A Message to Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2012, 03:02 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
To moron dog:

I find those choices interesting. Michael Behe is clearly not a creationist in any sense that the word would normally be used. He's an Intelligent Design proponent, but from his writings it's clear that he believes in evolution. Whether it's theistic evolution or something else, I couldn't say. But definitely not a creationist per se. As for his theories, irreducible complexity has some very valid points. I don't think he fleshed it out very well in Darwin's Black Box, and the examples that he gave he could have spent more time on. As far as I know, the blood clotting example has been claimed as refuted, though my understanding is that it's only a hypothetical framework that's been provided, not specific examples. But I haven't read anything definitive about it - every time I read that it's been refuted, I can't find reference to material showing details on how. But most of his other examples seem to still stand. His follow up, The Edge of Evolution, was much better in my opinion. He actually put down hard numbers and provided a lot of statistics to show his point. Being a math oriented person myself, maybe that's why I found it better.

Dembski is also an ID proponent, and from everything I gather he's definitely not a young earth creationist. Likely an old earth creationist, but don't quote me! Smile I do have a book of his on my shelf to read, but it's pretty far down the list and I likely won't get to it for a few months.

I've never heard of David Bloch myself - it looks like I'm off to Wikipedia too!

I personally have a hard time equating ID with creation, or even comparing the two. Although creation is definitely a form of ID, it's like they are two different ends of the spectrum. ID seems to be the generic view that "there must have been something that had a hand in this", without providing much detail beyond that. Creation is the other end, a highly specific viewpoint containing very specific details.

In reference to submitting papers for peer review, it does help to weed out some of the personal bias, but that simply goes to support my point. If all the peer reviewers share the same bias, then it's still going to get through. And mainstream science almost exclusively supports the bias of naturalism. So the peer review process almost by default will become one based on naturalistic philosophy.

As for the "accusation", I wouldn't phrase it like that, but you get the point. I'd more likely phrase it something like this: "You guys exclude everything except naturalism from the outset, therefore you never allow explanations except naturalistic ones, therefore you obviously will end up with only naturalistic results".

In reference to giving weight to opinions that already agree with me, that's not exactly true. What that means is that I will give some weight (but not complete weight) to people whom have shown to use the same thought processes as me. I may not have any knowledge or experience on a certain topic, so I can't find someone who agrees with me since I don't have an opinion! But in that case, I would consider whether or not an expert has the same philosophy and uses the same thought process as me as part of my reasoning to accept or reject their opinion. It's not the only consideration I give weight to, but it would be one thing I consider among others. I don't always agree with creationists either - there have been a few times I've read something from someone I otherwise highly respect, and I've thought they were totally out to lunch on the issue.

And don't worry about that phrase - it's useful in so many areas of life other than just the whole creation/evolution discussion!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2012, 03:19 AM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2012 03:36 AM by morondog.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
I just went and did a net search for David Bloch myself - couldn't find him. Damn. I might have remembered the name wrong. He was some kinda director of a dust observatory or something ? Had a couple of front page articles in nature according to him, but I was less of a suspicious bugger back in those days so I didn't do a background check...

ID / Creationism looks the same to me Tongue
(18-03-2012 03:02 AM)SixForty Wrote:  I personally have a hard time equating ID with creation, or even comparing the two. Although creation is definitely a form of ID, it's like they are two different ends of the spectrum. ID seems to be the generic view that "there must have been something that had a hand in this", without providing much detail beyond that. Creation is the other end, a highly specific viewpoint containing very specific details.
Said details which come from a book of questionable origin. This is what I loathe about Creationism, is that it basically boils down to whether or not you accept the Bible / Quraan / some religious text as authoritative - at least as far as I can see.

Quote:In reference to submitting papers for peer review, it does help to weed out some of the personal bias, but that simply goes to support my point. If all the peer reviewers share the same bias, then it's still going to get through. And mainstream science almost exclusively supports the bias of naturalism. So the peer review process almost by default will become one based on naturalistic philosophy.
Maybe true now, but not in the past. The reason it's that way now is that science has moved on from needing to examine that stuff again. Besides which it has been reexamined multiple times because you guys make such a lot of noise Wink

Quote:As for the "accusation", I wouldn't phrase it like that, but you get the point. I'd more likely phrase it something like this: "You guys exclude everything except naturalism from the outset, therefore you never allow explanations except naturalistic ones, therefore you obviously will end up with only naturalistic results".
Naturalistic explanation being "one that excludes the supernatural". I just don't see how adding the supernatural is in any way useful. How can you make predictions if you conclude "God done it".

Quote:there have been a few times I've read something from someone I otherwise highly respect, and I've thought they were totally out to lunch on the issue.
I love that phrase. Truthfully, out where the trains don't run Big Grin Good to be critical. + 1.
Found him. What an idiot. Even after all these years I still feel the homicidal impulse. No wonder no one's ever heard of him - he's South African. I got the impression he was some bigwig American. Turns out he's the director of the *Anglo-American* cosmic dust observatory in South Africa.

Here's the link to his website:http://davidblock.co.za/index1.htm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2012, 07:09 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(18-03-2012 02:01 AM)SixForty Wrote:  But that's only part of it. For me, the best analogy I can come up with is when a husband cheats on his wife. He should beg for her forgiveness. He shouldn't go back to her and beg her not to leave him, just because he's afraid of her leaving him alone. And he shouldn't try to buy his way back into her good graces, because that's just not going to work. What he should do is simply go to her, get on his knees and apologize for doing her wrong, because it's the right thing to do. He may be motivated by fear of punishment, or he may be motivated by the desire of the joy of staying with her, but ultimately, both are a little bit off. He should really simply apologize because he's wronged her, and she deserves the apology. All he can hope for at that point is mercy.

There are some atheists who wouldn't worship God even if it was true that He existed. To borrow your analogy, these atheists don't feel they've wronged the wife... they instead find that they had a wife all along that accuses them of cheating on her because these atheists weren't aware they were married to someone when they did it (an analogy to sinning against God before knowing what sin is or that God exists). Blaming us for Jesus' death, which happened long before we were born or had any say in it, feels inappropriate.

I would be a Christian again if I had a good reason to believe God was real. But if He exists, then He created Hell and also created the rules by which people go to Heaven (after all, the idea of blood atonement couldn't have been created before blood). He is ultimately responsible for those who go to Hell. So I'm not sure if I could ever revere God again, even if I believed that He was my creator.

By the way, I do enjoy these chats. I can't keep up with your posts and I have no idea how you have the time for it, but I'm glad you do. Despite disagreeing with you, it's nice to have another reasonable voice in our forum, and perhaps even nicer to have one to argue with.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2012, 03:37 AM (This post was last modified: 19-03-2012 03:42 AM by SixForty.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
To morondog:

I really wish you hadn't pointed me to David Block's website. Now I have that annoying voice stuck in my head! But he also seems to believe in an old earth. Maybe this is why we think of different people when we think of creationists - I almost always automatically default to young earth creationists when I hear the term. Maybe that's because of my own beliefs, or because of the majority of the authors/scientists I agree with. Old earth creationism just seems like a bit of a cop out to me, but to each his own!

"Said details which come from a book of questionable origin. This is what I loathe about Creationism, is that it basically boils down to whether or not you accept the Bible / Quraan / some religious text as authoritative - at least as far as I can see."

The book of questionable origin I guess comes down to a matter of degrees. I personally see more that supports it and makes it less questionable, to a significant degree. But I realize I am in the minority there. (And I really don't think this is the thread to get into historical textual criticism. Smile ) But I'd agree that creationism does mostly boil down to accepting certain stories as historical fact (i.e., religious books). I think that comes back to the difference that I mentioned between ID and creationism. Even if everyone accepted ID as a valid scientific theory (speaking hypothetically, since I know this would never happen!) it still wouldn't spell out any real details that would get to creationism on the level it is usually described. That level of detail does rely a fair bit on those historical religious texts.

"Maybe true now, but not in the past. The reason it's that way now is that science has moved on from needing to examine that stuff again. Besides which it has been reexamined multiple times because you guys make such a lot of noise."

I personally think it's still there. Do you honestly believe a major journal like Nature or Science would publish an article about any topic involving creation, even if the science was completely 100% valid? Ben Stein made a very compelling documentary about this called Expelled that showed the bias is clearly still there in the secular world. People have been fired simply for being found out that they believe in Intelligent Design.

" Naturalistic explanation being "one that excludes the supernatural". I just don't see how adding the supernatural is in any way useful. How can you make predictions if you conclude "God done it"."

I would never approve of someone who just gives up and says "we don't understand, so God did it". That's a terrible way to view the world. We should always strive to understand as much as we can, and search for answers we don't have. What I mean about 'naturalistic explanations only' is excluding anything that doesn't fit into that paradigm. For example, take the concept of uniformitarianism. It unilaterally takes the possibility of a world wide flood out of the question. (i.e., Noah) Despite the fact that there are ridiculous amounts of evidence on this planet that fit the flood story extremely well, a naturalistic bias will force those evidences into any explanation other than a global flood. Now as I said before, creationists have a bias too, a biblical bias, and view things from that viewpoint. My issue is that creationists are almost exclusively completely up front about their worldview and how they approach their science, whereas secular scientists are rarely up front about their naturalistic bias and how it affects their interpretations of the data. They will most often simply declare their interpretations to be truth, instead of the filtered interpretations that they really are.

To Starcrash:

"There are some atheists who wouldn't worship God even if it was true that He existed. "

No doubt that's very true. Take a look at the story of Cain. He actually spoke to God directly and knew the entire story of creation and the fall - and he still wouldn't worship, or even repent for murder. Everyone does have the free will to choose how they would respond to God.

"To borrow your analogy, these atheists don't feel they've wronged the wife... they instead find that they had a wife all along that accuses them of cheating on her because these atheists weren't aware they were married to someone when they did it (an analogy to sinning against God before knowing what sin is or that God exists). "

Again, I have no doubt that's true. God's response is likely going to be the same as the wife's though - "what are you talking about! I gave you more than enough evidence and reason to believe that we were married!".

"Blaming us for Jesus' death, which happened long before we were born or had any say in it, feels inappropriate."

I don't know who would blame you for Jesus' death, but I think that's rather misguided and mean of someone to do that. First of all, Jesus chose to be that sacrifice. And second, like I said previously - from my point of view, it has nothing to do with me being responsible for Jesus death. It has everything to do with my personal direct rebellion against God. I know I've wronged him, in many ways, irrespective of whether I was responsible for Jesus' death. That's where my personal repentance comes from.

"But if He exists, then He created Hell and also created the rules by which people go to Heaven (after all, the idea of blood atonement couldn't have been created before blood). He is ultimately responsible for those who go to Hell."

Although this is partially true, I think it misses our half of the equation. Adam and Eve were told beforehand not to do something, and were told what the punishment would be if they did it. And they did it anyway. I don't think it's unfair for God to then follow through on the punishment. But even so, he did offer a way out. And again, when I bring it back to myself, I know that I've done wrong against God, and I can't really complain about the punishment when I'm actually guilty, can I. Thankfully, God is not only a holy judge, but also a loving giver of grace. So once I've realized that I've wronged him, he's provided a way for my punishment to be paid. He's already provided that way out as a free gift for me. All I had to do was reach out and take it.

"By the way, I do enjoy these chats. I can't keep up with your posts and I have no idea how you have the time for it, but I'm glad you do. Despite disagreeing with you, it's nice to have another reasonable voice in our forum, and perhaps even nicer to have one to argue with."

Thanks for the compliment! I enjoy it too, and as you say, even when we strongly disagree! I may come across very strong in my writing sometimes, (maybe a lot of the time!) but that's only because my convictions in my beliefs are just as strong. As for me having so much time - I don't usually. I just had a couple of days off after some very stressful extended periods at work, and I just felt like not leaving the house and so had a lot of time to kill! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SixForty's post
19-03-2012, 01:28 PM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(19-03-2012 03:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  I really wish you hadn't pointed me to David Block's website. Now I have that annoying voice stuck in my head!
My apologies Tongue I just wanted you to fully appreciate why my hate does not slumber.

Quote:But I'd agree that creationism does mostly boil down to accepting certain stories as historical fact (i.e., religious books). [...] That level of detail does rely a fair bit on those historical religious texts.
OK Smile That's good. We are agreed then that without the Bible no one would ever guess that the thing with the talking snake and all was the way things got here Big Grin
Talking of talking snakes, direct uncomfortable question time Big Grin What is your feeling about (a) the talking snake (b) Jonah © The Sun standing still (d) the magic jar of oil (Elisha) (e) Elijah and the magic chariot (f) ... well there's too many to mention. Do you think these are tall tales, maybe based in fact, or literal fact, or metaphor?

Quote:Do you honestly believe a major journal like Nature or Science would publish an article about any topic involving creation, even if the science was completely 100% valid?
No. Nature and Science don't deal with *pseudo* science. I know you're bleak with me now Tongue But as I said, these things are outside the interest of modern science now - they are historical curiosities. Age of the Earth, age of the Universe - all these things we have compelling data for. Why should a journal for the top science research take someone seriously who claims 6000 years as an age for the Earth, no matter how sound his knowledge of silicates - unless he's strictly publishing about silicates without mention of his crazy other ideas? Science also operates on paradigms to a certain extent. Even a legit branch of e.g. physics, which is unfashionable, and for which the research is for example, not well understood by the editor of a journal, will have trouble publishing in that journal.

If though, there is something behind Creationism, then your time in the Sun will come. If that's the way it happened then we *really* want to know. But if all the papers submitted are of the calibre of e.g. who was that other idiot - the guy who *was* a creationist - Oh yeah - Kent Hovind (loathe loathe puke!) then it will continue to be dismissed. You guys have had *years* of money and research poured into Creationist science - where are the results? Mainstream science would take definite note if you guys came across something real.

You ever heard of Velikovsky? That's kinda how I see you guys...

Quote:I would never approve of someone who just gives up and says "we don't understand, so God did it".
Yay Smile I like you anyway, even though I think you're nuts.

Quote:
For example, take the concept of uniformitarianism. It unilaterally takes the possibility of a world wide flood out of the question. (i.e., Noah) Despite the fact that there are ridiculous amounts of evidence on this planet that fit the flood story extremely well, a naturalistic bias will force those evidences into any explanation other than a global flood.
Oh man, this was debunked in the *dark ages* man. Frikken James Hutton, Charles Lyell. Those guys nailed this thing. Flood geology was the *rage* back in the day. But it became clear ages past that it was highly unlikely, with all the other evidence, that all the sediments deposited were the result of *one* global flood, or even a few.
I won't pretend to know vast amounts about this (last time I read up was a long time ago), however I do know that wikipedia has a good article on this very subject.

Now: about predictions. If you're a flood geologist, then you expect certain things to be true about the sediments that you see deposited as a result of the postulated flood. If you're a uniformitarian, then you expect other things. Basically what it comes down to is that the data backed the uniformitarian viewpoint. It was *not* an assumption from the outset. My apologies for the vagueness - all I've read are a couple of popular accounts and it was a while ago.

People *have* taken the Bible very seriously as a scientific source throughout history. But eventually we realised that it just isn't right.

Oh yeah, besides which we don't *fit* the data to the model, it's the other way round! It has to be. You consider what the data is telling you, make up a hypothesis, *test* it on *new* data (trying very hard not to bias that data by e.g. collecting it in a bad way), see if it fits and if it don't you *throw it out*, no matter how nice it would be if it was true.

Quote:My issue is that creationists are almost exclusively completely up front about their worldview and how they approach their science, whereas secular scientists are rarely up front about their naturalistic bias and how it affects their interpretations of the data.
... well you see, among secular scientists it's pretty much taken as given that you're not gonna mention supernatural in your papers. I mean what are you gonna do, quote verses of the Bible? Huh So I don't see that they need to list that as one of the potential points that needs to be controlled for.

See, first it was "There's this entire worldview that modern science ignores". Now you're asking me to buy the idea that there's a *conspiracy* to not publish creationist views. That's nuts man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2012, 07:01 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(19-03-2012 01:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  Talking of talking snakes, direct uncomfortable question time Big Grin What is your feeling about (a) the talking snake (b) Jonah © The Sun standing still (d) the magic jar of oil (Elisha) (e) Elijah and the magic chariot (f) ... well there's too many to mention. Do you think these are tall tales, maybe based in fact, or literal fact, or metaphor?

I know that this question is likely to land me in hot water, but since you seem to have asked genuinely, and we've had a good discussion going here, I'll give you an answer. Smile In general, my way of reading the bible is to read it as it was written. By this I mean it has many different types of writing in it: historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, law, military treaties, biography, parables, instructional letters. If the passage I'm reading was written to be poetry, I read it as poetry. If it was written as an instructional letter, I read it as an instructional letter. If it was written as historical narrative, I consider it to be historical narrative. Now, there's two ways to confirm this - one is through grammatical study of the original languages. For example, ancient Hebrew poetry is almost exclusively repetition or parallelisms of ideas. So if something is written in that form, it is poetry. Historical narrative in Hebrew makes strong use of certain verb tenses that clearly delineate that it is a historical story. The second way to confirm this is much easier - it is simply through the text of the bible itself. When I read words like "this is the account of the descendants of Shem", I expect a historical account of what actually happened to actual people; when I read words like "for the director of music; a psalm of David; a song", I expect what follows to be poetry, and be heavy on things like metaphors and analogies; when I read words like "and Jesus told them a parable about…" I expect to hear a parable; when I read words like "Paul, an apostle; to the Church in Ephesus" I expect to read a letter, and when it goes on to say something like "I write to you to correct you in the teachings that we gave you when we visited", I expect to read things that are taught to a church and should apply in my life. Sorry for being so long on that, but I guess the short version would be this - I don't consider myself a biblical literalist, I consider myself a biblical realist. I consider the bible to be real, in the way it was written.

Now, given all that, as to your specific questions: a) yes, I believe that satan possessed a serpent to speak to Eve and tempt her to eat from the tree she was not supposed to; b) yes, I believe Jonah spent 3 nights in the stomach of a great fish; c) this one I'm not completely sure on, as I've read some things about the conjugation of verbs in that passage that may bring the meaning of certain words translated into English in question, but given all that, it does seem to be a historical account, so I would default to yes, but without as much conviction, and I'm open to change on that one; d) yes, I believe in the miracle of the oil jar; e) yes, I believe that Elijah didn't actually die, but was taken to heaven in an angelic chariot. The interesting thing I always find about these questions is that, despite the fact that some of these may seem difficult to believe in on their own, once you believe in an omnipotent God, who had the power to speak the very universe into existence, the possibility of these things isn't really all that difficult. If he can generate a massive ball of nuclear fusion quadrillions of times bigger than me, hotter than I could ever imagine, with quintillions of atoms interacting in quintillions of way, all by speaking the words, then generating a little bit of oil in a jar can't really be that much of a stretch.

(19-03-2012 01:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  No. Nature and Science don't deal with *pseudo* science. I know you're bleak with me now Tongue But as I said, these things are outside the interest of modern science now - they are historical curiosities. Age of the Earth, age of the Universe - all these things we have compelling data for.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. What many people consider compelling data, others consider questionable. And vice versa.

(19-03-2012 01:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  Mainstream science would take definite note if you guys came across something real.

And yet Dr Russ Humphreys model for planetary magnetism predicted the magnetic fields of Neptune and Uranus years before our spacecraft got there to measure it, and he was right while secular scientists were wrong by a factor of about 100,000. It predicted fast reversals of our magnetic field would leave evidence in very thin lava flows, which was later found and confirmed, yet his theory is still ignored. Multiple time's he's gone out on a limb to make a prediction through a theory he's developed, and he keeps being proved correct when the evidence comes in. In secular science, that would be good support for a scientific theory. But if you're a creationist, it's hard for any idea to gain traction based on that fact alone.

(19-03-2012 01:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  You ever heard of Velikovsky? That's kinda how I see you guys...

I've only read reviews and summaries of his stuff, but never his original works. (I had to search the name and read a bit before I remembered the name and who he was). I think he suffered from serious over reaching. It seemed like he had a handful of good ideas and a room full of bad ones, and anything that could have possibly made sense got lost in all the noise.

(19-03-2012 01:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  Yay Smile I like you anyway, even though I think you're nuts.

Cool! Thanks! Smile You probably won't believe this, but being a creationist is not the number one thing in my life that I get called nuts for!

(19-03-2012 01:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  Oh man, this was debunked in the *dark ages* man. Frikken James Hutton, Charles Lyell. Those guys nailed this thing. Flood geology was the *rage* back in the day. But it became clear ages past that it was highly unlikely, with all the other evidence, that all the sediments deposited were the result of *one* global flood, or even a few.

The problem with uniformitarianism though is that it was never developed from evidence. It was a philosophical presupposition about the nature of geology. It was imposed upon the evidence. Lyell, who wasn't the first to think this way, but was pretty much the foundation uniformitarianism was built upon, didn't come to the conclusion of uniformitarianism because of any evidence. It was a way that he wanted to view the world, and then started to interpret the evidence he found under the uniformitarianistic paradigm. Interestingly enough, modern geology is actually moving away from strict uniformitarianism. Neo-catastrophism seems to be the acceptable norm, more and more. Geology is best described by periods of slow and gradual activity punctuated by severe natural disasters. So much is learned from things like the Indonesian Tsunami. If you want to explore, read up on the Missoula Flood controversy, and how entrenched views about history eventually change. Or most amazingly, Mount St Helens. It taught us that canyons don't need to take millions of years to form; a canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon was carved out in a single day. Theres a spot in the canyon you can see a rock section about 25 feet thick, and when you look closely there are tens of thousands of very thin layers in the rock. Under the uniformitarian view, those layers had to be laid down in thousands of years, if not millions. Good thing we know better - the entire 25 foot section, with all of it's thousands of layers, was laid down in under 3 hours through intense pyroclastic flow. It was observationally viewed from one of the Mount St Helens eruptions. If we didn't see it, we would never have believed it, because of the bias of uniformitarianism. The more we study catastrophism, the more our world looks like it was shaped through catastrophism.

(19-03-2012 01:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  Now: about predictions. If you're a flood geologist, then you expect certain things to be true about the sediments that you see deposited as a result of the postulated flood. If you're a uniformitarian, then you expect other things. Basically what it comes down to is that the data backed the uniformitarian viewpoint. It was *not* an assumption from the outset. My apologies for the vagueness - all I've read are a couple of popular accounts and it was a while ago.

I apologize, but I must paraphrase Ken Ham here - hundreds of millions of dead fossilized animals buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth! Sounds like a flood to me! 95% of the fossils we find are either marine animals or plant life. On every continent, at every latitude, at every altitude. Marine rocks and fossils high up in every major mountain range in the whole world. Almost exclusively every fossil over then entire planet is buried in sedimentary rock layers that were laid down by water. We see complete lack of erosion between different sedimentary layers that were supposedly exposed to the elements for millions of years. We see multiple layers of sedimentary deposits that are bent, sometimes over 90 degrees, but aren't broken, something that can happen only while they are still wet. All of this points compellingly towards a massive, global catastrophic marine cataclysm. I think the idea that the data is backed up by the flood model is very compelling!

(19-03-2012 01:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  See, first it was "There's this entire worldview that modern science ignores". Now you're asking me to buy the idea that there's a *conspiracy* to not publish creationist views. That's nuts man.

Do you think if a geologist with multiple PhDs and a long track record of being at the top of his field wanted to publish a geology paper on a theory that the Grand Canyon was formed by massive continental runoff of a cross continental body of water would have even a chance of being published, no matter how good his science was? Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2012, 08:10 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2012 08:40 AM by morondog.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(21-03-2012 07:01 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Do you think if a geologist with multiple PhDs and a long track record of being at the top of his field wanted to publish a geology paper on a theory that the Grand Canyon was formed by massive continental runoff of a cross continental body of water would have even a chance of being published, no matter how good his science was? Wink

*This* would *easily* be published if it could be backed up with data. It would be electrifying! Everyone would want in on it.

Think about it. I personally don't give a shit how old the earth is, it's as good to me 600 years old as 600 billion. *But* a series of wonderfully brilliant men have made deductions *based on theory*, well backed up by experiments and data, for which the consensus is that the world is roughly 4 billion years old.

*If* some similarly brilliant guy could come and say "Hey,you guys missed this, look, this changes everything" - everyone would go nuts, he'd be celebrated the world over! But the would be debunkers all start with "hey, you guys missed this passage of Genesis" - nothing grounded in physical evidence or testable or interesting at all.

I wish theBeardedDude would show up Sad I know next to nothing about geology.
OK on to you other point about the good Doctor Big Grin

Dr Humphries may actually have done the research and made a prediction. It might be 100% legit. If he did, people at the time would have given him the standard credit that any physicist gets when he gets the right answer - mention in papers, adulation of a few grad students. It's certainly evidence that he's a bright man, if he pulled it off. That's standard scientific recognition for services rendered.

Also you can be happy that a bright man has looked at your creation science and said "yup, that looks legit". But if said supposedly bright man starts whinging about being ignored by the establishment I'd start looking for where the money is.

*I* can predict the fields around Neptune. Frikken anyone can. Suck your thumb, whip out a prediction. Retroactively make a prediction - claim that you predicted it and rely on people not actually looking stuff up. You'd be surprised how many people get away with that. Make predictions about a thousand things by the suck my thumb method, then wave your arms and shout when one of them seem halfway there - another good technique. Make vague predictions - the surface of Venus/Mars should be "hot" (one of Velikovsky's).

Above all, whine about how the scientific establishment rejects you and they can't see your genius.

I'm afraid even without wikipedia to give me a bio of this guy my bullshit detector is going off Wink Just the fact that creationists like him Tongue Gotta be a point against him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2012, 11:09 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
Quote:Or most amazingly, Mount St Helens. It taught us that canyons don't need to take millions of years to form; a canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon was carved out in a single day. Theres a spot in the canyon you can see a rock section about 25 feet thick, and when you look closely there are tens of thousands of very thin layers in the rock. Under the uniformitarian view, those layers had to be laid down in thousands of years, if not millions. Good thing we know better - the entire 25 foot section, with all of it's thousands of layers, was laid down in under 3 hours through intense pyroclastic flow. It was observationally viewed from one of the Mount St Helens eruptions. If we didn't see it, we would never have believed it, because of the bias of uniformitarianism. The more we study catastrophism, the more our world looks like it was shaped through catastrophism.

Wait a minute. Step Canyon was formed from the "carving" of unconsolidated volcanic ash, while the Grand Canyon was formed from the "carving" much harder materials. If the Grand Canyon was indeed formed in a single day, it will then imply that the structural material of the Grand Canyon was very weak.

Also, have you tried making canyons of sand using sea water at the beach? If indeed the structural material of the Grand Canyon was really weak at that time, the slopes of the Grand Canyon would be more gentle.

Quote:I apologize, but I must paraphrase Ken Ham here - hundreds of millions of dead fossilized animals buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth! Sounds like a flood to me! 95% of the fossils we find are either marine animals or plant life. On every continent, at every latitude, at every altitude. Marine rocks and fossils high up in every major mountain range in the whole world. Almost exclusively every fossil over then entire planet is buried in sedimentary rock layers that were laid down by water. We see complete lack of erosion between different sedimentary layers that were supposedly exposed to the elements for millions of years. We see multiple layers of sedimentary deposits that are bent, sometimes over 90 degrees, but aren't broken, something that can happen only while they are still wet. All of this points compellingly towards a massive, global catastrophic marine cataclysm. I think the idea that the data is backed up by the flood model is very compelling!

[Image: TectonicReconstructionGlobal2.gif]

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2012, 09:13 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2012 09:15 PM by SixForty.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(21-03-2012 08:10 AM)morondog Wrote:  Dr Humphries may actually have done the research and made a prediction. It might be 100% legit. If he did, people at the time would have given him the standard credit that any physicist gets when he gets the right answer - mention in papers, adulation of a few grad students. It's certainly evidence that he's a bright man, if he pulled it off. That's standard scientific recognition for services rendered.

Also you can be happy that a bright man has looked at your creation science and said "yup, that looks legit". But if said supposedly bright man starts whinging about being ignored by the establishment I'd start looking for where the money is.

*I* can predict the fields around Neptune. Frikken anyone can. Suck your thumb, whip out a prediction. Retroactively make a prediction - claim that you predicted it and rely on people not actually looking stuff up. You'd be surprised how many people get away with that. Make predictions about a thousand things by the suck my thumb method, then wave your arms and shout when one of them seem halfway there - another good technique. Make vague predictions - the surface of Venus/Mars should be "hot" (one of Velikovsky's).

Except that Dr Humphreys wasn't making tons of predictions and hoping a handful would turn out to be right. He was actually doing hard science. As for Dr Humphreys' model of planetary magnetism that I mentioned, he published a paper with his scientific model in December of 1984, in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In it he made specific predictions about the magnetic field strength of Uranus and Neptune. These were unknown until the Voyager 2 spacecraft was able to arrive and make measurements. It did this for Uranus in late 1985/early 1986, and for Neptune in 1989. Both times, his model fit the actual observations, while secular scientists were surprised by the measurements of Voyager, because their predictions were way off. Secular scientists have admitted that the standard dynamo model has not been very successful at making predictions.

Also, in 1986, at the International Conference on Creationism (Unfortunately, the proceedings aren't available online for me to link to, but you can order a set if you are really interested!), he used his model to predict that evidence for the fast magnetic field reversals proposed by his model might be found in very thin lava layers. Thin layers would cool very quickly, and if one showed a significant portion of magnetic reversal, it would be evidence for a quick reversal of the earth's magnetic field, as opposed to the slow field reversal proposed by standard geological long ages. In 1989, secular scientists found just such evidence in thin lava layers, and came to the same conclusion. If that wasn't enough, they found more evidence in 1994.

Notice that I keep linking to respected secular scientific journals that are agreeing with Dr Humphreys after the fact. He made specific predictions, backed them up with scientific research, published them, and was then later proved correct by actual observations done by secular scientists. Normally this would be good science that people would take notice of. Unfortunately, if you are a creationist, many people will write you off before they even read the data.

(21-03-2012 11:09 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Wait a minute. Step Canyon was formed from the "carving" of unconsolidated volcanic ash, while the Grand Canyon was formed from the "carving" much harder materials. If the Grand Canyon was indeed formed in a single day, it will then imply that the structural material of the Grand Canyon was very weak.

I don't claim that the Grand Canyon was formed in a day. What I said was that we know for a fact that a canyon near Mount St Helens, nicknamed the Little Grand Canyon, was formed in a day. It's about 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon, so it's not in any way illogical to assume that similar types of catastrophic water and mud flow events could have formed the Grand Canyon as well, in much less time than millions of years. There are numerous examples worldwide of canyons forming quickly - just google something like "rapid erosion canyon formation" and see what you can find. Now, I personally don't believe that the Grand Canyon was formed in a day - it's just too massive. But I could easily believe it formed in 3 months, or 3 years. Basically, what I'm saying is that it could very easily have formed in way less than the millions of years that many geologists think, there is precedent for such rapid canyon erosion, and there is other evidence that leads to such a shorter time frame as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2012, 02:26 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
Smile Hi SixForty

Wow, you do a lot of typing. Also we've got amazing smilies now Evil_monster woohoo! Thanks Deep!

Um OK so I went to check out his paper and it starts with the abstract:
Quote:God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a very simple way: by creating the original atoms of the planets with many of their nuclear spins pointing in the same direction. The small magnetic fields of so many atomic nuclei add up to fields large enough to account for the magnetism of the planets. Within seconds after creation, ordinary physical events would convert the alignment of nuclei into a large electric current circulating within each planet, maintaining the magnetic field. The currents and fields would decay steadily over thousands of years, as Barnes has pointed out. The present magnetic field strengths of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets agree very well with the values produced by this theory and a 6000-year age for the solar system. This theory is consistent with all the known data and explains many facts which have puzzled evolutionists.


The *first* word in this whole thing is about how an invisible being we've never seen could have done things assuming he had magical powers Huh Like... wow. You're surprised that mainstream science doesn't take you seriously? Before we get on to physical theories about how God could have done X we need evidence that God is out there... this is *not* unreasonable.

Also the tone of your man's paper seems to be aimed *at most* at undergrad students. No serious scientist in the planetary magnetism field would need an explanation of dipole moments. This makes me doubt that his paper is anything other than fluff to impress the easily impressed.

Then there are his predictions - I see that they're highlighted in red in the paper, which suggests to me that you creation science types see this as one of *the* flagship papers which establishes the rightness of your cause Big Grin

The problem is that even accurate predictions alone for this one specific thing do not establish that your theory *must* be true. There must be fit with theory... and yes indeed you guys have this whole parallel theory with exponential magnetic field decay and and etc.

Then there is the journal. Peer reviewed huh? Lemme see...
Here's what I can find about the journal on Wikipedia:
Quote:The Creation Research Society Quarterly has been published since July, 1964. Creation Matters containing popular level articles has been published bi-monthly since 1996. CRS has also published an assortment of special papers, monographs and books. Creationist publications have been criticized by scientists, such as Massimo Pigliucci,[10] as "nonsense" in their attempt to blend faith with empirical fact. Glenn R. Morton is an author of more than 20 articles published by CRS in an attempt to "solve scientific problems" of creationism.[11] Morton later left the creationist movement complaining "The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!".
Unfortunately this is all they have in the article about the Creation Research Society Sad It doesn't say anything about people's opinions on whether it is peer review, which I had hoped for.
But here's the mission statement of the society itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Re...ed_purpose

The first line says it all:
Quote:The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.


You're telling me that *this* journal is peer reviewed in an unbiased fashion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: