Any young earth creationists out there?

  • Thread starter Thread starter semper_catholicus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That’s when the great attack on the Church occurred. Dissidents launched a coordinated attack from the inside and outside. Bad catechesis and distorted ‘truths’ began to be taught. The Church issued warnings but here we are in a Dictatorship of Relativism where nothing is for certain.
 
edwest211 said:
Completely false. This is a very strange assumption. The universe is expanding into what? Nothing? I don’t buy that. Even a balloon has a center point. Not rational.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the earth is at the center of the balloon. Everything would still be moving away from us if the balloon skin is expanding. I think then all the galaxies could still be in concentric rings around us on a plane. I need to think this through…
 
Just a side note. The arrangement of galaxies around the center of the universe may follow the pattern of atoms. There is a center core surrounded by concentric rings of galaxies (just like electrons) that go outward. The degree of redshift (or Z) may not be showing movement the way it is commonly thought. The galaxies (electrons) are not moving away from us but are in their own orbits.
 
buffalo said:
Perhaps the earth is at the center of the balloon. Everything would still be moving away from us if the balloon skin is expanding. I think then all the galaxies could still be in concentric rings around us on a plane. I need to think this through…
Click to expand...
No, the earth is not at the centre of the balloon; it, and all matter, is on the surface. But the balloon is only an analogy or metaphor. Understanding the arrangement of the many spatial dimensions is counter-intuitive, but not as difficult as it sounds.
 
Dan123 said:
Suppose someone stood on the top of a tall building with a clear view all around them. Looking around them they’d see clear to the horizon in every direction, with no horizon being any closer than another.

Does that make them the center of the universe?
Click to expand...
It depends what we mean by centre.
If we understand ourselves, our spirit to be the reality of a frame of reference, it might be considered to be so.
Our intellect allows us to isolate events and find relationships between them.
We imagine the earth hurtling through space in a helical fashion, along the trajectory of the sun in its movement around the centre of the Milky Way. We do this by placing the awareness of what is happening in time and space at that galactic centre.
But, it isn’t a person alone who would be at the centre, but rather the relationship that is the knowing of the known by the knower, from which the concepts and images of space-time are derived.
The matter then rests on who it is that actually knows, what is the Source of the existence of that relationship. He’s the Centre, who knows all time and space with everything in it, ourselves included.
 
Gorgias said:
One can assent to theories of evolution without assenting to an uncreated universe.
Click to expand...
Theories of evolution speak of transformations.
We are either created as humanity or we are a mutation of previous life forms.
If you think about it, it can only be one or the other.
Let’s not quibble about the time-line, although that is what the OP is addressing. Whether in six days or billions of years, which may be the same thing, the creation of the universe took place in a step-wise fashion.
If we are mutations, a form of hominid, then we have not been created.
To say God created the universe with the first Planck unit of time, may fit with evolutionary theory but is incompatable with revealed truth.
If this is what theistic evolution is professing, it is seriously off the mark.
 
Dan123 said:
40.png
Aloysium:
We are either created as humanity or we are a mutation of previous life forms.
Click to expand...
Is a painting not a painting because the artist transformed paint into art?
Click to expand...
I don’t think I understand what you are trying to say through your analogy, because it speaks to creation vs mutation and has little if anything to do with natural selection.

God created the paint and then proceeds to utilize it in creating something of beauty and wonder, transcending those primary materials. The paint’s natural attributes do not include a capacity to organize itself into a painting. While the elements may wear away at the colours, they are not the facilitators of the new order - a work of art. So, no random mutation of complex molecules and no natural selection - no evolutionary processes are at work.
 
Last edited:
I am sorty if I misunderstood you but electrons do not orbit the nucleus like planets.
 
1300+ replies into this, I’m not sure how (if at all) off topic things have got, but to respond to the question:

I’m not sure where I stand. I’ve heard what seem to be fair criticisms of carbon dating- but I haven’t been too terribly interested in seriously studying the subject to accept them completely.
 
You know those ‘spin art’ toys that spin the paper around and kids throw paint at them and when the wheel stops the spinning motion plus the paint has combined into a kind of tie-dye pattern typically? So imagine someone who could spin up the paper and squirt paint on the paper and when it stopped spinning you saw the Mona Lisa. That would be darn impressive I think, in a certain way that may be one of the most talented artists in the world at least when examining technical skill. The ability to forsee what the paper would become while it’s spinning faster than you can process is amazing.

So you’d said we were either created as humanity, or a mutation of previous lifeforms. In short what I’m asking is, what word would best describe a creator who could create a proverbial ripple in a primordial pond that would spread throughout the eons across billions of years and trillions of generations until finally that artists true vision of man was fully realized? I think a lot of people, even nonbelievers, might say the most appropriate word to describe a being who could paint with the eternity of time itself, would be ‘god’.
 
NAS report on “The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science”

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has long been interested in the politicization of science.

We have also long been interested in the search for truth—but mainly as it pertains to the humanities and social sciences. The irreproducibility crisis brings together our two long-time interests, because the inability of science to discern truth properly and its politicization go hand in hand.

and

Outright Fraud
Actual fraud on the part of researchers appears to be a growing problem. Why do scientists take the risk of making things up when, over the long term, it is almost certain that the fraud will be detected? No
doubt in some cases the researchers are engaged in wishful thinking. Even if their research does not support their hypothesis, they imagine the hypothesis will eventually be vindicated, and publishing a fictitious claim now will help sustain the research long enough to vindicate the original idea.

and

A reproducibility crisis afflicts a wide range of scientific and social-scientific disciplines, from epidemiology to social psychology. Improper use of statistics, arbitrary research techniques, lack of accountability, political groupthink, and a scientific culture biased toward producing positive results together have produced a critical state of affairs. Many supposedly scientific results cannot be reproduced in subsequent investigations.

This study examines the different aspects of the reproducibility crisis of modern science. The report also includes a series of policy recommendations, scientific and political, for alleviating the reproducibility crisis.

https://www.nas.org/images/documents/NAS_irreproducibilityReport_preface.pdf
 
Last edited:
cont’d

For all that, The Irreproducibility Crisis deals with only part of a larger problem. Scientists are only human and are prey to the same temptations as anyone else. To the extent that American higher education has become dominated by ideologies that scoff at traditional ethical boundaries and promote an aggressive win-at-all-costs mentality, reforming the technical and analytic side of science will go only so far towards restoring the integrity of scientific inquiry. We need a more comprehensive reform of the university that will instill in students a lifelong fidelity to the truth.

This report, therefore, is just one step towards the necessary renovation of American higher education. The credibility of the natural sciences is eroding. Let’s stop that erosion and then see whether the sciences can, in turn, teach the rest of the university how to extract itself from the quicksand of political advocacy
 
Last edited:
Might be nitpicky but because it’s already been addressed and it’s something a lot of people don’t realize, Carbon dating is one of many radiometric dating method. It’s almost never used for fossils because it has a known limit of around 50,000 years, little more in ideal circumstanced. Past that it will yield false results because of background radiation drowning out the remaining Carbon14 radiation.

The important part of the multiple dating methods is that multiple are used. So a common objection for example is that there could be contamination. The problem is, in addition to careful precautions and testing the surrounding earth for such contamination, we look for multiple tests to agree. If you just test carbon14 and it says 9000 years you have a certain amount of confidence, but if carbon, uranium, AND radium all say 9000 years then the idea it was contaminated in just the right amounts but those exact isotopes to produce a consistent measurement is a little silly. Take that and extend it to multiple samples from multiple fossils and suddenly you can be extremely confident.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
There’s money in political advocacy. I’m sure there is some honesty and integrity, but any wrongdoing will be discovered. Fidelity to the truth. I’m all for that.
 
Investigate the half lives of the radioactive materials. If the earth is actually billions of years old, all of the above would have decayed away or decayed to a stable form. In the supposedly hot, just building a crust earth, where did the radioactive elements come from? How much of each were there? I know enough about atomic physics to know those questions can’t be answered definitively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top