A Message to Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2012, 04:24 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
Quote:Scientists Glenn Morton and George L Murphy have dismissed Humphreys' cooling model as "wrong" because "it is ineffective, it is falsified by observational data, and it is theologically flawed."[12]


Blink


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 03:32 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(25-03-2012 02:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  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.

This unfortunately commits the genetic fallacy. It shouldn't matter where the theory originates - if the science is sound, it should stand on it's own. All Dr Humphreys has done is make different assumptions that secular scientists have made (and yes, they have made them!)

Your comment is also completely reversible. "Before we get on to physical theories about how naturalism could have done X, we need evidence that naturalism is true". That's not unreasonable, is it?

(25-03-2012 02:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  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...

You are correct. However, accurate predictions should give weight to competing theories. A scientific theory should be judged on explanatory power and scope. Which his theory has - and better than the current dynamo theory.

(25-03-2012 02:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  You're telling me that *this* journal is peer reviewed in an unbiased fashion?

And you're telling me that Nature or Science is?

(25-03-2012 04:24 AM)morondog Wrote:  Scientists Glenn Morton and George L Murphy have dismissed Humphreys' cooling model as "wrong" because "it is ineffective, it is falsified by observational data, and it is theologically flawed."

If you are interested in reading the history of Glenn Morton's attempts to discredit Humphreys, there are numerous details online. You can check out ICR.org, creation.com, or trueorigin.org. Dr Humphreys has kept a record of Morton's disreputable actions and falsities, for example, here. Joe Meert and Kevin Henke are two others really popular with the crowd attempting to refute lots of Dr Humphreys work. They like to throw up an article or two on a website that the atheist crowd can point to as refutations, but they never follow up after Dr Humphreys answers all their concerns. Eventually, they give up once they find that their objections are unfounded.

Also, the article in question by Morton and Murphy isn't even on the topic in question of the earth's magnetic field. And if you actually go and read the article, you'll find it's very high on conjecture, and very, very short on science. There is effectively no supporting material at all - just conjecture.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. Dr Humphreys made assumptions about the beginning of the universe, just like secular scientists did (naturalism and the big bang). He came up with a theory for planetary magnetism, just like secular scientists did (the dynamo theory). Dr Humphreys theory naturally explains more than just the earth, for example the sun, which the dynamo theory can not. Dr Humprheys published his theory in a peer-reviewed journal, along with predictions, for example the magnetic field strength of Uranus and Neptune. Once these predictions were measured, his theory was correct and the dynamo theory was wrong. Later, he again published predictions regarding magnetic reversals recorded in thin lava flows. Once again, evidence proved his predictions correct and the dynamo theory was wrong. His theory has better explanatory power and wider explanatory scope - the hallmarks of good scientific theory. He's published the theory, predictions and various corollaries in appropriate journals. Meanwhile, his detractors have only attempted to discredit him through email and websites. They do not publish their attempted refutations. They misrepresent his theories, as shown. Still, regardless of this lack of credibility of such attacks, Dr Humphreys has still answered all the critics that have brought information against his theory. Eventually, they have all gone silent.

This should be the model for how science is done. A better theory, with better explanations. But because people don't like the ideas that the theory is built on, they throw out the science, no matter how good.

Does this theory prove creation as opposed to the big bang? Absolutely not. But it does give significant more weight to creation than the big bang. Unfortunately, it gets swept under the rug. Not because it's bad science, but because people don't like where it leads.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SixForty's post
26-03-2012, 11:34 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(26-03-2012 03:32 AM)SixForty Wrote:  
(25-03-2012 02:26 AM)morondog Wrote:  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.

This unfortunately commits the genetic fallacy. It shouldn't matter where the theory originates - if the science is sound, it should stand on it's own. All Dr Humphreys has done is make different assumptions that secular scientists have made (and yes, they have made them!)

Your comment is also completely reversible. "Before we get on to physical theories about how naturalism could have done X, we need evidence that naturalism is true". That's not unreasonable, is it?
Nope. Not equivalent scenarios. At no point do I admit "your truth is at least as good as mine". Here's the diff as I see it. There is plenty of evidence *in the scientific sense* meaning repeatable experiments, observations that agree with theory etc, which backs up our standard understanding, the "naturalistic" view. As I think it was Laplace said to Napoleon, "I had no need for that hypothesis". Meaning that at no point have we found something which further study demands that we interpret as having been attributable to the God of the Bible.

On the other hand, all you have to offer is how things *could have been* God, *if* we suspend our disbelief, torture our theories, come up with crazy rationalizations to fit things in with how the Bible account is.

Where does this 6000 year number that your man Humphries is so keen on come from? Scripture right? Bishop Ussher and his careful analysis of generations. Then there has to be this distant starlight problem and all this other pseudo scientific stuff *all because* you want to *force* it into the Biblical account.

You gotta give me a reason why the Bible is so unchallengeable. Why is 6000 years such a magic number for you? You can't say "if we accept all these theories have to be changed like this, then 6000 years is not unreasonable", give me a positive reason *besides the Bible* that you think it is that number.

You missed my point with the other quote about the "scientists" criticizing Humphries Wink It was just amazing to me to see a scientist telling the guy "the reason your theory is horseshit is that it's not *theologically* sound".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 03:32 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
You guys have no idea what you are talking about here. You call yourselves "thinking atheists"? You should explain that, though, to people who don't really know what it means. You should say: "We are intelligent people who think just enough not to see the TRUTH!"



I happen to know the truth, and I don't particularly like it. I know there is a God, and I don't like that. I don't appreciate what he did by creating this mess of a world, or whatever you may call it. But just because I don't like what God did doesn't mean I can start lying to myself there is no God.



I'm not religious, because that's for little robots who do things without questioning why. Believers take the Bible literally and that's why they can never win the argument of "God vs. evolution." But they don't lose it either. This argument always ends up in a stalemate, and both the believer and the atheist walk away thinking they have "scored" more points than the other, but then they wonder, "Why can't I win the stinking battle? My arguments are so compelling!" Try to figure out the answer to that question since you claim that you, among other things, can also think...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 03:43 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(27-03-2012 03:32 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  You guys have no idea what you are talking about here. You call yourselves "thinking atheists"? You should explain that, though, to people who don't really know what it means. You should say: "We are intelligent people who think just enough not to see the TRUTH!"

I happen to know the truth, and I don't particularly like it. I know there is a God, and I don't like that. I don't appreciate what he did by creating this mess of a world, or whatever you may call it. But just because I don't like what God did doesn't mean I can start lying to myself there is no God.

I'm not religious, because that's for little robots who do things without questioning why. Believers take the Bible literally and that's why they can never win the argument of "God vs. evolution." But they don't lose it either. This argument always ends up in a stalemate, and both the believer and the atheist walk away thinking they have "scored" more points than the other, but then they wonder, "Why can't I win the stinking battle? My arguments are so compelling!" Try to figure out the answer to that question since you claim that you, among other things, can also think...

Well, aren't you the clever little cookie who figured it all out... Smartass

So go write it down and get it published in a peer reviewed science journal and get your Nobel Prize. It's worth at least a million dollars.

“Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” - Lawrence M. Krauss
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 04:30 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(27-03-2012 03:32 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  You guys have no idea what you are talking about here. You call yourselves "thinking atheists"? You should explain that, though, to people who don't really know what it means. You should say: "We are intelligent people who think just enough not to see the TRUTH!"
Sadcryface some random idiot thinks I'm stoopid! Waaaaa!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
27-03-2012, 06:40 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
I have written in down, my friend, but do you think you have what it takes to digest it? I will probably never be able to publish it in a science journal, because they are obviously not smart enough to understand what I wrote. If they were, they would have figured this out on their own by now. They had a century and a half since Darwin suggested his theory! That is more than enough to realize how ridiculous it is, presuming that you think at least a couple of minutes a month.

If you, or anybody else, want to read whatever I wrote, there are ways to do that. Apparently, you can read and understand English.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 08:00 AM
RE: A Message to Creationists
(27-03-2012 06:40 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  I have written in down, my friend, but do you think you have what it takes to digest it? I will probably never be able to publish it in a science journal, because they are obviously not smart enough to understand what I wrote. If they were, they would have figured this out on their own by now. They had a century and a half since Darwin suggested his theory! That is more than enough to realize how ridiculous it is, presuming that you think at least a couple of minutes a month.

If you, or anybody else, want to read whatever I wrote, there are ways to do that. Apparently, you can read and understand English.
How about you put it in simple terms in which we can understand if you think that we are too foolish to comprehend your wisdom?
[Image: f681d6e9-2ebe-4210-98fe-c7830d2fb588.png]

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
[+] 1 user Likes robotworld's post
27-03-2012, 10:33 AM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2012 10:48 AM by tudorthetutor.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
My dear friend, it is in simple terms. I'll give you a sample so you can make an idea of how simple it is. This short passage is called "How far can you zoom in?"

Let's try this simple experiment. Pick up a pencil and hold it in front of you. You can clearly see its shape and color. But do you think that's all there is? Are you sure your eyes are not somehow deceiving you? Are you sure what you’re seeing is the same as what you’re holding in your hand? I wouldn’t be so sure if I were you. Let’s zoom in for a second, or more! Keep zooming. A little more. Any day, now! Oh, c’mon, you’re gonna have to zoom faster than that! Okay, I think that’s enough. Can you see the electrons spinning around the nuclei of the atoms making up the pencil? You can’t? Why? They’re right there in front of your eyes!

Let’s try that again!

Everybody has probably used Google Earth to find certain places on the globe, so I’m sure you can imagine the idea of “zooming in” a little more easily now. Even if you can’t do it physically, imagine you can. At first you see the entire Earth from a distance (a very high altitude) and then you zoom in until you can even see the roof of your own house and–if you’re lucky–your car parked in the driveway. Technology is really amazing nowadays, isn’t it?

Now, before you start zooming in, can you see your house and your car there? Of course not. Does that mean they don’t exist? Next question, please! Don’t dismiss this question so easily, though! It is extremely important to understand it. At first your eyes see the entire Earth and no trace of a house or a car. Do you trust your eyes, in other words, do you believe what your eyes tell you to be true? Well, who doesn’t? Yeah, but your eyes have just lied to you, giving you incorrect information about what you’re supposed to be seeing. You’re looking down at your house from above, for crying out loud! And what your eyes tell you is that you’re seeing a blue sphere instead? How can you trust your eyes so blindly?

Back to the pencil, and I'm going to ask you the same question: You’re looking at the electrons spinning around the nuclei of the atoms making up the pencil that you’re holding, and what your eyes tell you is that you’re only looking at a pencil? Come on! I will never trust my eyes ever again.

And now comes the bad news you will probably wish you’d never heard: You, my friend, look at the world around you and see evolution. It is so clear to you that you call it proven fact. That’s how far your zooming abilities can take you. But here I come telling you that if you could zoom in a little more, you will be able to see something much more amazing than evolution. Would you believe me? I doubt it. Why is this bad news for you, then? Because it simply tells you that your zooming device is not the best in the world as you may think. I know it isn’t, because I have a better one that allows me to see deeper, but you, of course, sincerely doubt that. I don’t blame you; I would probably do the same thing if I were you. Yet, what this claim of mine should make you realize is that there may be a better zooming device than the one you have and think is the best in the world. Not necessarily that there is one, but that there may be one! What are you going to do with this uncomfortable piece of intelligence? Dismiss it as being irrelevant and unimportant? Then good luck finding the enemy tanks on the battlefield by looking down from the surveillance military satellite through your magnifying glass.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 11:20 AM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2012 12:18 PM by morondog.)
RE: A Message to Creationists
(27-03-2012 10:33 AM)tudorthetutor Wrote:  My dear friend, it is in simple terms. I'll give you a sample so you can make an idea of how simple it is. This short passage is called "How far can you zoom in?"

Let's try this simple experiment. Pick up a pencil and hold it in front of you. You can clearly see its shape and color. But do you think that's all there is? Are you sure your eyes are not somehow deceiving you? Are you sure what you’re seeing is the same as what you’re holding in your hand? I wouldn’t be so sure if I were you. Let’s zoom in for a second, or more! Keep zooming. A little more. Any day, now! Oh, c’mon, you’re gonna have to zoom faster than that! Okay, I think that’s enough. Can you see the electrons spinning around the nuclei of the atoms making up the pencil? You can’t? Why? They’re right there in front of your eyes!

Let’s try that again!

Everybody has probably used Google Earth to find certain places on the globe, so I’m sure you can imagine the idea of “zooming in” a little more easily now. Even if you can’t do it physically, imagine you can. At first you see the entire Earth from a distance (a very high altitude) and then you zoom in until you can even see the roof of your own house and–if you’re lucky–your car parked in the driveway. Technology is really amazing nowadays, isn’t it?

Now, before you start zooming in, can you see your house and your car there? Of course not. Does that mean they don’t exist? Next question, please! Don’t dismiss this question so easily, though! It is extremely important to understand it. At first your eyes see the entire Earth and no trace of a house or a car. Do you trust your eyes, in other words, do you believe what your eyes tell you to be true? Well, who doesn’t? Yeah, but your eyes have just lied to you, giving you incorrect information about what you’re supposed to be seeing. You’re looking down at your house from above, for crying out loud! And what your eyes tell you is that you’re seeing a blue sphere instead? How can you trust your eyes so blindly?

Back to the pencil, and I'm going to ask you the same question: You’re looking at the electrons spinning around the nuclei of the atoms making up the pencil that you’re holding, and what your eyes tell you is that you’re only looking at a pencil? Come on! I will never trust my eyes ever again.

And now comes the bad news you will probably wish you’d never heard: You, my friend, look at the world around you and see evolution. It is so clear to you that you call it proven fact. That’s how far your zooming abilities can take you. But here I come telling you that if you could zoom in a little more, you will be able to see something much more amazing than evolution. Would you believe me? I doubt it. Why is this bad news for you, then? Because it simply tells you that your zooming device is not the best in the world as you may think. I know it isn’t, because I have a better one that allows me to see deeper, but you, of course, sincerely doubt that. I don’t blame you; I would probably do the same thing if I were you. Yet, what this claim of mine should make you realize is that there may be a better zooming device than the one you have and think is the best in the world. Not necessarily that there is one, but that there may be one! What are you going to do with this uncomfortable piece of intelligence? Dismiss it as being irrelevant and unimportant? Then good luck finding the enemy tanks on the battlefield by looking down from the surveillance military satellite through your magnifying glass.
Alright. So you've got a better magnifying glass. Care to share it or you gonna hog it all to yourself? Or is this the point where you tell me I'm too stupid to use it?
This guy is like that guy from Hitchhikers guide. Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: