creation vs evolution
- Thread starter jason69
- Start date
Interplanner
Well-known member
Yes, private message found.
That quote from Einstein in PP was from that section during their observations of the 1995 N India solar eclipse. A part of relativity was shown to be true by the view of stars in the low atmosphere of the sun with the sun's light blocked.
It is not out of context at all. I'm sorry but I thought you were a more reasonable person.
"God does not play dice with the universe"--Einstein, in Schaeffer HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE?
I asked for a citation to the Einstein quote, not to PP. Where did Einstein say that, where is it recorded?
I've read Francis Schaeffer and since I don't accept his theology, I don't care what he wrote.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Well, Einstein did a whole study on what we should be able to see with a light-blocked sun during an eclipse that he said would prove relativity.
I think there has been a misunderstanding re the dice quote in Schaeffer. Schaeffer's theology wouldn't have anything to do with the source nor provenance of Einstein; the quote is not something Schaeffer wrote. It is simply that it is quoted there, but I don't know where Einstein said it originally.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I thought before you were too dismissive of PP you might want some credentials; the people interviewed are from NASA, JPL, U Iowa, UCalSB, etc.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Jonah,
the back cover of my book reminds me that the 'handle' for the deluge materials and recent studies is actually: catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT). If you look under that at creationwiki, you'll find a pile of articles, even quoting Ager, one of the leading secular catastrophists in the UK.
the back cover of my book reminds me that the 'handle' for the deluge materials and recent studies is actually: catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT). If you look under that at creationwiki, you'll find a pile of articles, even quoting Ager, one of the leading secular catastrophists in the UK.
Yes Einstein said that. He had difficulty accepting quantum mechanics which had a great deal of randomness (dice throwing).
OK, I'll bite. give us the basics of CPT. when, where, mechanism, evidence.
Interplanner
Well-known member
creationwiki is a database with a searchbar... enjoy!
If I'm not being clear about the question of presuppositions involved, let me refer back to Lewis's story about the coins accumulating in the desk.
Skeptic: 'Nature is governed by fixed laws.'
Lewis: 'But, don't you see? Science could never show that anything was beyond Nature.'
Skeptic: 'why on earth not?'
Lewis: 'Because science studies Nature. And the question is whether anything besides Nature exists--anything "outside." How could you find that out by studying simply Nature?'
This is almost the situation we are talking about here, except that the Thing (God) that exists outside Nature does things in nature (lower case n)--in space and time. They can be witnessed and recorded, but they won't be 'repeatable' as though they were just steps in a science experiment. That's why I wrote you about Mark 2:1-12, where Jesus deliberately connects his authority to forgive sins with a tangible healing of a paralytic. (the ongoing proof of the healing is that the leaders of Judaism--hoping for Jesus' failure--simply had to tell the public that the healing was bogus but they can't; likewise hundreds of others. They now knew they had trouble for both reasons, or on both levels.)
If I'm not being clear about the question of presuppositions involved, let me refer back to Lewis's story about the coins accumulating in the desk.
Skeptic: 'Nature is governed by fixed laws.'
Lewis: 'But, don't you see? Science could never show that anything was beyond Nature.'
Skeptic: 'why on earth not?'
Lewis: 'Because science studies Nature. And the question is whether anything besides Nature exists--anything "outside." How could you find that out by studying simply Nature?'
This is almost the situation we are talking about here, except that the Thing (God) that exists outside Nature does things in nature (lower case n)--in space and time. They can be witnessed and recorded, but they won't be 'repeatable' as though they were just steps in a science experiment. That's why I wrote you about Mark 2:1-12, where Jesus deliberately connects his authority to forgive sins with a tangible healing of a paralytic. (the ongoing proof of the healing is that the leaders of Judaism--hoping for Jesus' failure--simply had to tell the public that the healing was bogus but they can't; likewise hundreds of others. They now knew they had trouble for both reasons, or on both levels.)
I hurt my brain and looked at the CPT Creationwiki post. Ignorance in spades there.
And I don't give a rat's behind about what CS Lewis said.
No, evolution is Gods plan for our world and his children that inhabit it. Genesis is a creation of man using fragments of actual history that they did not fully understand. By the time Adam and Eve materialized on earth the first fall had already taken place and the earth was old and populated.
Wrong, Caino
Yeppers.
Greg Jennings
New member
There is just no helping some of you, is there?
People believe what they want to believe instead of what is too often. But hey, if you like hating on science, then be my guest. But you're only pulling the wool over your own eyes. I've seen geology that you could never explain in a thousand years with your 6000 year old earth. Twists and folds and mass metamorphism simply don't fit into a realistic 6000 year old planet.
I'll try to throw an example out here: blueschist is a type of metamorphic rock that forms at normal temperatures (geothermically) and massive pressures. We KNOW this because we can replicate the conditions in a lab. This sort of massive pressure only happens at subduction zones (where an oceanic plate is going beneath a continental plate)
The only way to get blueschist, which forms beneath a mountain range initially, to the surface is by erosion assisted by buoyant rise. Do you think entire mountain ranges have worn down to the roots in just 6000 years?
Interplanner
Well-known member
There is just no helping some of you, is there?
People believe what they want to believe instead of what is too often. But hey, if you like hating on science, then be my guest. But you're only pulling the wool over your own eyes. I've seen geology that you could never explain in a thousand years with your 6000 year old earth. Twists and folds and mass metamorphism simply don't fit into a realistic 6000 year old planet.
I'll try to throw an example out here: blueschist is a type of metamorphic rock that forms at normal temperatures (geothermically) and massive pressures. We KNOW this because we can replicate the conditions in a lab. This sort of massive pressure only happens at subduction zones (where an oceanic plate is going beneath a continental plate)
The only way to get blueschist, which forms beneath a mountain range initially, to the surface is by erosion assisted by buoyant rise. Do you think entire mountain ranges have worn down to the roots in just 6000 years?
What if those 6000 included massively disruptive rapid vertical tectonic movement? The largest know slip I'm aware of is in S. Africa. The conclusions I read were that one piece dropped 10,000 feet lower than the other in a moment.
Interplanner
Well-known member
They matter, but they change rate x time.
Here's a list of the subjects in creationwiki that are usually presented favoring a young earth (listed in a broadcast recently).
Radiometry
Helium dissipation
ocean floor mud
ocean salinity
geomorphology (for ex., rivers that would not look as they do if they had been peacefully flowing for millions of years)
radioactive decay
A new book by 7 scientists on radiometric measurement is STARLIGHT AND TIME. It may be too new to be reviewed or summarized at creationwiki.
btw, how is that when you insist on God not existing that you also know what He could or could not do on a given day? The whole point is that he is not confined by Nature (to use Lewis term for uniformitarian causes and effects).
One item I heard recently would be in the area of celestial geomorphology. If a galaxy had been spinning millions of years we would see concentric circles of light. Instead we see an "S" shape that is hazy. Such a shape is recently originated.
Greg Jennings
New member
While I would be interested to see that, faulting is quite different from weathering processes. Mountain ranges must erode to get to the roots beneath them.
Let's say the mountain range is about 5000 feet high, with another 5000 feet of root material beneath it. If the whole range simply drops in elevation (which is possible, though exceedingly rare) the range is still intact. There is still 10,000 feet of rock to erode away before blueschist rocks can be exposed to the surface.
That takes an incredibly long time to wear away. Some ranges have completely worn away, such as in Texas, whereas other younger ranges are in the process of weathering, such as California's Yosemite Park, where much of the geology is simply of bunch of frozen magma chambers that have been brought to the surface over time.
I saw in another post that creationwiki claims that ocean salinity is an evidence for a young Earth. If you know their argument, can you briefly summarize it for me?
jsanford108
New member
Not trying to spark an argument, but why did you discontinue the debate with me?
You never refuted any evidence I presented; you just made accusations against my argument (Gish Gallop, intellectual dishonesty, misquotes, etc), yet never produced proofs for such accusations or labels. Granted, I know there is no reasoning with someone who just misapplies labels so liberally, but as a person with a background such as you claim, you should at least be able to produce counter arguments of a philosophical nature. Since my evidence was logical and scientifically accurate, I understand not being able to refute it with natural evidence. But the key for atheists is making philosophical claims based on scientific evidence (which is intellectually dishonest, yet Hitchens and Dawkins loved to do it; much to the praise of fellow atheists), thus my surprise at you not following suit.
If it is a simple "agree to disagree," then I understand and accept it. If it is another reason, all of which seem to illustrate being bested in logic, then I understand, as well. (This last statement is not to be testy, merely a declaration of possible fact)
Best of luck in future debates and discussion.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL