we have to say too.

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[Stuu]

Hello Michael

Thank you for your welcome back. I hope your doctor's visit went as well as could be expected.

That's a lot of typing you did back there. Would you like to pick one topic to focus on? What do you think is the one most interesting thing you would like to tell me about?

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hello Michael

Thank you for your welcome back. I hope your doctor's visit went as well as could be expected.

That's a lot of typing you did back there. Would you like to pick one topic to focus on? What do you think is the one most interesting thing you would like to tell me about?

Stuart

Dear Stuart,

I think very much of you. Please don't get banned again. Watch what you say. It's too nice to have you back again. You've got to make sure you don't screw up because it's much more satisfying to have you post here and see how you are doing. What happens? Do they ban you for 3 months? All I know is that you are gone almost as much as you are here. Please be careful.

Stuart, the doctor's visit went well. I think that the most important thing I could tell you is that you really should consider that there might be a Real True Creator of all of these astounding things going on. It didn't just all happen. There is a God. I won't tell you how I know just yet, because you would probably not believe me. When I am ready to tell you about my life and experiences, then maybe you will understand.

Stuu, I had an angel visit me initially, and he said, "Fear God, and give Him glory, for the hour of His judgment has come upon all of the Earth, and worship Him Who made the Earth, Heaven, and the sea and the 'fountains of waters' {beneath our oceans, etc.}. I was astonished and could not take my eyes away from watching the angel because I'd never seen one before and thought I might not see one again. I had two more angels visit me exactly one week apart from each other. And the angel's voice was loud, commanding, declaring explicitly that Jesus was returning soon. That is all I can tell you for now. There's Tons of experiences that I've had besides that. Oh, I would like to tell you about them all here. But listen, I have written a book that includes a lot of what has happened to me. I can't re-tell all that has happened to me, but you can read the book if you want to. Type in your browser, www.jesusreturningverysoon.com and then you will be at my website, which reaches people all over the world. Once you type that in, left-click on "Book Copy" {on the left of the picture of Jesus} and then left-click on "SKU-text2.pdf"

As you do that, you will notice two blank pages and then the Title Page of my book, called "What Your Eyes Have Not Seen". The two blank pages are for autographs and readers' notes. The third page is the beginning of my book. You can flip through the pages of my book using your up and down arrow cursor keys. For some, you have to flip through the pages using your left and right arrow cursor keys. The book is double-spaced and has small pages. It does not take long to read. Okay, Stuart, I am tired and it is 5 a.m. here. I have to go to bed. Kudos to you. I hope you'll consider my urging to you to get it together Fast!! The Lord is returning quite soon and if you don't believe He exists, you will not like the end results. Please take heed, Stuu. Do something worthwhile before it's too late. Ask God for help believing in Him and His Son, Jesus. You've got to start somewhere. If I love you quite a bit, surely God loves you even more than simple me. Just pray to God and say to Him, "Help Me." That will be enough. I care about your soul and your happiness in the future. You can either be joyful and happy, or else crying and full of sorrows. I'm going to get going for now and will pick up where I left off 2morrow.

Warmest Wishes,

Michael

 

[6days]

Repeating the question: About how long have the “M31” photons that arrive at my telescope tonight been travelling?

We don't know...I don't know...you don't know. What is the one way speed of light? Was that something God used as part of creation? How did God spread the universe in such a way so that Adam could see stars that had been created two days previous.

 

[Jonahdog]

We don't know...I don't know...you don't know. What is the one way speed of light? Was that something God used as part of creation? How did God spread the universe in such a way so that Adam could see stars that had been created two days previous.

So many questions, so sad that your fear makes it impossible for you to accept the ability of this group of apes to understand.

 

[redfern]

Referring to the lady-to-pillar-of-salt account in the Bible, Greg Jennings asked

… explain to me scientifically how that happens.

You pretend to care about the scientific method. So use it

Rosenritter gave this answer:

1. You OBSERVE God create animals out of dust (as Adam did)
2. You HYPOTHESIZE that he can reduce you to dust, or salt, if he wills.

DUH!

RR, if the scientific reliability of the Bible is being questioned because of some of the claims it makes (such as the salt-lady story), and in defense of the Bible your first step is to rely on another scientifically disputed claim from that same Bible (the reality of a reputed common ancestor of all mankind called Adam) – just a tad of logical incest going on there. How about explaining the salt-lady story scientifically, which means without invoking yet another questionable religious claim? DUH

 

[redfern]

I'm not sure how life can come from non life... Its a belief... It can't be explained scientifically.

But it’s not just a belief, it is also an active field of scientific investigation. It can’t be explained scientifically – RIGHT NOW – but the scientific understanding of the details involved has progressed tremendously in the past half-century. . Are you willing to declare that science will never be able to explain how life could arise from non-life?

The Bible though tells us that life came from the Lifegiver.

The Bible “says” whatever you think it says in its pages, but still it is a religious, not a scientific document.

Science also suggests that life always come from life.

Simply untrue. Those branches of science that are looking into how life could arise naturally are predicated on the scientific belief that it did arise naturally.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Referring to the lady-to-pillar-of-salt account in the Bible, Greg Jennings asked



Rosenritter gave this answer:



RR, if the scientific reliability of the Bible is being questioned because of some of the claims it makes (such as the salt-lady story), and in defense of the Bible your first step is to rely on another scientifically disputed claim from that same Bible (the reality of a reputed common ancestor of all mankind called Adam) – just a tad of logical incest going on there. How about explaining the salt-lady story scientifically, which means without invoking yet another questionable religious claim? DUH

The only answer creationists can ever actually give is "the Bible is true because it says it's true." Just flawless logic

 

[Greg Jennings]

We don't know...I don't know...you don't know. What is the one way speed of light? Was that something God used as part of creation? How did God spread the universe in such a way so that Adam could see stars that had been created two days previous.

He couldn't in that scenario. You just found yet another hole in your Swiss cheese creation account.



Question: how do you think Adam supposedly recorded his creation and interactions with God? Did he automatically know language? (impossible) Did he write his account down? (Well writing wasn't created until Mesopotamian times, so highly unlikely)

You take all of these little details literally, down to the amount of stars he saw in the sky. If Adam had been kicked out of the garden by God, don't you think he would've recorded his experience a little differently? You know, with some anger and feeling of betrayal as humans are prone to do?

 

[gcthomas]

We don't know...I don't know...you don't know. What is the one way speed of light? Was that something God used as part of creation? How did God spread the universe in such a way so that Adam could see stars that had been created two days previous.

SR is VERY well verified experimentally, so predictions of that theory can be trusted, unless you have an alternative that matches the successes of SR.

So, could you describe your favoured special-relativity equivalent theory of light that does NOT have the one-way and two-way speeds the same?

 

[6days]

But (life from non life) is not just a belief, it is also an active field of scientific investigation. It can’t be explained scientifically – RIGHT NOW

How life originated will ALWAYS be a belief.

but the scientific understanding of the details involved has progressed tremendously in the past half-century.

Yes... It's an exciting time to be a Christian, realizing the sophisticated complexity, and intelligent design in life.

Are you willing to declare that science will never be able to explain how life could arise from non-life?

Billions of dollars and countless years of research seem to prove to that intelligence is involved...no matter the explanation.

The Bible “says” whatever you think it says in its pages, but still it is a religious, not a scientific document.

Ha... Laughing at this a bit since we can't really have a theology discussion about this. However..... God's Word is inerrant on all topics including science.

Simply untrue. Those branches of science that are looking into how life could arise naturally are predicated on the scientific belief that it did arise naturally.

It is not a scientific belief. It's an atheistic belief. If anything science would seem to indicate a super intelligence designed life.

 

[6days]

So, could you describe your favoured special-relativity equivalent theory of light that does NOT have the one-way and two-way speeds the same?

Nope... I would be lost.
However Einstein did say the one way speed of light is a convention. It is possible, although it seems unlikely, that the one way speed is different. We only know the round trip speed. I suggested that this is possibly part of the answer in how God created so Adam could see stars created two days previous.

 

[6days]

Question: how do you think Adam supposedly recorded his creation and interactions with God? Did he automatically know language? (impossible) Did he write his account down? (Well writing wasn't created until Mesopotamian times, so highly unlikely)

Yes Adam automatically knew language. I don't know, but I imagine he also was very capable of written language.

You take all of these little details literally, down to the amount of stars he saw in the sky. If Adam had been kicked out of the garden by God, don't you think he would've recorded his experience a little differently? You know, with some anger and feeling of betrayal as humans are prone to do?

The various Bible authors record their failures and God's reconciliation. (Restoring relationship). Fortunately, you and I do not have to record our failures for all the world to read...But, God is still loving us, and wanting relationship. He has forgiven all many failures.

 

[Jose Fly]

We don't know...I don't know...you don't know. What is the one way speed of light? Was that something God used as part of creation? How did God spread the universe in such a way so that Adam could see stars that had been created two days previous.

And that's precisely why creationism, with its reliance on "God did it", cannot ever be scientific. You can never know anything, because no matter what you think you've discovered, it could just be that God created it one way but made it appear like it was created an entirely different way.

 

[6days]

And that's precisely why creationism, with its reliance on "God did it", cannot ever be scientific. You can never know anything, because no matter what you think you've discovered, it could just be that God created it one way but made it appear like it was created an entirely different way.

You seem to forget that this silly argument of yours has been shown false many times. God created in an orderly way making discovery possible. In fact, modern science is rooted in the belief that creation is orderly, making science possible.

 

[Jose Fly]

You seem to forget that this silly argument of yours has been shown false many times. God created in an orderly way making discovery possible. In fact, modern science is rooted in the belief that creation is orderly, making science possible.

Sheesh 6days, you can't even maintain a consistent point from one post to the next. First you say...

"We don't know...I don't know...you don't know. What is the one way speed of light? Was that something God used as part of creation? How did God spread the universe in such a way so that Adam could see stars that had been created two days previous"

...which means we can't really ever know the one-way speed of light because we don't know how God manipulated it (so Adam could see stars), but then you immediately contradict yourself...

"God created in an orderly way making discovery possible. In fact, modern science is rooted in the belief that creation is orderly"

So you have another dilemma. If God created an "orderly universe" that allows us to make accurate scientific discoveries, then the one-way speed of light is what it appears to be and the universe must therefore be tens of billions of years old. But if God manipulated the speed of light (by an enormous amount) so Adam could see stars, then God did not create an "orderly universe" where science is possible.

Which is it?

 

[gcthomas]

Nope... I would be lost.
However Einstein did say the one way speed of light is a convention. It is possible, although it seems unlikely, that the one way speed is different. We only know the round trip speed. I suggested that this is possibly part of the answer in how God created so Adam could see stars created two days previous.

So you need the universe to have formed with Earth is the very centre and the rest of the universe to be created with a fully comprehensive history and thoroughly consistent astrophysics and unique cosmology, just so that the universe could LOOK old but be really young?

Why would the universe have been created to look old when it was really young? Why does the word of God not match the Works of God in a consistent way?

 

[redfern]

Once upon a time, in the city where I live, a young nurse was killed on the street, one cold wintery day. It looked as if someone had tried to rape her, but at minus 30 degree, it was too cold, so there was no DNA, fingerprints or other physical evidence. The forensic detectives did however find some evidence. A car was abandoned nearby on the street stuck in snow. Detectives woke and started interviewing people in the vicinity. At a nearby hotel they found the owner of the car, a young guy spaced out on drugs.

The police interogated the young man. He denied anything to do with the murder. The police confronted him with evidence of footprints of his that were headed in the direction of the murder. As the hours in the interview room wore on, David's story slightly changed a few times. He was charged...convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

David's mom didn't believe her boy did it. It was annoying how she kept the story alive for years fighting for his freedom. 20 years went by. Then... a break for the mom. New and improved DNA techniques became available. A lab was able to recover some DNA presumably from saliva on the murdered womans winter parka.

The lab results came out....it was not David's DNA. Police searched their database. They had a hit. The DNA belonged to a guy currently in prison serving time for rape. He happened to live one block away from where the murder ocurred 20 years earlier. There was signature evidence from the rape he comitted, to the murdered woman. He didn't confess but his alibies completely fell apart as the investigation continued. It still took time, but David was eventually released from prison...20+ years of his life was gone. The other guy was charged and convicted.

So... yes historical science is valid. But when you start with the wrong conclusion, then try shoehorn data to fit your belief... you might convict the wrong guy.

Your story, while good, is essentially an example of when circumstantial evidence leads to a wrong conclusion. But let’s move the scenario so that it is a bit more like the discussions we are having. Now when asserting his innocence the young man explains that girls turn into pillars of salt, and that he has seen rivers turn to blood, and converses with snakes and donkeys, and knows of someone who lived inside a fish for a few days, and knows of a man’s wife who wasn’t born, but instead was formed from her fiancé’s rib. Now the police turn to an array of scientific experts to see if they see any problems with his alibi. The police have trouble getting an answer from the scientists, because the whole bunch of them are rolling on the floor convulsing in laughter.

 

[Stuu]

The speed of light, 299792458 metres per second, is the speed of any particle that has zero mass when it travels in a vacuum. It is a property of space-time. Photons (quantised light waves) have zero mass.

So for anyone wanting different speeds of light, there will need to be an explanation of what changes have happened either to the mass of photons, or the relevant properties of space-time.

Science says put up or shut up.

Stuart

 

[redfern]

The speed of light, 299792458 metres per second, is the speed of any particle that has zero mass when it travels in a vacuum. It is a property of space-time. Photons (quantised light waves) have zero mass.

So for anyone wanting different speeds of light, there will need to be an explanation of what changes have happened either to the mass of photons, or the relevant properties of space-time.

Science says put up or shut up.

Stuart

Maxwell’s equations can be used to derive a value which is implicitly thought to be the speed of light. But when it comes to experimentally verifying that light indeed always travels at that speed, I am not aware of any experiment that has been successful. To measure the one-way speed requires synchronization of some kind of clocks on both the transmitting end and the receiving end. But it is impossible, as far as I know, to perform that synchronization without (sometimes very subtly) involving a two-way exchange of information, which then compromises the goal of the experiment.

That being said, the only YEC that I know that is (was?) actively proposing the one-way speed as being infinite towards the earth (and therefore half-speed away) is Jason Lisle. There are astrophysicists who contend that having the earth be unique in that way requires the earth have a privileged space-time position that would have other consequences – consequences that are not seen.