Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hope1960 said:
God blessed some men and women with the level of intelligence to be able to come up with various answers. That’s good enough for me.
Click to expand...
Well, there’s a very thin line between intelligence and foolishness. You come up with facts and then let those facts define who you are.

Example; we are told the speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s and it is a fact but are meters and seconds facts or an agreement?
So many times scientists all over the world have met or decided to agree on what a meter is- you can check the history of a meter. If a meter is an agreement, the speed of light is also an agreement and so is everything that comes with it.

Time is an experience within our consciousness, we can decide on what to do with the experience but can not say it is absolute truth.
 
Last edited:
This subject can get to be way over my head, especially in the details.
Suffice it to say, I believe in an old earth/old universe and after reading a lot and talking with a few people, I don’t foresee me changing my mind.
 
Hope1960 said:
This subject can get to be way over my head, especially in the details.
Suffice it to say, I believe in an old earth/old universe and after reading a lot and talking with a few people, I don’t foresee me changing my mind.
Click to expand...
It is good to be firm in your thoughts but you should have valid reasons to hold such thoughts. Young earth/ old earth are different sides of the same coin, time means nothing because all reality is just a creation of your mind.
 
I can’t tell if this was done on purpose, but I try not to think badly of people, so I’ll assume it wasn’t intentional.

I wish to thank a recent comment for helping me remember the lack of neutrality in science.

Why is it that I have to find an independent piece of data or information to support my case? If science is never neutral, then why do I have to exclude all references to Creationism when referencing whilst you (and a couple of others) freely use pro-evolution sources and references?

I don’t exclude any piece of information because supports evolution. So why should the other side be ignored?

You can research the science of what I use all you want. But rejecting it because it comes from a Creationist source (without even reading it) is like me rejecting everything you bring forward because it supports evolution. I don’t do that, I try to understand the evidence with my own framework of interpretation, as you do.

So in a bid to remove misconceptions about Creationism and what we believe, I will be using work from qualified scientists with years of experience, who do not deserve to be discriminated against because they use a different framework of interpretation for the same results that evolutionists use freely without consequence or judgement merely because they are more numerous.

Read it, prove it wrong, ignore it, it’s up to you.

The work of Dr D. Russell Humphreys:

Loading…

www.icr.org

For some reason, the final figure doesn’t show. here it is
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And here’s the composite data
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Gigantals said:
Dr D. Russell Humphreys:
Click to expand...
Humphreys relies on his evidence being unfalsifiable, whereas there’s significant evidence for competing theories. Also, Jupiter is a pretty big exception to his idea of how planets were made.
Humphreys is undoubtedly brilliant and way smarter than I am, but he hasn’t explained away the significant problems with creationism.
Also on a personal note, his explanation for the starlight problem is quite unsatisfactory from what I understood of it. We don’t know enough about black holes to prove him wrong, which is basically the issue I have with his take on creationism. Sure, it’s well thought out, but his claims are all reliant and the idea of "well, you can’t prove God didn’t do this! Hah! That’s not a good way to structure an argument imo.
 
I mainly got this for the data, which remains the same regardless of who’s interpreting it.
 
That’s my point. The data doesn’t make sense. There’s a notable exception to his rule (Jupiter) and the data relies on the fact that it can’t really be disproven by what we know right now, whereas competing data doesn’t (generally speaking).
 
There’s no Jupiter in this report, is there?

This focuses on the magnetic field. Is there something wrong with the science of it?

Besides, the Flood model’s come a long way since then. It may take some background research, but it’s there.
 
Last edited:
Jupiter is the exception to this rule he’s come up with. That’s a pretty significant exception, since Jupiter is far from being a unique planet.
The problem I have with his science is that, as I’ve stated multiple times, it’s reliant on what’s essentially unfalsifiable evidence, whereas dynamo theory, which I suppose could be considered the competing theory, is reliant on observation and experimentation. Given the choice between someone’s idea of creationism in a vacuum or a theory that relies on hard evidence, I’m going to take the latter.
 
Which rule is this? Are you referring to Jupiter’s largest moons still having magnetic fields?
 
Apologies, I’m trying to find a source for this, but now I’ve seem to have lost it.
From what I remember, it’s due to the way that Jupiter’s magnetic field doesn’t rely on solar wind and instead relies on Io’s plasma and its own rotation.
That’s the quick and dirty-explanation, but I can’t find the source I remember using for this.
This still doesn’t change my main problem with any explanation of creationism, but in particular Humphreys’, is that it can’t prove nor disprove itself.
 
Last edited:
Take your time finding the source. I know how hard it can be to find a good article you once read.
 
Gigantals said:
Why is it that I have to find an independent piece of data or information to support my case?
Click to expand...
Because if two different clocks working on different mechanisms both give the same time then the chances that both clocks are wrong is a lot less than the chances that both clocks are right.

Lake varves can be counted. The counting has nothing to do with C14 levels. The carbon deposited in those same varves can be measured as well. The carbon measurements are independent of the counting.

In a court case two independent witnesses are better than one.
Gigantals said:
If science is never neutral, then why do I have to exclude all references to Creationism when referencing whilst you (and a couple of others) freely use pro-evolution sources and references?
Click to expand...
Mainly because creationism does very little research of its own; all it does is to piggy-back on scientific research.

For example, YECs talk about “kinds” as a biological grouping of animals sharing common descent from a pair on the Ark. Different YECs have proposed different numbers of kinds and different ways of drawing the boundaries between kinds. Creationists have a lot of work to do producing a reasonably definitive list of the different kinds and where the boundaries lie. Unless there is a definitive list of where the kind boundaries lie, then any assertion that evolution cannot cross those boundaries is moot because the boundaries cannot be precisely located. I have sometimes seen YECs (not yourself) talking about “bacteria kind”. That is a ridiculous statement, and reduced all of life to three kinds, four if you allow viruses as a kind. In the absence of a definitive list, nonsense like that is allowed to stand.

For example, are kangaroos and wombats in different kinds or are they in the same kind? What supporting evidence do you have for your answer?
 
Gigantals said:
Read it, prove it wrong, ignore it, it’s up to you.

The work of Dr D. Russell Humphreys:
Click to expand...
We have a record of the magnetic field reversals in the floor of the Atlantic Ocean. If all those reversals happened in the course of a single year then continental drift was running a great deal faster than it does today.

That increased drift requires an increased energy (name removed by moderator)ut. That increased drift generates a lot of heat through friction, so requiring a way to get rid of the frictional heat without boiling the oceans.

Dr. Humphreys recognises that the energy (name removed by moderator)ut is a problem:
To sum up, my theory suggests that a powerful source of energy was turned on in the earth’s core during the Genesis Flood. One possibility I am considering is that God greatly increased the rate of radioactive decay during the Flood year, gradually tapering it down to the present rate. But whatever the cause, the energy would cause fast enough convection to drive reversals. So far, this mechanism is making sense quantitatively, but it needs more work.
Click to expand...
Why should a Hindu accept this? Surely it was Shiva or Vishnu who turned on the energy during a flood that is not mentioned in the Hindu scriptures and assumes a universe that is a lot younger than the Hindu universe.

In general young earth geology has a big problem with heat dissipation. If you compress five billion years of heat generation into 6,000 years then you boil off the oceans. If you compress the bulk of it further into a single flood year then you boil the oceans and melt the surface rocks as well. Appeals to Vishnu, or any other God, to fix the problems render the hypothesis part of theology, not part of science.
 
Gigantals said:
Well, the secular model suggests it is 150-125 Ma.
Click to expand...
Do you divide your ages into secular and Christian in your courses? Must be awkward keeping track. But in any case, I didn’t ask for any ‘models’ of the age. I wanted to know how old you think it is.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
You said no-one supported it (highlighted above).
Click to expand...
Another weak attempt to do the “Freddy Flees the Thread” dance?

Not anyone else on the thread came to your rescue. But, let’s keep this local. You have not supported its validity.
Click to expand...
Now you can’t be serious here. There are only two or three regular posters on these threads that don’t support evolution. Buff, Ed on ocassions and you. We can toss in the newly arrived Gigantals if you like and that’s about it.

And everyone except you has given us their alternative views. Still waiting for yours…
 
Gigantals said:
It was referenced in the comment above that one. Here: Hughes, J.F. et al. , Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature

Other religions? Christianity has the strongest historical and archaeological (and theological) evidence out of all of them, and Catholicism has the strongest out of any denomination (we are on an apologetics site after all). Most people just ignore it for their convenience or misconceptions about it (YEC is the opposite of convenient, I can tell you; and there are too many misconceptions).

But now we’re getting to the point that makes evolution itself sound like a faith-based system that can be supported by some evidence, and provides the basis of a framework of interpretation through which its supporters can interpret data through (welcome to the club).

So then why is it that Creationist sites are untrustworthy…
Click to expand...
You didn’t respond when I asked about the Dover trial or the wedge document or the book ‘Of Pandas And People’. Do you know about these. If you do then you’ve answered your own question.

If you don’t then you need to find out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top